Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

> That sounds like a custom version of Bigtop to me? Not quite, I think. More like a make-your-own HBase "convenience" artifact script, producing tarballs instead of rpm/deb, only dealing with HBase runtime matters, none of the additional cognitive load that Bigtop would bring. On Mon, Jun 6,

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

"It might be more useful to produce a script that, given a set of versions for { Hadoop, HBase, ZK } downloads the respective tarballs and stitches together a HBase deployment tarball with all necessary jar substitutions made, and perhaps the copy of Hadoop native library artifacts into the

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

I forgot to mention that, IMHO, Dima's work with Docker is more likely to produce useful artifacts for folks looking to kick the tires. Related, perhaps the creation of a Vagrant box would be useful. On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > >> IMHO, by not

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

Just to share my experience here. I had to build and deploy HBase+Hadoop+ZK+etc. using BigTop (builds RPMs) and it went very well... So If they are looking for RPMs or DEBs I think it might be fair to redirect people to BigTop... JMs 2016-06-06 14:38 GMT-04:00 Andrew Purtell

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

>> IMHO, by not building these (and not providing init scripts, and so on), >> we're basically telling our users they shouldn't use Apache releases in >> prod. > I do agree with this sentiment, FWIW. not providing good > last-mile-to-deployment tools is a recurring issue we have. I agree with

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

In my experience properly maintaining any distribution packages is a large undertaking. I haven't seen an individual component project like ours do a good job of maintaining proper rpm/deb packages for itself. I don't know that I'd -1 someone wanting to do the work in our community, but I'd be

Re: [DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > > Our story is made a little more complex due to dependencies on ZK and > HDFS > > More than a little complex because those dependencies in our lib/ need to > be replaced with the local versions in use as installed. >

[DISCUSS] Include Deb and RPM packages in releases

Heya folks, Per the title, what do you think about generating more easily consumed artifacts in our releases? We already do all the hard parts of generating binary packages and signing them. Seems like a simple extension to add some additional convenience artifacts. Other Apache projects do this,