You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com> on 2015/11/26 07:52:53 UTC
Package Repositories
All,
A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories. The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for them. Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
* All contained packages are built from project release tags
* The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags. They contain no additional patches or changes. This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
Thanks,
-John
[1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
[2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
[3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>>> As I mentioned in my initial message, the public ShapeBlue repositories
>> [1] are noredist builds of release baselines with no additional patches or
>> changes. My understanding is that the project cannot officially distribute
>> the noredist plugins due to inability of the community to distribute
>> libraries required by these components. If my understanding is correct, I
>> don’t think a community managed package repos could contain packages with
>> this components.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. I don't think that the community build packages should have
>> noredist enabled. What any other repos do is not our 'problem'.
>>
>
> So will we 'clean' apt-get.eu?
>
Whatever you do, update the website so that it is properly documented.
Right now part of the confusion is that we don’t know which provides what exactly.
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > As I mentioned in my initial message, the public ShapeBlue repositories
> [1] are noredist builds of release baselines with no additional patches or
> changes. My understanding is that the project cannot officially distribute
> the noredist plugins due to inability of the community to distribute
> libraries required by these components. If my understanding is correct, I
> don’t think a community managed package repos could contain packages with
> this components.
> >
>
> I agree. I don't think that the community build packages should have
> noredist enabled. What any other repos do is not our 'problem'.
>
So will we 'clean' apt-get.eu?
--
Daan
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
Thanks Daan,
So, I believe that the community should produce noredist packages and then ShapeBlue won't need to maintain a repo at all.
[ShapeBlue]<http://www.shapeblue.com>
Paul Angus
VP Technology , ShapeBlue
d: +44 2036170528<tel:+44%202036170528> | t: @cloudyangus<te...@cloudyangus> | m: +44 7711418784<tel:+44%207711418784>
e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS UK
[cid:imagebd3716.png@ee734145.4498fa12]
Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 December 2015 08:55
To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> My experience has been that the vast majority of users want the
> noredist version. If the consensus is that the 'community created'
> packages should be/must be OSS (something which I think only harms the
> project) then the download links and documentation should say so very
> clearly, state what features are not in the OSS packages and state
> where the noredist packages can be found.
>
Don't confuse the project and the community. The project shouldn't release close source or GPL'd source. The community can do whatever it wants.
--
Daan
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> My experience has been that the vast majority of users want the noredist
> version. If the consensus is that the 'community created' packages should
> be/must be OSS (something which I think only harms the project) then the
> download links and documentation should say so very clearly, state what
> features are not in the OSS packages and state where the noredist packages
> can be found.
>
Don't confuse the project and the community. The project shouldn't release
close source or GPL'd source. The community can do whatever it wants.
--
Daan
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
We're going in a bit of a circle here.
My experience has been that the vast majority of users want the noredist version. If the consensus is that the 'community created' packages should be/must be OSS (something which I think only harms the project) then the download links and documentation should say so very clearly, state what features are not in the OSS packages and state where the noredist packages can be found.
The documentation can simply state that they must use a third party repo for the noredist featues with a link to the section in http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html where those links are.
Ideally the community packages would be noredist and then everyone is happy and ShapeBlue don't need to maintain a repo.
Paul Angus
VP Technology , ShapeBlue
d: +44 2036170528<tel:+44%202036170528> | t: @cloudyangus<te...@cloudyangus> | m: +44 7711418784<tel:+44%207711418784>
e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Wido den Hollander [mailto:wido@widodh.nl]
Sent: 01 December 2015 07:45
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
On 11/30/2015 10:14 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> As I mentioned in my initial message, the public ShapeBlue repositories [1] are noredist builds of release baselines with no additional patches or changes. My understanding is that the project cannot officially distribute the noredist plugins due to inability of the community to distribute libraries required by these components. If my understanding is correct, I don’t think a community managed package repos could contain packages with this components.
>
I agree. I don't think that the community build packages should have noredist enabled. What any other repos do is not our 'problem'.
> I am +1 to the categories. I am +1 to the making packages official project deliverables that are voted out. Users clear prefer to install via packages. It seems like applying the full attention of the community to test them would certainly a good thing for users.
>
Shall we ask for packages.cloudstack.org then?
Wido
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/upstream
>
> —
> John Burwell
> VP Software Engineering
>
>
> USA: (571) 403-2411 | UK: +44 20 3603 0542 john.burwell@shapeblue.com
> | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter: @ShapeBlue ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos
> Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:44 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Can you confirm that users can expect to find the noredist build of the rpms and debs at apt-get.eu ?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know
>>
>> What I understood from Rohit, is that the "shapeblue" repo also contains pkgs that are hot-fixed and have features back ported.
>> In that sense it is quite a different repo than apt-get which only has pkg for each release.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Angus
>>> VP Technology , ShapeBlue Ltd
>>> s: 02036170528 | t: @cloudyangus | m: +44 7711418784
>>> e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com | w: www.shapeblue.com
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS. UK
>>>
>>> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>
>>> +1 all the way, sebastien
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 your categories.
>>>>
>>>> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>>
>>>> Nux!
>>>> www.nux.ro
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
>>>>> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
>>>> So it is
>>>>> possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
>>>> shapeblue repos,
>>>>> Nux mirrors and image templates.
>>>>> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it
>>>>> and
>>>> offer a
>>>>> unified front.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it
>>>>> will
>>>> take time
>>>>> and dedication.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file
>>>>> on our
>>>> website.
>>>>> Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the
>>>>> PR he suggested that we list 3 categories:
>>>>>
>>>>> - source
>>>>> - community repo
>>>>> - 3-rd party repo
>>>>>
>>>>> I am +1 with this, why ?
>>>>>
>>>>> -source is a no brainer
>>>>> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo
>>>>> even
>>>> though we
>>>>> don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
>>>> community repo
>>>>> but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and
>>>>> can make updates etc...
>>>>> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors
>>>>> provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books"
>>>>> discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos,
>>>>> and
>>>> any URLs
>>>>> should be cloudstack project specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think
>>>>> it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
>>>>> <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
>>>> packaged
>>>>>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we
>>>>>> are the apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we
>>>>>> vote on the packaging software from a different repo then the
>>>>>> core+plugins and automatically update a repo from that one. The
>>>>>> repo will not be endorsed but the way it is filled will be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>>>>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
>>>> 'official'
>>>>>>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we
>>>>>>>> vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't
>>>>>>>> separate the packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing
>>>>>>>> a whole lot
>>>> simpler
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or
>>>>>>> otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
>>> services
>>>
>>> IaaS Cloud Design &
>>> Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment
>>> framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>>> CloudStack Software
>>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>>> CloudStack Infrastructure
>>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training
>>> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
>>> services
>>>
>>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework CloudStack Consulting
>>> CloudStack Software Engineering CloudStack Infrastructure Support
>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design &
> Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment
> framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software
> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure
> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training
> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 11/30/2015 10:14 PM, John Burwell wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> As I mentioned in my initial message, the public ShapeBlue repositories [1] are noredist builds of release baselines with no additional patches or changes. My understanding is that the project cannot officially distribute the noredist plugins due to inability of the community to distribute libraries required by these components. If my understanding is correct, I don’t think a community managed package repos could contain packages with this components.
>
I agree. I don't think that the community build packages should have
noredist enabled. What any other repos do is not our 'problem'.
> I am +1 to the categories. I am +1 to the making packages official project deliverables that are voted out. Users clear prefer to install via packages. It seems like applying the full attention of the community to test them would certainly a good thing for users.
>
Shall we ask for packages.cloudstack.org then?
Wido
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/upstream
>
> —
> John Burwell
> VP Software Engineering
>
>
> USA: (571) 403-2411 | UK: +44 20 3603 0542
> john.burwell@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter: @ShapeBlue
> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:44 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastien,
>>>
>>> Can you confirm that users can expect to find the noredist build of the rpms and debs at apt-get.eu ?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know
>>
>> What I understood from Rohit, is that the "shapeblue" repo also contains pkgs that are hot-fixed and have features back ported.
>> In that sense it is quite a different repo than apt-get which only has pkg for each release.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Angus
>>> VP Technology , ShapeBlue Ltd
>>> s: 02036170528 | t: @cloudyangus | m: +44 7711418784
>>> e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com | w: www.shapeblue.com
>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS. UK
>>>
>>> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>
>>> +1 all the way, sebastien
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 your categories.
>>>>
>>>> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>>
>>>> Nux!
>>>> www.nux.ro
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>>> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
>>>>> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
>>>> So it is
>>>>> possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
>>>> shapeblue repos,
>>>>> Nux mirrors and image templates.
>>>>> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
>>>> offer a
>>>>> unified front.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it
>>>>> will
>>>> take time
>>>>> and dedication.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on
>>>>> our
>>>> website.
>>>>> Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR
>>>>> he suggested that we list 3 categories:
>>>>>
>>>>> - source
>>>>> - community repo
>>>>> - 3-rd party repo
>>>>>
>>>>> I am +1 with this, why ?
>>>>>
>>>>> -source is a no brainer
>>>>> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
>>>> though we
>>>>> don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
>>>> community repo
>>>>> but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can
>>>>> make updates etc...
>>>>> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors
>>>>> provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books"
>>>>> discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>>>>>
>>>>> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos,
>>>>> and
>>>> any URLs
>>>>> should be cloudstack project specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think
>>>>> it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> -sebastien
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
>>>>> <da...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
>>>> packaged
>>>>>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we
>>>>>> are the apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we
>>>>>> vote on the packaging software from a different repo then the
>>>>>> core+plugins and automatically update a repo from that one. The
>>>>>> repo will not be endorsed but the way it is filled will be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>>>>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
>>>> 'official'
>>>>>>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we
>>>>>>>> vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>>>>>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
>>>> simpler
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or
>>>>>>> otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Daan
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daan
>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>>
>>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>>> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>>
>>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
>>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
>>> CloudStack Consulting
>>> CloudStack Software Engineering
>>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support
>>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>>>
>>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>.
Sebastian,
As I mentioned in my initial message, the public ShapeBlue repositories [1] are noredist builds of release baselines with no additional patches or changes. My understanding is that the project cannot officially distribute the noredist plugins due to inability of the community to distribute libraries required by these components. If my understanding is correct, I don’t think a community managed package repos could contain packages with this components.
I am +1 to the categories. I am +1 to the making packages official project deliverables that are voted out. Users clear prefer to install via packages. It seems like applying the full attention of the community to test them would certainly a good thing for users.
Thanks,
-John
[1]: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/upstream
—
John Burwell
VP Software Engineering
USA: (571) 403-2411 | UK: +44 20 3603 0542
john.burwell@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter: @ShapeBlue
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:44 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
>> Sebastien,
>>
>> Can you confirm that users can expect to find the noredist build of the rpms and debs at apt-get.eu ?
>>
>
> I don't know
>
> What I understood from Rohit, is that the "shapeblue" repo also contains pkgs that are hot-fixed and have features back ported.
> In that sense it is quite a different repo than apt-get which only has pkg for each release.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul Angus
>> VP Technology , ShapeBlue Ltd
>> s: 02036170528 | t: @cloudyangus | m: +44 7711418784
>> e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com | w: www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS. UK
>>
>> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>
>> +1 all the way, sebastien
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 your categories.
>>>
>>> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>>>
>>> Nux!
>>> www.nux.ro
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>>>> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>
>>>> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>>>>
>>>> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
>>>> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
>>> So it is
>>>> possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>>>>
>>>> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
>>> shapeblue repos,
>>>> Nux mirrors and image templates.
>>>> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
>>> offer a
>>>> unified front.
>>>>
>>>> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it
>>>> will
>>> take time
>>>> and dedication.
>>>>
>>>> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on
>>>> our
>>> website.
>>>> Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR
>>>> he suggested that we list 3 categories:
>>>>
>>>> - source
>>>> - community repo
>>>> - 3-rd party repo
>>>>
>>>> I am +1 with this, why ?
>>>>
>>>> -source is a no brainer
>>>> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
>>> though we
>>>> don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
>>> community repo
>>>> but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can
>>>> make updates etc...
>>>> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors
>>>> provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books"
>>>> discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>>>>
>>>> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos,
>>>> and
>>> any URLs
>>>> should be cloudstack project specific.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think
>>>> it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
>>>>
>>>> -sebastien
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
>>>> <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
>>> packaged
>>>>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we
>>>>> are the apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we
>>>>> vote on the packaging software from a different repo then the
>>>>> core+plugins and automatically update a repo from that one. The
>>>>> repo will not be endorsed but the way it is filled will be.
>>>>>
>>>>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>>>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
>>>>>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
>>> 'official'
>>>>>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we
>>>>>>> vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>>>>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
>>> simpler
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or
>>>>>> otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Daan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
>> CloudStack Consulting
>> CloudStack Software Engineering
>> CloudStack Infrastructure Support
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> Sebastien,
>
> Can you confirm that users can expect to find the noredist build of the rpms and debs at apt-get.eu ?
>
I don't know
What I understood from Rohit, is that the "shapeblue" repo also contains pkgs that are hot-fixed and have features back ported.
In that sense it is quite a different repo than apt-get which only has pkg for each release.
>
>
>
> Paul Angus
> VP Technology , ShapeBlue Ltd
> s: 02036170528 | t: @cloudyangus | m: +44 7711418784
> e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com | w: www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS. UK
>
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> +1 all the way, sebastien
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
>
> > +1 your categories.
> >
> > Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
> >
> > --
> > Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
> >
> > Nux!
> > www.nux.ro
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
> > > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > > Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
> > > Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> >
> > > Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
> > >
> > > 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> > > Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
> > So it is
> > > possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
> > >
> > > 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
> > shapeblue repos,
> > > Nux mirrors and image templates.
> > > Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
> > offer a
> > > unified front.
> > >
> > > 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it
> > > will
> > take time
> > > and dedication.
> > >
> > > 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on
> > > our
> > website.
> > > Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR
> > > he suggested that we list 3 categories:
> > >
> > > - source
> > > - community repo
> > > - 3-rd party repo
> > >
> > > I am +1 with this, why ?
> > >
> > > -source is a no brainer
> > > - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
> > though we
> > > don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
> > community repo
> > > but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can
> > > make updates etc...
> > > - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors
> > > provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books"
> > > discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
> > >
> > > In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos,
> > > and
> > any URLs
> > > should be cloudstack project specific.
> > >
> > > Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think
> > > it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
> > >
> > > -sebastien
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
> > > <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus
> > >> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
> > packaged
> > >>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
> > >>>
> > >> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we
> > >> are the apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we
> > >> vote on the packaging software from a different repo then the
> > >> core+plugins and automatically update a repo from that one. The
> > >> repo will not be endorsed but the way it is filled will be.
> > >>
> > >> my €0,02 of future dreams
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> > >>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> > >>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > >>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
> > >>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
> > 'official'
> > >>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we
> > >>>> vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> > >>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
> > simpler
> > >>> for
> > >>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or
> > >>> otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > > > Daan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
> CloudStack Consulting
> CloudStack Software Engineering
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
Sebastien,
Can you confirm that users can expect to find the noredist build of the rpms and debs at apt-get.eu ?
[ShapeBlue Ltd]<http://www.shapeblue.com>
Paul Angus
VP Technology , ShapeBlue Ltd
s: 02036170528<tel:02036170528> | t: @cloudyangus<te...@cloudyangus> | m: +44 7711418784<tel:+44%207711418784>
e: paul.angus@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | w: www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com>
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HS. UK
[cid:image3afcee.png@994f8dc6.4db2b336]
Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
+1 all the way, sebastien
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
> +1 your categories.
>
> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
> > Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> > Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
> >
> > 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> > Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
> So it is
> > possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
> >
> > 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
> shapeblue repos,
> > Nux mirrors and image templates.
> > Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
> offer a
> > unified front.
> >
> > 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it
> > will
> take time
> > and dedication.
> >
> > 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on
> > our
> website.
> > Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR
> > he suggested that we list 3 categories:
> >
> > - source
> > - community repo
> > - 3-rd party repo
> >
> > I am +1 with this, why ?
> >
> > -source is a no brainer
> > - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
> though we
> > don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
> community repo
> > but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can
> > make updates etc...
> > - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors
> > provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books"
> > discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
> >
> > In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos,
> > and
> any URLs
> > should be cloudstack project specific.
> >
> > Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think
> > it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
> >
> > -sebastien
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
> > <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus
> >> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
> packaged
> >>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
> >>>
> >> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we
> >> are the apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we
> >> vote on the packaging software from a different repo then the
> >> core+plugins and automatically update a repo from that one. The
> >> repo will not be endorsed but the way it is filled will be.
> >>
> >> my €0,02 of future dreams
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> >>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
> >>> <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
> 'official'
> >>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we
> >>>> vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> >>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
> simpler
> >>> for
> >>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or
> >>> otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> > > Daan
>
--
Daan
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
+1 all the way, sebastien
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
> +1 your categories.
>
> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
> > Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> > Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
> >
> > 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> > Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source.
> So it is
> > possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
> >
> > 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido),
> shapeblue repos,
> > Nux mirrors and image templates.
> > Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
> offer a
> > unified front.
> >
> > 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will
> take time
> > and dedication.
> >
> > 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our
> website.
> > Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR he
> > suggested that we list 3 categories:
> >
> > - source
> > - community repo
> > - 3-rd party repo
> >
> > I am +1 with this, why ?
> >
> > -source is a no brainer
> > - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
> though we
> > don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
> community repo
> > but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make
> > updates etc...
> > - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
> > CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
> > couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
> >
> > In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and
> any URLs
> > should be cloudstack project specific.
> >
> > Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
> > compromise that helps us move forward.
> >
> > -sebastien
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
> packaged
> >>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
> >>>
> >> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
> >> apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
> >> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
> >> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
> >> but the way it is filled will be.
> >>
> >> my €0,02 of future dreams
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> >>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> >>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
> 'official'
> >>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
> >>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> >>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
> simpler
> >>> for
> >>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
> >>> handling of packages is a separate thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> > > Daan
>
--
Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro>.
+1 your categories.
Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
> From: "sebgoa" <ru...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 10:08:59
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>
> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So it is
> possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>
> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue repos,
> Nux mirrors and image templates.
> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and offer a
> unified front.
>
> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will take time
> and dedication.
>
> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our website.
> Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR he
> suggested that we list 3 categories:
>
> - source
> - community repo
> - 3-rd party repo
>
> I am +1 with this, why ?
>
> -source is a no brainer
> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we
> don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community repo
> but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make
> updates etc...
> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
> CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
> couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>
> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and any URLs
> should be cloudstack project specific.
>
> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
> compromise that helps us move forward.
>
> -sebastien
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged
>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>>
>> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
>> apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
>> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
>> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
>> but the way it is filled will be.
>>
>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
>>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
>>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler
>>> for
>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
>>> handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
> > Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
On 30-Nov-2015, at 10:02 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
1-source release (official)
2-community repo (non-official)
3-third party (non-official, with single affiliation of people who have access).
** We just need a simple, acceptable naming for the download page for a transitory period **
+1 Alright, let’s do it this way. We can adapt the page in future when we figure out official repository and other things.
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect
[cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> | Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 30, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro> wrote:
> BTW, if these bits are "no redistribute", why are we distributing them?
This is really a case of evolution and expectation.
When Wido started this, these pkgs were not sanctioned by the *project*, hence non-official release pkgs and not voted on.
This is still the case.
We called this pkg repo the "community" repo because they are maintained by community members but not sanctioned by a vote by the project and hence to this point, not official ASF releases.
These are convenience pkgs.
It seems that it might be the time to work on figuring out how to offer official pkg, meaning sanctioned by a vote on dev@.
Until we establish this process and actually do a release, this repo remains a community repo (which does not imply that they are official pkg).
The only difference I make between apt-get.eu and shapeblue repo is that the apt-get has folks from different affiliation with access to the machine. Even though the shapeblue repo is also maintained by committers.
This discussion is all good for the project, so let's not try to create any type of conflict here.
Now that we have a second pkg repo to list on the download page this is forcing us to (re) think what deem a "community" repo and most possibly work towards official pkgs.
To re-iterate my take on this, we are going to have a period of time where we still have the community repo (called like this historically) + shapeblue repo until we potentially unify them of list them with a proper term.
This is why I proposed:
1-source release (official)
2-community repo (non-official)
3-third party (non-official, with single affiliation of people who have access).
** We just need a simple, acceptable naming for the download page for a transitory period **
Ps: certainly things could get a bit more complicated if people outside shapeblue had access to this repo.
>
> --
> Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
> Nux!
> www.nux.ro
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>
>> To: "dev" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 15:28:24
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>> Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu
>>> include
>>>> noredis libraries.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs.
>>
>>
>> Any RPMs I uploaded do. Those are mostly the 4.4 ones (not sure but I
>> think the 4.3 ones as well).
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro>.
BTW, if these bits are "no redistribute", why are we distributing them?
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daan Hoogland" <da...@gmail.com>
> To: "dev" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 15:28:24
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>> > Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu
>> include
>> > noredis libraries.
>> >
>>
>> The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs.
>
>
> Any RPMs I uploaded do. Those are mostly the 4.4 ones (not sure but I
> think the 4.3 ones as well).
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu
> include
> > noredis libraries.
> >
>
> The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs.
Any RPMs I uploaded do. Those are mostly the 4.4 ones (not sure but I
think the 4.3 ones as well).
--
Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Wido den Hollander <wi...@widodh.nl>.
On 30-11-15 15:29, Pierre-Luc Dion wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So just to make this email smaller, it will be strait...
>
> All discussions around repos is not a rant on Shapeblue where you guys are
> doing a super job on maintaining the community and the project. This as to
> do only with installation instructions of an opensource project where repos
> from installation instruction keep changing from a generic (pub free
> url)[1] to a url that look like a commercially supported product [2], it's
> just that.
>
I've been quit on this discussion because it's imho just that. I came up
with the repo a long time ago since there was none. For the end-user we
wanted repositories and we build them.
> I don't see why we should have a separate vote on a binary version from the
> voted source? and why not consider the repo on cloudstack.apt-get.eu as
> different then 3rd party, because it is part of the installation
> instruction (and we need instruction from binaries), it is also maintain by
> the community.
>
True. It's that I host the machine, I don't own it. Multiple people have
access to the machine.
> It would definitely make more sense to use packages.apache.org or
> cloudstack.apache.org/packages.
>
Yes, packages.cloudstack.org would be great! If we could have somebody
CNAME it to cloudstack.apt-get.eu it would be even more awesome.
> Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu include
> noredis libraries.
>
The debs don't I think. I never checked the RPMs.
Wido
>
> [1]
> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.6.0/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
> [2]
> http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.5.2/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
>
> Here is some other confusions examples from the mailing list:
> - http://markmail.org/thread/xor6maadmwl2hnas
> - http://markmail.org/thread/f4xidv6rq2anyv26
>
> If we agree on categories I can submit a new PR for the download page.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> PL
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the categories.
>>
>> ~Rajani
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>>>
>>> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
>>> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So
>>> it is possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>>>
>>> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue
>>> repos, Nux mirrors and image templates.
>>> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
>> offer
>>> a unified front.
>>>
>>> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will
>> take
>>> time and dedication.
>>>
>>> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our
>>> website. Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on
>> the
>>> PR he suggested that we list 3 categories:
>>>
>>> - source
>>> - community repo
>>> - 3-rd party repo
>>>
>>> I am +1 with this, why ?
>>>
>>> -source is a no brainer
>>> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
>> though
>>> we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
>>> community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the
>> machine
>>> and can make updates etc...
>>> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
>>> CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
>>> couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>>>
>>> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and
>> any
>>> URLs should be cloudstack project specific.
>>>
>>> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
>>> compromise that helps us move forward.
>>>
>>> -sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
>>> packaged
>>>>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>>>>
>>>> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are
>> the
>>>> apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
>>>> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
>>>> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be
>> endorsed
>>>> but the way it is filled will be.
>>>>
>>>> my €0,02 of future dreams
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>>>>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
>>> 'official'
>>>>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote
>> on,
>>>>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>>>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
>> simpler
>>>>> for
>>>>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
>>>>> handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Daan
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Pierre-Luc Dion <pd...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
So just to make this email smaller, it will be strait...
All discussions around repos is not a rant on Shapeblue where you guys are
doing a super job on maintaining the community and the project. This as to
do only with installation instructions of an opensource project where repos
from installation instruction keep changing from a generic (pub free
url)[1] to a url that look like a commercially supported product [2], it's
just that.
I don't see why we should have a separate vote on a binary version from the
voted source? and why not consider the repo on cloudstack.apt-get.eu as
different then 3rd party, because it is part of the installation
instruction (and we need instruction from binaries), it is also maintain by
the community.
It would definitely make more sense to use packages.apache.org or
cloudstack.apache.org/packages.
Paul, as far as releases I know, package on cloudstack.apt-get.eu include
noredis libraries.
[1]
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.6.0/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
[2]
http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/en/4.5.2/upgrade/upgrade-4.4.html#cloudstack-rpm-repository
Here is some other confusions examples from the mailing list:
- http://markmail.org/thread/xor6maadmwl2hnas
- http://markmail.org/thread/f4xidv6rq2anyv26
If we agree on categories I can submit a new PR for the download page.
Regards,
PL
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:24 AM, Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 on the categories.
>
> ~Rajani
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
> >
> > 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> > Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So
> > it is possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
> >
> > 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue
> > repos, Nux mirrors and image templates.
> > Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and
> offer
> > a unified front.
> >
> > 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will
> take
> > time and dedication.
> >
> > 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our
> > website. Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on
> the
> > PR he suggested that we list 3 categories:
> >
> > - source
> > - community repo
> > - 3-rd party repo
> >
> > I am +1 with this, why ?
> >
> > -source is a no brainer
> > - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even
> though
> > we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
> > community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the
> machine
> > and can make updates etc...
> > - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
> > CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
> > couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
> >
> > In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and
> any
> > URLs should be cloudstack project specific.
> >
> > Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
> > compromise that helps us move forward.
> >
> > -sebastien
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
> > packaged
> > >> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
> > >>
> > > I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are
> the
> > > apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
> > > packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
> > > automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be
> endorsed
> > > but the way it is filled will be.
> > >
> > > my €0,02 of future dreams
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> > >> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> > >> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> > >> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
> > 'official'
> > >>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote
> on,
> > >>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> > >>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot
> simpler
> > >> for
> > >>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
> > >> handling of packages is a separate thing.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> >
> >
>
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <ra...@apache.org>.
+1 on the categories.
~Rajani
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
>
> 1-But I have to start with one comment:
> Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So
> it is possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
>
> 2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue
> repos, Nux mirrors and image templates.
> Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and offer
> a unified front.
>
> 3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will take
> time and dedication.
>
> 4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our
> website. Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the
> PR he suggested that we list 3 categories:
>
> - source
> - community repo
> - 3-rd party repo
>
> I am +1 with this, why ?
>
> -source is a no brainer
> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though
> we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our
> community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine
> and can make updates etc...
> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide
> CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had
> couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>
> In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and any
> URLs should be cloudstack project specific.
>
> Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a
> compromise that helps us move forward.
>
> -sebastien
>
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the
> packaged
> >> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
> >>
> > I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
> > apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
> > packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
> > automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
> > but the way it is filled will be.
> >
> > my €0,02 of future dreams
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> >> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo
> 'official'
> >>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
> >>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> >>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler
> >> for
> >>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> >>>
> >>
> >> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
> >> handling of packages is a separate thing.
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
>
>
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30-Nov-2015, at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> - source
>> - community repo
>> - 3-rd party repo
>>
>> I am +1 with this, why ?
>>
>> -source is a no brainer
>> - community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make updates etc...
>> - 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
>
> +1 on possibly doing official packages and hosting in future.
>
> -1 on the listings, community repo is 3rd party repo too. With my PMC hat on - just because several people from the community are maintaining it should not make it blessed unless they are officially voted. Even if half the community were to maintain an unofficial repository, it would still be a 3rd party repo.
>
> We should write them like this:
>
> - source
> - 3rd party repo (not endorsed by Apache)
>
big -1 on this, that would be even more confusing.
The community repos stand out from any other repos because:
- there are part of the installation docs, and
- because they have been maintained for several years now.
- they are non-affiliated
The fact that we don't vote on them is really a technicality that we never addressed (lacked of time, lack of clear policy etc).
if we can't resolve this then I will be in favor of just listing source downloads.
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect
>
>
>
>
>
> S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +91 88 262 30892
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@ShapeBlue
>
> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
> CloudStack Consulting
> CloudStack Software Engineering
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework
> CloudStack Consulting
> CloudStack Software Engineering
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
On 30-Nov-2015, at 3:38 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
- source
- community repo
- 3-rd party repo
I am +1 with this, why ?
-source is a no brainer
- community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make updates etc...
- 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
+1 on possibly doing official packages and hosting in future.
-1 on the listings, community repo is 3rd party repo too. With my PMC hat on - just because several people from the community are maintaining it should not make it blessed unless they are officially voted. Even if half the community were to maintain an unofficial repository, it would still be a 3rd party repo.
We should write them like this:
- source
- 3rd party repo (not endorsed by Apache)
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect
[cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> | Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
Hi folks, we need to resolve this.
1-But I have to start with one comment:
Apache open office releases binaries, users don't compile from source. So it is possible within ASF to officially release binaries.
2-We have several initiatives around repos, apt-get.eu (Wido), shapeblue repos, Nux mirrors and image templates.
Seems everyone agrees we need a tag team to coordinate all of it and offer a unified front.
3-This unified front is great, but it won't happen this week, it will take time and dedication.
4-The small issue we are facing is about 3 lines in an HTML file on our website. Pierre-Luc and I had a chat Friday, in one of his comments on the PR he suggested that we list 3 categories:
- source
- community repo
- 3-rd party repo
I am +1 with this, why ?
-source is a no brainer
- community repo (apt-get) because that's our defacto pkg repo even though we don't vote on packages. There was not vote to say these were our community repo but that's a fact. Several people have access to the machine and can make updates etc...
- 3rd party, allows us to list vendor pkg repo. The more vendors provide CloudStack the better. I see it a bit like the "books" discussions we had couple years ago. We do not endorse them, but we should promote them.
In our docs however, we should not be referencing 3rd party repos, and any URLs should be cloudstack project specific.
Can you please reply with your vote on these 3 categories. I think it's a compromise that helps us move forward.
-sebastien
On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged
>> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>>
> I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
> apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
> packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
> automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
> but the way it is filled will be.
>
> my €0,02 of future dreams
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
>>> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
>>> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
>>> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler
>> for
>>> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>>>
>>
>> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
>> handling of packages is a separate thing.
>>
>
>
> --
> Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged
> rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
>
I am not sure how we can give them official standing yet but we are the
apache foundation, so we vote on source. I would say we vote on the
packaging software from a different repo then the core+plugins and
automatically update a repo from that one. The repo will not be endorsed
but the way it is filled will be.
my €0,02 of future dreams
-----Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
> > they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
> > rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> > packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler
> for
> > folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
> >
>
> We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
> handling of packages is a separate thing.
>
--
Daan
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
Doesn't that meant that we'll have to vote on the source and the packaged rpms/debs otherwise they we have no official community standing. ?
Regards,
Paul Angus
VP Technology/Cloud Architect
S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: @CloudyAngus
paul.angus@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
-----Original Message-----
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
To: dev <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler for
> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>
We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise handling of packages is a separate thing.
--
Daan
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official'
> they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on,
> rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the
> packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler for
> folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
>
We will not stop voting on the source! Any vote on -, or otherwise
handling of packages is a separate thing.
--
Daan
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Paul Angus <pa...@shapeblue.com>.
I'd like to attempt to summarise if I may:
1. Generic packages.cloudstack.org location
2. location contains both noredist & oss - clearly identified
3.
a. All other repos can be added as mirrors.
b. [comment] If fastest mirror type feature can be supported - fantastic.
So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'official' they must be voted on. -- would we make the packages what we vote on, rather that the source code (bearing in mind you can't separate the packaging in that case). IMHO, it'll make testing a whole lot simpler for folks if there is just no requirement to build from source.
Regards,
Paul Angus
VP Technology/Cloud Architect
S: +44 20 3603 0540 | M: +447711418784 | T: @CloudyAngus
paul.angus@shapeblue.com | www.shapeblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:Rajani.Karuturi@citrix.com]
Sent: 27 November 2015 05:14
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
+1 to what Remi said.
One source for packages on a generic domain with everyone in community trying to make it better.
And, please do not mention different domains for systemvm templates in documentation. That is even more confusing.
~ Rajani
-----Original Message-----
From: Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:38 PM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>+1 what Remi said.
>
>Jenkins is already building packages and system templates, when we release a version let's also copy one of those builds and make them "official".
>Let's use this enhancement as well with a sensible release number
>(Y-M-D-#build?) https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1075
>
>Nothing against listing on the side community builds such as the Shapeblue ones and which extra functionality they provide etc.
>As long as someone installs Cloudstack, it's a win, doesn't matter the
>package. :)
>
>Lucian
>
>--
>Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
>Nux!
>www.nux.ro
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Remi Bergsma" <RB...@schubergphilis.com>
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 26 November, 2015 16:22:00
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I do appreciate any effort to make it easy for users. My main point
>> of worry is that it is confusing to have different companies supply
>> packages of what is supposed to be a single product. Which one should they pick?
>>
>> If we look at it, we have two types of packages: the OSS and NOREDIST versions.
>> It does make sense to list those and make them available for easy
>> use. I’m also fine with mentioning they were build by 3rd parties as
>> the project currently doesn’t officially release them. I just really
>> don’t like putting links to company web sites that give users the
>> impression there are many different versions. In the past months
>> we’ve had several users on the list reporting they run the
>> “ShapeBlue” version. I just don’t know what that means and if it
>> indeed happens to be the same then I think it’s weird they even mention it. It is confusing. We should’t be doing that IMHO.
>>
>> I propose to put those packages on a generic domain like
>> packages.cloudstack.org (or something with apache.org), have them
>> build and published by Jenkins and then have companies like
>> ShapeBlue, PCExtreme, Schuberg Philis, etc etc provide mirrors to
>> serve different regions. The DNS would simply resolve to one of the
>> mirrors, or whatever config we want. We then get the best of both:
>> one place to go for users (for both OSS/NOREDIST) backed by any
>> company or person in the community that wants to sponsor resources.
>> Jenkins can be controlled by any one of us already. Any link on the website, in documentation and hardcoded links in the source should point to the generic url.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Remi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Rohit Yadav
>> <ro...@shapeblue.com>>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>
>> Just some points of information from my side;
>>
>> - We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide
>> packages as a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party
>> repositories at that time but we found they were poorly maintained,
>> for example - packages and systemvmtemplates were not readily
>> available after any release or after discovery of any security issues
>> (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
>>
>> - We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a
>> single page* such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and
>> documentation, see http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all
>> the necessary information about the packages such as what they are
>> (upstream, main etc) and how they were built and other information.
>> None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the time, and we kept
>> our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing this since
>> 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
>>
>> - We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply
>> packages built from official releases with additional/critical bug
>> fixes, the value we produced for our customers here was the ability
>> to get such packages and we thought it would be good to share them
>> with users and community
>>
>> - We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported
>> features on official releases and that were aimed to be future
>> upgrade-able to upstream packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5
>> release at http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users
>> can upgrade to
>> 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really
>> upgrade to major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve
>> seen users upgrade once or twice a year, while some users really
>> avoid upgrading at all and but would prefer upgrading to minor
>> releases (a reason why we maintain old branches or do minor releases).
>>
>> - Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors
>> of the repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here:
>> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally
>> received several email regarding the repository and have been
>> supporting users both privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
>>
>> - We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync
>> rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian:
>> http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors
>> several 3rd party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one),
>> http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this for example is faster for Asian
>> geographies)
>>
>> - The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the
>> community who happen to be affiliated with one company but that does
>> not make it better or worse than others
>>
>> - The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old
>> site (apache cms based system, before we moved to
>> github/middleman/asf-site based
>> publishing) as a convenience to users. The
>> shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by
>> default shows information on consuming the upstream packages/repo
>> (noredist builds from official releases with no changes) and we don’t
>> favour or recommend consuming from main or custom or any other repos.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa
>> <ru...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
>> <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories
>> should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a
>> change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
>>
>> Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he
>> removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
>>
>> The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate
>> section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project —
>> clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the
>> community. Objections were raised that the
>> apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
>> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a
>> third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability
>> to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that
>> changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or
>> a particular repository for them.
>>
>> There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of
>> arguing about whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
>>
>> Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting
>> packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He
>> has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and
>> can give access to people who request it.
>>
>> Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
>>
>> However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and
>> we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there
>> is a bit of grey area here).
>>
>> We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in
>> contrary to an official ASF repo.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable —
>> not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the
>> apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
>> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages
>> distributed by other parties.
>>
>>
>> They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be
>> maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
>>
>> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is
>> detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package
>> repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a
>> repository that meets the following criteria:
>>
>> * All contained packages are built from project release tags
>> * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release
>> tags
>>
>> The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories
>> should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the
>> package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository
>> must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
>>
>> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of
>> the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the
>> ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
>>
>> Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my
>> house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered
>> this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases.
>> As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
>>
>> They contain no additional patches or changes.
>>
>> This repository was created to provide users with an
>> convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
>>
>> Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build
>> distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from
>> official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus
>> as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of
>> issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing,
>> etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted
>> packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party
>> repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party
>> repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
>> [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
>> [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>>
>>
>> All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a
>> problem with listing (on the www download page):
>>
>> * Official source
>> * Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than
>> single
>> vendor)
>> * Third party repo
>>
>> In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be
>> using vendor specific URLs.
>>
>> The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
>>
>> - What is different between the repos ?
>> - Which one should I use ?
>> - I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
>> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
>> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
>> http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>>
>>
>>
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
>> services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design &
>> Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment
>> framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software
>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure
>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training
>> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
>> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the
>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or
>> related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
>> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
>> you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company
>> incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a
>> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from
>> Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
>> incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
>> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>
>> Rohit Yadav
>> Software Architect
>>
>> [cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
>>
>>
>> S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262
>> 30892<tel:+447770745036>
>>
>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> |
>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> |
>> Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
>>
>> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>>
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
>> services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design &
>> Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment
>> framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software
>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure
>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training
>> Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
>> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is
>> addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the
>> author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or
>> related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>> email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
>> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
>> you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company
>> incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a
>> company incorporated in India and is operated under license from
>> Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company
>> incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
>> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Rajani Karuturi <Ra...@citrix.com>.
+1 to what Remi said.
One source for packages on a generic domain with everyone in community trying to make it better.
And, please do not mention different domains for systemvm templates in documentation. That is even more confusing.
~ Rajani
-----Original Message-----
From: Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Date: Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:38 PM
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>+1 what Remi said.
>
>Jenkins is already building packages and system templates, when we release a version let's also copy one of those builds and make them "official".
>Let's use this enhancement as well with a sensible release number (Y-M-D-#build?) https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1075
>
>Nothing against listing on the side community builds such as the Shapeblue ones and which extra functionality they provide etc.
>As long as someone installs Cloudstack, it's a win, doesn't matter the package. :)
>
>Lucian
>
>--
>Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
>
>Nux!
>www.nux.ro
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Remi Bergsma" <RB...@schubergphilis.com>
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Sent: Thursday, 26 November, 2015 16:22:00
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I do appreciate any effort to make it easy for users. My main point of worry is
>> that it is confusing to have different companies supply packages of what is
>> supposed to be a single product. Which one should they pick?
>>
>> If we look at it, we have two types of packages: the OSS and NOREDIST versions.
>> It does make sense to list those and make them available for easy use. I’m also
>> fine with mentioning they were build by 3rd parties as the project currently
>> doesn’t officially release them. I just really don’t like putting links to
>> company web sites that give users the impression there are many different
>> versions. In the past months we’ve had several users on the list reporting they
>> run the “ShapeBlue” version. I just don’t know what that means and if it indeed
>> happens to be the same then I think it’s weird they even mention it. It is
>> confusing. We should’t be doing that IMHO.
>>
>> I propose to put those packages on a generic domain like packages.cloudstack.org
>> (or something with apache.org), have them build and published by Jenkins and
>> then have companies like ShapeBlue, PCExtreme, Schuberg Philis, etc etc provide
>> mirrors to serve different regions. The DNS would simply resolve to one of the
>> mirrors, or whatever config we want. We then get the best of both: one place to
>> go for users (for both OSS/NOREDIST) backed by any company or person in the
>> community that wants to sponsor resources. Jenkins can be controlled by any one
>> of us already. Any link on the website, in documentation and hardcoded links in
>> the source should point to the generic url.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Remi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>>
>> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
>> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
>> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>>
>> Just some points of information from my side;
>>
>> - We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide packages as
>> a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party repositories at that time
>> but we found they were poorly maintained, for example - packages and
>> systemvmtemplates were not readily available after any release or after
>> discovery of any security issues (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
>>
>> - We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a single page*
>> such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and documentation, see
>> http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all the necessary information
>> about the packages such as what they are (upstream, main etc) and how they were
>> built and other information. None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the
>> time, and we kept our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing
>> this since 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed
>> via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
>>
>> - We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply packages built
>> from official releases with additional/critical bug fixes, the value we
>> produced for our customers here was the ability to get such packages and we
>> thought it would be good to share them with users and community
>>
>> - We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported features on
>> official releases and that were aimed to be future upgrade-able to upstream
>> packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5 release at
>> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users can upgrade to
>> 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really upgrade to
>> major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve seen users upgrade
>> once or twice a year, while some users really avoid upgrading at all and but
>> would prefer upgrading to minor releases (a reason why we maintain old branches
>> or do minor releases).
>>
>> - Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors of the
>> repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here:
>> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally received
>> several email regarding the repository and have been supporting users both
>> privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
>>
>> - We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync
>> rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian:
>> http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors several 3rd
>> party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one), http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this
>> for example is faster for Asian geographies)
>>
>> - The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the community who
>> happen to be affiliated with one company but that does not make it better or
>> worse than others
>>
>> - The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old site
>> (apache cms based system, before we moved to github/middleman/asf-site based
>> publishing) as a convenience to users. The
>> shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by default shows
>> information on consuming the upstream packages/repo (noredist builds from
>> official releases with no changes) and we don’t favour or recommend consuming
>> from main or custom or any other repos.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
>> <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should
>> listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page
>> which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
>>
>> Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it,
>> but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
>>
>> The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in
>> the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the
>> package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised
>> that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
>> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third
>> party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the
>> mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project
>> deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for
>> them.
>>
>> There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about
>> whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
>>
>> Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and
>> has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough
>> to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who
>> request it.
>>
>> Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
>>
>> However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should
>> not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey
>> area here).
>>
>> We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an
>> official ASF repo.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not
>> distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the
>> apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
>> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages
>> distributed by other parties.
>>
>>
>> They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained
>> by several folks with different affiliations.
>>
>> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to
>> the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package
>> repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a
>> repository that meets the following criteria:
>>
>> * All contained packages are built from project release tags
>> * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release
>> tags
>>
>> The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be
>> the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order
>> to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and
>> provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
>>
>> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the
>> packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository
>> are noredist builds of community release tags.
>>
>> Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple
>> times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build
>> packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer
>> packages that contained hot fixes.
>>
>> They contain no additional patches or changes.
>>
>> This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to
>> install the noredist build of a release.
>>
>> Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build
>> distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official
>> package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this
>> change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported
>> platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive
>> well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a
>> role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available
>> 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness
>> to all contributors.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
>> [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
>> [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>>
>>
>> All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem
>> with listing (on the www download page):
>>
>> * Official source
>> * Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single
>> vendor)
>> * Third party repo
>>
>> In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using
>> vendor specific URLs.
>>
>> The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
>>
>> - What is different between the repos ?
>> - Which one should I use ?
>> - I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
>> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
>> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
>> http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>>
>>
>>
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software
>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure
>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
>> for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
>> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
>> of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient
>> of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
>> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have
>> received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in
>> England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in
>> India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil
>> Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
>> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by
>> The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
>> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>>
>> Rohit Yadav
>> Software Architect
>>
>> [cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
>>
>>
>> S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
>>
>> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> |
>> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> |
>> Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
>>
>> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>>
>> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>>
>> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
>> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
>> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
>> CloudStack Software
>> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
>> CloudStack Infrastructure
>> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
>> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>>
>> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
>> for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
>> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
>> of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient
>> of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
>> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have
>> received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in
>> England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in
>> India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil
>> Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
>> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by
>> The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
>> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Nux! <nu...@li.nux.ro>.
+1 what Remi said.
Jenkins is already building packages and system templates, when we release a version let's also copy one of those builds and make them "official".
Let's use this enhancement as well with a sensible release number (Y-M-D-#build?) https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1075
Nothing against listing on the side community builds such as the Shapeblue ones and which extra functionality they provide etc.
As long as someone installs Cloudstack, it's a win, doesn't matter the package. :)
Lucian
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Remi Bergsma" <RB...@schubergphilis.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, 26 November, 2015 16:22:00
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
> Hi all,
>
> I do appreciate any effort to make it easy for users. My main point of worry is
> that it is confusing to have different companies supply packages of what is
> supposed to be a single product. Which one should they pick?
>
> If we look at it, we have two types of packages: the OSS and NOREDIST versions.
> It does make sense to list those and make them available for easy use. I’m also
> fine with mentioning they were build by 3rd parties as the project currently
> doesn’t officially release them. I just really don’t like putting links to
> company web sites that give users the impression there are many different
> versions. In the past months we’ve had several users on the list reporting they
> run the “ShapeBlue” version. I just don’t know what that means and if it indeed
> happens to be the same then I think it’s weird they even mention it. It is
> confusing. We should’t be doing that IMHO.
>
> I propose to put those packages on a generic domain like packages.cloudstack.org
> (or something with apache.org), have them build and published by Jenkins and
> then have companies like ShapeBlue, PCExtreme, Schuberg Philis, etc etc provide
> mirrors to serve different regions. The DNS would simply resolve to one of the
> mirrors, or whatever config we want. We then get the best of both: one place to
> go for users (for both OSS/NOREDIST) backed by any company or person in the
> community that wants to sponsor resources. Jenkins can be controlled by any one
> of us already. Any link on the website, in documentation and hardcoded links in
> the source should point to the generic url.
>
> Regards,
> Remi
>
>
>
>
> From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>>
> Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
> To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>"
> <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> Just some points of information from my side;
>
> - We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide packages as
> a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party repositories at that time
> but we found they were poorly maintained, for example - packages and
> systemvmtemplates were not readily available after any release or after
> discovery of any security issues (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
>
> - We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a single page*
> such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and documentation, see
> http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all the necessary information
> about the packages such as what they are (upstream, main etc) and how they were
> built and other information. None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the
> time, and we kept our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing
> this since 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed
> via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
>
> - We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply packages built
> from official releases with additional/critical bug fixes, the value we
> produced for our customers here was the ability to get such packages and we
> thought it would be good to share them with users and community
>
> - We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported features on
> official releases and that were aimed to be future upgrade-able to upstream
> packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5 release at
> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users can upgrade to
> 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really upgrade to
> major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve seen users upgrade
> once or twice a year, while some users really avoid upgrading at all and but
> would prefer upgrading to minor releases (a reason why we maintain old branches
> or do minor releases).
>
> - Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors of the
> repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here:
> http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally received
> several email regarding the repository and have been supporting users both
> privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
>
> - We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync
> rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian:
> http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors several 3rd
> party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one), http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this
> for example is faster for Asian geographies)
>
> - The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the community who
> happen to be affiliated with one company but that does not make it better or
> worse than others
>
> - The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old site
> (apache cms based system, before we moved to github/middleman/asf-site based
> publishing) as a convenience to users. The
> shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by default shows
> information on consuming the upstream packages/repo (noredist builds from
> official releases with no changes) and we don’t favour or recommend consuming
> from main or custom or any other repos.
>
> Regards.
>
> On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
> <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should
> listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page
> which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
>
> Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it,
> but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
>
> The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in
> the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the
> package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised
> that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third
> party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the
> mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project
> deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for
> them.
>
> There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about
> whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
>
> Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and
> has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough
> to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who
> request it.
>
> Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
>
> However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should
> not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey
> area here).
>
> We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an
> official ASF repo.
>
>
> Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not
> distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the
> apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>>
> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages
> distributed by other parties.
>
>
> They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained
> by several folks with different affiliations.
>
> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to
> the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package
> repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a
> repository that meets the following criteria:
>
> * All contained packages are built from project release tags
> * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release
> tags
>
> The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be
> the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order
> to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and
> provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
>
> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the
> packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository
> are noredist builds of community release tags.
>
> Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple
> times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build
> packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer
> packages that contained hot fixes.
>
> They contain no additional patches or changes.
>
> This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to
> install the noredist build of a release.
>
> Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build
> distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official
> package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this
> change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported
> platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive
> well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a
> role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available
> 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness
> to all contributors.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
> [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
> [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>
>
> All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem
> with listing (on the www download page):
>
> * Official source
> * Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single
> vendor)
> * Third party repo
>
> In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using
> vendor specific URLs.
>
> The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
>
> - What is different between the repos ?
> - Which one should I use ?
> - I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
>
>
>
>
> ---
> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
> http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software
> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure
> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
> for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
> of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have
> received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in
> England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in
> India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil
> Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by
> The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
>
> Rohit Yadav
> Software Architect
>
> [cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
>
>
> S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
>
> rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> |
> www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> |
> Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
>
> ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software
> Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure
> Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely
> for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions
> expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
> of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient
> of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor
> copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have
> received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in
> England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in
> India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil
> Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by
> The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
> ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
RE: Package Repositories
Posted by Suresh Sadhu <Su...@citrix.com>.
+1. I agree with Remi.
Regards
sadhu
-----Original Message-----
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:RBergsma@schubergphilis.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 9:52 PM
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
Hi all,
I do appreciate any effort to make it easy for users. My main point of worry is that it is confusing to have different companies supply packages of what is supposed to be a single product. Which one should they pick?
If we look at it, we have two types of packages: the OSS and NOREDIST versions. It does make sense to list those and make them available for easy use. I’m also fine with mentioning they were build by 3rd parties as the project currently doesn’t officially release them. I just really don’t like putting links to company web sites that give users the impression there are many different versions. In the past months we’ve had several users on the list reporting they run the “ShapeBlue” version. I just don’t know what that means and if it indeed happens to be the same then I think it’s weird they even mention it. It is confusing. We should’t be doing that IMHO.
I propose to put those packages on a generic domain like packages.cloudstack.org (or something with apache.org), have them build and published by Jenkins and then have companies like ShapeBlue, PCExtreme, Schuberg Philis, etc etc provide mirrors to serve different regions. The DNS would simply resolve to one of the mirrors, or whatever config we want. We then get the best of both: one place to go for users (for both OSS/NOREDIST) backed by any company or person in the community that wants to sponsor resources. Jenkins can be controlled by any one of us already. Any link on the website, in documentation and hardcoded links in the source should point to the generic url.
Regards,
Remi
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
Just some points of information from my side;
- We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide packages as a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party repositories at that time but we found they were poorly maintained, for example - packages and systemvmtemplates were not readily available after any release or after discovery of any security issues (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
- We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a single page* such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and documentation, see http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all the necessary information about the packages such as what they are (upstream, main etc) and how they were built and other information. None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the time, and we kept our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing this since 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
- We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply packages built from official releases with additional/critical bug fixes, the value we produced for our customers here was the ability to get such packages and we thought it would be good to share them with users and community
- We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported features on official releases and that were aimed to be future upgrade-able to upstream packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5 release at http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users can upgrade to 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really upgrade to major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve seen users upgrade once or twice a year, while some users really avoid upgrading at all and but would prefer upgrading to minor releases (a reason why we maintain old branches or do minor releases).
- Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors of the repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally received several email regarding the repository and have been supporting users both privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
- We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian: http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors several 3rd party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one), http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this for example is faster for Asian geographies)
- The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the community who happen to be affiliated with one company but that does not make it better or worse than others
- The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old site (apache cms based system, before we moved to github/middleman/asf-site based publishing) as a convenience to users. The shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by default shows information on consuming the upstream packages/repo (noredist builds from official releases with no changes) and we don’t favour or recommend consuming from main or custom or any other repos.
Regards.
On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
All,
A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for them.
There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who request it.
Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here).
We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF repo.
Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
* All contained packages are built from project release tags
* The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
They contain no additional patches or changes.
This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
Thanks,
-John
[1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
[2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
[3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing (on the www download page):
* Official source
* Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor)
* Third party repo
In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific URLs.
The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
- What is different between the repos ?
- Which one should I use ?
- I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect
[cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> | Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Remi Bergsma <RB...@schubergphilis.com>.
Hi all,
I do appreciate any effort to make it easy for users. My main point of worry is that it is confusing to have different companies supply packages of what is supposed to be a single product. Which one should they pick?
If we look at it, we have two types of packages: the OSS and NOREDIST versions. It does make sense to list those and make them available for easy use. I’m also fine with mentioning they were build by 3rd parties as the project currently doesn’t officially release them. I just really don’t like putting links to company web sites that give users the impression there are many different versions. In the past months we’ve had several users on the list reporting they run the “ShapeBlue” version. I just don’t know what that means and if it indeed happens to be the same then I think it’s weird they even mention it. It is confusing. We should’t be doing that IMHO.
I propose to put those packages on a generic domain like packages.cloudstack.org (or something with apache.org), have them build and published by Jenkins and then have companies like ShapeBlue, PCExtreme, Schuberg Philis, etc etc provide mirrors to serve different regions. The DNS would simply resolve to one of the mirrors, or whatever config we want. We then get the best of both: one place to go for users (for both OSS/NOREDIST) backed by any company or person in the community that wants to sponsor resources. Jenkins can be controlled by any one of us already. Any link on the website, in documentation and hardcoded links in the source should point to the generic url.
Regards,
Remi
From: Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<ma...@cloudstack.apache.org>" <de...@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
Just some points of information from my side;
- We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide packages as a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party repositories at that time but we found they were poorly maintained, for example - packages and systemvmtemplates were not readily available after any release or after discovery of any security issues (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
- We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a single page* such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and documentation, see http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all the necessary information about the packages such as what they are (upstream, main etc) and how they were built and other information. None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the time, and we kept our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing this since 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
- We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply packages built from official releases with additional/critical bug fixes, the value we produced for our customers here was the ability to get such packages and we thought it would be good to share them with users and community
- We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported features on official releases and that were aimed to be future upgrade-able to upstream packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5 release at http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users can upgrade to 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really upgrade to major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve seen users upgrade once or twice a year, while some users really avoid upgrading at all and but would prefer upgrading to minor releases (a reason why we maintain old branches or do minor releases).
- Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors of the repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally received several email regarding the repository and have been supporting users both privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
- We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian: http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors several 3rd party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one), http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this for example is faster for Asian geographies)
- The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the community who happen to be affiliated with one company but that does not make it better or worse than others
- The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old site (apache cms based system, before we moved to github/middleman/asf-site based publishing) as a convenience to users. The shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by default shows information on consuming the upstream packages/repo (noredist builds from official releases with no changes) and we don’t favour or recommend consuming from main or custom or any other repos.
Regards.
On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
All,
A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for them.
There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who request it.
Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here).
We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF repo.
Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
* All contained packages are built from project release tags
* The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
They contain no additional patches or changes.
This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
Thanks,
-John
[1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
[2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
[3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing (on the www download page):
* Official source
* Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor)
* Third party repo
In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific URLs.
The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
- What is different between the repos ?
- Which one should I use ?
- I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect
[cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> | Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Rohit Yadav <ro...@shapeblue.com>.
Just some points of information from my side;
- We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiative to provide packages as a convenience to users, there were existing 3rd party repositories at that time but we found they were poorly maintained, for example - packages and systemvmtemplates were not readily available after any release or after discovery of any security issues (such as ghost, poodle issues etc)
- We also wanted to list all the things new users would need on *a single page* such as where to get packages, systemvmtemplate and documentation, see http://shapeblue.com/packages. This page has all the necessary information about the packages such as what they are (upstream, main etc) and how they were built and other information. None of the other 3rd party repos did that at the time, and we kept our promise to maintain this for users and I’ve been doing this since 4.3/4.4 timeframe, including any security advisory that was needed via our blogs (for example, ghost/poodle systemvmtemplate updates etc).
- We also wanted to share our custom patches which were simply packages built from official releases with additional/critical bug fixes, the value we produced for our customers here was the ability to get such packages and we thought it would be good to share them with users and community
- We also wanted to share custom packages that were backported features on official releases and that were aimed to be future upgrade-able to upstream packages (for example, saml+quota on 4.5 release at http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/custom, and users can upgrade to 4.6/4.7 in future). A popular reason is that, users won’t really upgrade to major releases just because they are out, typically I’ve seen users upgrade once or twice a year, while some users really avoid upgrading at all and but would prefer upgrading to minor releases (a reason why we maintain old branches or do minor releases).
- Information was always available here on whom to contact, sponsors of the repos etc: http://packages.shapeblue.com/README.txt and recently here: http://packages.shapeblue.com/cloudstack/README.txt. I’ve personally received several email regarding the repository and have been supporting users both privately if they would email me personally, or on users@ ML.
- We also allow people to mirror our repos via rsync: (try rsync rsync://packages.shapeblue.com), here a mirror hosted by Lucian: http://mirrors.coreix.net/packages.shapeblue.com (Lucian mirrors several 3rd party repos including cloudstack.apt-get one), http://mirror.bhaisaab.org (this for example is faster for Asian geographies)
- The ShapeBlue provided repo is too maintained by members of the community who happen to be affiliated with one company but that does not make it better or worse than others
- The repository link was added about a year ago by myself on the old site (apache cms based system, before we moved to github/middleman/asf-site based publishing) as a convenience to users. The shapeblue.com/packages<http://shapeblue.com/packages> page, by default shows information on consuming the upstream packages/repo (noredist builds from official releases with no changes) and we don’t favour or recommend consuming from main or custom or any other repos.
Regards.
On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
All,
A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for them.
There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/> is blessed or not.
Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who request it.
Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here).
We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF repo.
Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/><http://apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu/>> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
* All contained packages are built from project release tags
* The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
They contain no additional patches or changes.
This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
Thanks,
-John
[1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
[2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
[3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing (on the www download page):
* Official source
* Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor)
* Third party repo
In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific URLs.
The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
- What is different between the repos ?
- Which one should I use ?
- I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
---
John Burwell (@john_burwell)
VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
(571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Rohit Yadav
Software Architect
[cid:image003.png@01D122E8.F6EFE910]
S: +44 20 3603 0540<tel:+442036030540> | M: +91 88 262 30892<tel:+447770745036>
rohit.yadav@shapeblue.com<ma...@shapeblue.com> | www.shapeblue.com<http://www.shapeblue.com/> | Twitter:@ShapeBlue<https://twitter.com/#!/shapeblue>
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Erik
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would it be too blunt to propose that we set up a team, composed of any
> community members interested, to handle packaging and promote that as 'the
> community package'?
>
> Realistically, as a user, it is not really crucial for me that the package
> is 100% equal to the official source release.
> I'm more interested in a packaged release that works.
>
> For instance, every time we meet packaging issues right after a release we
> end up with notes in the release notes of things you have to do manually.
>
>
> --
> Erik
This would be in line with a proposal to separate the packaging from the
main repository. I like.
--
Daan
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Erik Weber <te...@gmail.com>.
Would it be too blunt to propose that we set up a team, composed of any
community members interested, to handle packaging and promote that as 'the
community package'?
Realistically, as a user, it is not really crucial for me that the package
is 100% equal to the official source release.
I'm more interested in a packaged release that works.
For instance, every time we meet packaging issues right after a release we
end up with notes in the release notes of things you have to do manually.
--
Erik
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:47 AM, sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories
> should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change
> on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
>
> Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he
> removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
>
> > The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate
> section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly
> stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community.
> Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository
> is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party
> repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the
> mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project
> deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository
> for them.
>
> There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing
> about whether apt-get.eu is blessed or not.
>
> Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting
> packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has
> been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give
> access to people who request it.
>
> Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
>
> However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we
> should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit
> of grey area here).
>
> We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary
> to an official ASF repo.
>
>
> > Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable —
> not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the
> apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository are no more “blessed” or
> endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
> >
>
> They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be
> maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
>
> > In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is
> detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained
> 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By
> maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
> >
> > * All contained packages are built from project release tags
> > * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest
> release tags
> >
> > The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories
> should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the
> package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must
> meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s
> purpose.
> >
> > Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the
> packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue
> repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
>
> Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house
> couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to
> start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as
> starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
>
> > They contain no additional patches or changes.
>
> > This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar
> way to install the noredist build of a release.
> >
> > Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build
> distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official
> package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community
> this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g.
> supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that
> users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems
> like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the
> future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be
> convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -John
> >
> > [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
> > [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
> > [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
> >
>
> All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a
> problem with listing (on the www download page):
>
> * Official source
> * Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single
> vendor)
> * Third party repo
>
> In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using
> vendor specific URLs.
>
> The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
>
> - What is different between the repos ?
> - Which one should I use ?
> - I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
>
>
>
>
> > ---
> > John Burwell (@john_burwell)
> > VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
> > (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
> > http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
> >
> >
> >
> > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related
> services
> >
> > IaaS Cloud Design & Build<
> http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> > CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> > CloudStack Software Engineering<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> > CloudStack Infrastructure Support<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> > CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<
> http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
> >
> > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are
> intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any
> views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you
> are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any
> action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please
> contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.
> Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue
> Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under
> license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a
> company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape
> Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of
> South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is
> a registered trademark.
>
>
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by sebgoa <ru...@gmail.com>.
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should listed on the downloads page [2]. This PR was prompted by a change on the page which removed reference to the ShapeBlue repositories.
Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place.
> The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository is a “blessed” community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include distribution packages or a particular repository for them.
There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether apt-get.eu is blessed or not.
Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who request it.
Hence this evolved as the "community repo".
However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here).
We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF repo.
> Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed than any other packages distributed by other parties.
>
They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several folks with different affiliations.
> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets the following criteria:
>
> * All contained packages are built from project release tags
> * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest release tags
>
> The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose.
>
> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue repository are noredist builds of community release tags.
Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes.
> They contain no additional patches or changes.
> This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a release.
>
> Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
>
> Thanks,
> -John
>
> [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20
> [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html
> [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/
>
All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing (on the www download page):
* Official source
* Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor)
* Third party repo
In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific URLs.
The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question:
- What is different between the repos ?
- Which one should I use ?
- I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ?
> ---
> John Burwell (@john_burwell)
> VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue
> (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542
> http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
>
>
>
> Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services
>
> IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//>
> CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/>
> CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/>
> CloudStack Software Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/>
> CloudStack Infrastructure Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/>
> CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/>
>
> This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
Re: Package Repositories
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <jo...@shapeblue.com>
wrote:
> All,
>
...
> In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is
> detrimental to the community.
agree
> We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package repositories or
> we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a repository that meets
> the following criteria:
>
>
> * All contained packages are built from project release tags
>
I do not think it will be helpful to limit our listing to providers
meeting this criteria; If anyone wants to distribute enhancements on the
projects deliverables and share them as packages, that's fine.
> * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest
> release tags
>
That will be hard to enforce, we will have to make sure all providers are
up to date ahead of time.
> Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the
> packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue
> repository are noredist builds of community release tags. They contain no
> additional patches or changes. This repository was created to provide
> users with an convenient/familiar way to install the noredist build of a
> release.
>
I don't know what has trumpted this ShapeBlue bashing nor what has made
ShapeBlue decide to provide packages in a way that was already custom at
apt-get.eu, neither are a good sign.
Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build
> distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official
> package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community
> this change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g.
> supported platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that
> users receive well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems
> like there will be a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the
> future. Listing all available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be
> convenient for users, and ensure fairness to all contributors.
>
:+1:
Your statement sounds like a proposal. It is inteded so?
--
Daan