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 <run...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@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. > >
