Regarding the size, it depends on a lot of things (using raw vs qcow,
how many packages installed...).
For instance the Apache Bigtop VMs take quite some space because they
reserve some free space so people can upload their datasets. But for a
build VM, not that much space is needed.
For reference, we could put Apache Bigtop distribution on a bootable USB
key :)
On 09/23/2012 03:26 PM, Anatoli Fomenko wrote:
While liking very much tools that Bruno brought up, I tend to think along with
Cos' comments. It looks like 2GB is not an unusual size of BoxGrinder based
appliance, perhaps for specific use cases. At this point, I would think of
something more agile for Bigtop.
Thanks,
Anatoli
________________________________
From: Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: Bigtop environment setup
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 09:20PM, Bruno MahИ wrote:
On 09/19/2012 06:32 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Anatoli Fomenko <[email protected]> wrote:
I found that in order to avoid unnecessary build failures I need to quickly set
up additional
VMs for Bigtop supported platforms. From my experience with Precise, I would
say that it's a task that may take time.
Any suggestions how it could be accelerated?
You're raising a very good point, actually. In fact I've run into
this very issue while trying to configure an extra Jenkins
slave for bigtop01.
Now, in the ideal world, all the build time dependencies
that we have would be packaged and we'd express the
fact that we depend on them via the very same packages
that we're maintaining. That's what RPM's BuildRequires:
and DEB's Build-Depends: fields are for -- to tell you
explicitly what's required to be installed on the system
before you can do the build of the package.
Then you'd use the tools like:
apt-get build-dep
yum-builddep
to satisfy all the dependencies and you're done.
Now, this works great in the environment where
you already have source packages which you
can give to apt-get build-dep/yum-builddep
But Bigtop has to be bootstrapped from the source.
We can't assume existence of source packages.
So here's the question to the bigger Bigtop
community -- how do we want to proceed to
manage repeatable build environments for
our packages?
The options I see are:
#1 maintain a parallel (very shallow) collection
of puppet code that would, essentially,
manage our "build slaves"
#2 do #1 but automate it in such a way that
the info actually gets harvested from
spec/conrol files
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Roman.
#1 is nice since it can deal with non-packaging issue. But it still
require people to install and know how to deal with puppet. From a
dev point of view we also need to remember to not use the latest
features since some OS lag significantly in term of versions of
puppet available.
#2 is also nice since it can be dealt with the usual set of tools.
But it still requires some effort on users. Also some dependencies
are not and will probably never be available as packages (ex: Oracle
JDK).
I also don't think there is one and only one solution.
My setup at home is quite different from the bigtop01 one.
And once you are familiar enough with Apache Bigtop and know how to
set it up, you may find options #1 and #2 probably not well adapted
to your situation.
So this leads me to think about option #3: VMs.
Tools like Boxgrinder and Oz can deal with multiple OSes and can
create local images as well as push them to the cloud.
The build would be repeatable and would not require any effort from
the end user (apart maybe providing Oracle JDK, but that would have
to be the case whatever the solution). Future contributors would
just need to boot their VM to get started and hopefully ease
contribution.
Thoughts?
(writing at the end of the last post feels totally unnatural, but for the
benefit of the future readers I will comply :)
I think boxed environments (like VMs) are an overkill. One of the issues here
(as Anatoli pointed out) is non-even support of all OSes. Say, BoxGrinder has
some issues with Ubuntu, etc.
I suppose a ol' proven toolchain type of environment that can automatically
bootstrap upon a fresh install (or update itself: think Maven model) and pull
whatever apps are required in whatever form they might exist. Say, JDK (or
Groovy or else) can be downloaded as a tarball, given that a more suitable
packaging isn't available, etc. Such approach would be more fluid than a
somewhat rigid VMs, that would have to be updated periodically, versioned,
etc.
Another benefit of a toolchain is that BigTop packages might have to
redistribute/wrap some of the tools for later use once a package is installed
on a customer's system.
So, in other words, #2 above (or some modification of it) looks more appealing
to me.
--
Take care,
Konstantin (Cos) Boudnik
2CAC 8312 4870 D885 8616 6115 220F 6980 1F27 E622
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this email are those of the author, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any company the author might be
affiliated with at the moment of writing.
