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 separa
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
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
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell 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
015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
> 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
Erik
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Erik Weber 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
other repos.
Regards.
On 26-Nov-2015, at 3:17 PM, sebgoa mailto:run...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell
mailto:john.burw...@shapeblue.com>> wrote:
All,
A conversation emerged on a PR [1] regarding how package repositories should
listed on the downloa
e: Thursday 26 November 2015 16:32
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
Just some points of information from my side;
- We (bunch of people at ShapeBlue) took this initiat
+1. I agree with Remi.
Regards
sadhu
-Original Message-
From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:rberg...@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
g technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Remi Bergsma"
> 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
!
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org"
Date: Thursday, 26 November 2015 at 10:38 PM
To: "dev@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
N 4HS
-Original Message-
From: Rajani Karuturi [mailto:rajani.karut...@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 i
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
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).
peblue.com | Twitter:@shapeblue
ShapeBlue Ltd, 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
To: dev
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
wrote:
t; From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Paul Angus
> wrote:
>
> > So. My understanding is that to make the packages in the repo 'offi
omatically 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.hoogl...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 27 November 2015 09:36
>&g
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.
>
&
- Original Message -
> > From: "sebgoa"
> > 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 commen
ve received this email in error.
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
To: dev
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
+1 all the way, sebastien
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! wrote:
> +1 your categories.
>
>
On 30-Nov-2015, at 3:38 PM, sebgoa mailto:run...@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 thes
On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>
>> On 30-Nov-2015, at 3:38 PM, sebgoa 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
n 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:d
ce 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
>
>>> -sebastien
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:41 AM, Daan Hoogland
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Paul Angus >>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Wido den Hollander 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
thin
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"
> To: "dev"
> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 15:28:24
&g
t; From: "Daan Hoogland"
>> To: "dev"
>> Sent: Monday, 30 November, 2015 15:28:24
>> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>>
>>>> Paul, as far as releases I know,
received this email in error.
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 30 November 2015 10:24
> To: dev
> Subject: Re: Package Repositories
>
> +1 all the way, sebastien
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux
;>
>> +1 all the way, sebastien
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Nux! wrote:
>>
>>> +1 your categories.
>>>
>>> Also +1 for the unified thing under cloudstack.apache.org domain.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from the Delta qua
ot 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 b
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Wido den Hollander 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 no
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 additi
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Paul Angus 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
On 30-Nov-2015, at 10:02 PM, sebgoa mailto:run...@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 p
er if you
believe you have received this email in error.
-Original Message-
From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com]
Sent: 01 December 2015 08:55
To: dev
Subject: Re: Package Repositories
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Paul Angus wrote:
> My experience has been that the v
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 9:27 AM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Wido den Hollander 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 understan
35 matches
Mail list logo
