It certainly would be nice to have it in the main Debian repo. On the other hand I don't think it's too much to ask to just add a line to the sources.list and have all the freedom of the world. I am personally not a huge fan of the Debian policy when it comes down to jars and java. It's just that someone would need to host the repo somewhere.
Just my two cents. On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 21:21, Eric Evans <eev...@rackspace.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 07:55 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: >> So I am appealing to you, the Cassandra development community, to weigh in >> with your recommendations on making Cassandra and its dependencies available >> in Ubuntu. >> >> Specifically I'd like to address: >> >> * What is the perceived and real impact of Library versions diverging from >> Cassandra's shipped libraries over time. >> * We will most likely conflict with the Cassandra published debian packages. >> Is this acceptable? Suggested solutions? > > So, the bigger problem here would seem to be one of long-term support. > In other words, trying to find common ground between release cycles. > > I am (have been) interested in uploading Cassandra to the Debian > archives, so let's use that as an example: > > Debian is in the run-up for Squeeze and Cassandra is working toward 0.7, > let's assume those coincide and that the next stable version of Debian > shipped with 0.7 (while 0.7 is still relevant/current). > > It will be somewhere on the order of 18-24 months before a new Debian > stable release, and at the current rate, that would equate to at least 4 > new major Cassandra releases (maybe as many as 6). We've been pretty > good about the upgrade path between consecutive majors, but can you > imagine trying to jump 6 versions? Not going to happen. > > And, the situation isn't really that much better for other distros. > Ubuntu has a new release every 6 months, but their LTS is maintained for > *6* years. > > I'm not suggesting that we purposefully slow development, or that we > extend the period between releases, but there is a reason that people > want Linux distros that are supported for 6 years, and the reasons apply > to our software as well. > > I'm curious what others think: > > * Do you see a point where the pace of development naturally slows, > (less low hanging fruit, etc)? > * If so, what do you see in terms of progression? What would the spacing > look like a year from now? Two years from now? > * Is this something we're eventually going to have to discipline > ourselves on? > > -- > Eric Evans > eev...@rackspace.com > > >
