Naming of the package within Brew *only*, it does not impact the resulting binary naming at all:
# brew install apache-brooklyn-cli # br login http://localhost:8081 There are already other apache- packages in there, archiva, drill, flink, forrest, opennlp, spark, for example. *Integration with release:* The brew formula specifies the repo/tag/commitid and builds/tests the binary in their own infrastructure prior to making it available. For example (check the PR [1] for the full file) desc "Client for controlling Apache Brooklyn from the command-line" homepage "https://brooklyn.apache.org"; url "https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-client.git";, :tag => "rel/apache-brooklyn-0.9.0", :revision => "bc8593a933fcb76327ae4a511643e39d25a87ba2" Going forward updating the release in Brew involves raising a PR to bump the tag/revision (versions are extracted from the tag but can be explicitly set where this isn't feasible, the brew toolchain warns you). Response times for version bumps appear to be good, usually a few hours. *Maintainers:* Brew don't appear to have support for a maintainer tag, but adding a maintainer in a comment is feasible. What maintainer address would you recommend? [1] - https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/pull/1326 On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 10:20 Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I've just realised that I may be misinterpreting your message. > > Is this thread about the naming of the *package* - or the naming of the > *command*? > > I was assuming that your were talking about the package. My comments stand > for that. Additionally I'd like you to use "Apache Brooklyn" instead of > "Brooklyn" at key points inside the code for the package. > > However I think you might be referring to the name of the *command*. I > expect that I can type `brew install apache-brooklyn-client`, and then type > `br` commands. If the Brew maintainers are opposed to this, then I do not > think that it is worth creating the package at all. I do not want our > documentation to be constantly saying things like "Type `br this-and-that`, > unless you are using Brew". > > Richard. > > > On 23 May 2016 at 10:08, Richard Downer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Catching up on this. As John mentioned I chipped in to the discussion on > > Gitter before I saw this thread. > > > > I'm "+1" on `apache-brooklyn-cli`, and -1 on *anything* that is not > > prefixed `apache-brooklyn-`. > > > > The reason for this is, with my PMC hat on, I am responsible for making > > sure that our trademarks are used correctly. If we fail to use our own > > trademarks correctly, we risk losing them. So the same goes for .debs and > > .rpms (I know in the last release the .rpm was correctly named which is > > good, but I haven't looked at the .deb build to check that). > > > > Another question. Who is running this? With all due respect to John, he > is > > not (yet!) on the Brooklyn PMC so this effort is not officially part of > the > > Brooklyn project. Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - we are > > open source, and what John is doing is 100% permitted by the license - > but > > it may need to be clear in the metadata that this is John's work, not > > Apache's. > > > > Richard. > > > > > > On 23 May 2016 at 09:50, John McCabe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Some feedback from @rdowner is that we should include the apache > branding, > >> so current favourite is: > >> > >> brew install apache-brooklyn-cli > >> > >> Note that by way of a comparison, Apache Spark is in brew as `brew > install > >> apache-spark`, so I'm inclined to go with the suggestion above. > >> > >> On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 09:20 Geoff Macartney < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > "brooklyn-cli" also sounds good to me > >> > > >> > Geoff > >> > > >> > ———————————————————— > >> > Gnu PGP key - http://is.gd/TTTTuI > >> > > >> > > >> > > On 23 May 2016, at 08:59, John McCabe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I like that ! > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, 23 May 2016 at 08:58 Thomas Bouron < > >> > [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Hey John. > >> > >> > >> > >> So if I'm understanding correctly this PR, this is to install the > CLI > >> > via > >> > >> brew right? So why not using a simple brooklyn-cli? > >> > >> > >> > >> Best > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 23 May 2016, 08:53 John McCabe, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi All, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I've currently got a pull request in against > >> > Homebrew/homebrew-core#1326 > >> > >>> <https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/issues/1326> to add > the > >> > >>> Brooklyn > >> > >>> CLI to brew. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> There's a reluctance however to add a `br` alias due to it being > >> 'too > >> > >>> generic', one alternative is to just go with the repo name - for > >> > example: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> brew install brooklyn-client > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This would still install the br cli. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The current dist archive is `apache-brooklyn-client-cli` for > example > >> > >>> (stripping the version out), I don't see a dedicated RPM/Deb for > the > >> > >> client > >> > >>> but assume it would follow the same convention (* as an aside, is > >> the > >> > >> -cli > >> > >>> really necessary, do we expect to distribute other clients?) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Any suggestions/objections on the above alternative? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> /John > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ps. What is the status of getting linux packages into > Debian/Fedora > >> > repos > >> > >>> etc? What package naming will be used. > >> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > >> > >> Thomas Bouron • Software Engineer @ Cloudsoft Corporation • > >> > >> http://www.cloudsoftcorp.com/ > >> > >> Github: https://github.com/tbouron > >> > >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/eltibouron > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
