There was a discussion on #karaf tonight about features and dependencies. While I've also been a proponent in the past of RPM packaging for Java artifacts and do not allow system software to be installed on production machines in my realm that does not come out of a RPM, it was rapidly obvious to me that in an OSGi environment, the package is the correct level of granularity focus for long-term goals, not the bundle.
The smallest granularity that RPM can manage is a file, which correlates to a bundle. Thus, not the best way forward. So while traditional deployments that do not use OSGi may be well-suited for RPM packaging (witness the continuing suitability of jpackage.org in many environments), putting effort toward supporting RPM in an OSGi environment would do more to unnecessarily fragment the deployment landscape than provide optimal long-term solutions. $0.02... Brian On Sep 21, 2011, at 11:38 PM, mikevan wrote: > Currently, we distribute Karaf as a tar.gz, and a zip. I'm finding that > .rpm's are also a useful deployment mechanism. In fact, when creating > virtual appliances, I continue seeing rpm's as an option (sometimes the only > option) for uploading applications into the Vapp. With this in mind, should > we be creating .rpm distributions of Karaf, Cellar, Cave, and the > Webconsole? > > ----- > Mike Van > Mike Van's Open Source Technologies Blog > -- > View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-rpm-distribution-tp3357636p3357636.html > Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
