Re: [ASFCS40][DISCUSS] Binary packaging - another round of discussions that I'd like us to come to a conclusion on.

[Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>]

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> This all sounds good to me.
>
> What would be the difference between the src.tar.gz and the jar one?

The jar archives would be the compiled source.  The source build is source only.

I personally don't see any value in publishing compiled code via ASF
infra for now, but anybody can feel free to disagree!

> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Chip Childers <ch...@sungard.com>wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> This is another issue that we need to come to a consensus on (and I
>> think we can do lazy consensus if required here) prior to 4.0 being
>> released.
>>
>> We've variously been discussing how to best provide binary artifacts
>> from the 4.0 release.  Knowing that we are purely discussing
>> convenience builds for users, and that ASF releases are source only,
>> I'd like to propose the following approach.
>>
>> I propose that the project only publishes source tarballs to the ASF
>> mirrors, and that we rely on the community at large to publish binary
>> build artifacts.
>>
>> Wido has volunteered to host deb and rpm repos containing packages
>> built from the source, and I know that (over time) we will see the
>> actual distributions put cloudstack packages together.  I would
>> imagine (and am not speaking for Wido), that we could work with Wido
>> to ensure that his hosted repos have the latest release in them.  We
>> would then be in a position where it's OK if a specific distro
>> packaging community is a version or two behind the ASF releases.  That
>> scenario would allow us to point users that want the very latest
>> release to the custom repo, but folks that want official distro
>> packages can simply use the version being provided by their OS's
>> packaging system.
>>
>> For the convenience of the community, I'd further propose that we
>> provide a set of links to these community repos on our download page
>> (including appropriate verbiage about the URLs not representing
>> official ASF release artifacts).  This would also include instructions
>> for how to setup a RHEL/CentOS/Ubuntu system to pull from Wido's
>> hosted repos.
>>
>> As for QA teams involved in the testing of ASF releases, I believe
>> that we should continue to use jenkins.c.o (with Citrix's agreement
>> and continued support) as the source for downloading packages for
>> testing.  This is because it can do it for us on a nightly schedule.
>>
>> There is one optional part of this proposal:  we include a tarball of
>> cloudstack jar files on the ASF mirrors.  Although, I'm just not sure
>> what value that provides to the community.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> -chip
>>
>
>
>
> --
> NS