On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:52 AM, John Burwell <john.burw...@shapeblue.com> 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. Let me touch base with Pierre-Luc to see what happened. It seems he removed it, but he is also the one who added it in the first place. > The PR proposes listing all "3rd-Party Distributions" in a separate section > in the same manner as the Apache Cassandra [3] project — clearly stating that > the package repositories are not endorsed by the community. Objections were > raised that the apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository is a “blessed” > community repository, and therefore, not a third party repository. To the > best of my knowledge (and my ability to search the mailing list archives), I > can not find a vote that changed the project deliverables to include > distribution packages or a particular repository for them. There was no vote on this, and we should not get down that path of arguing about whether apt-get.eu is blessed or not. Very early when CloudStack arrived at apache, Wido started hosting packages and has kept doing it, on his own time on his own budget. He has been kind enough to give access to the server to a few of us and can give access to people who request it. Hence this evolved as the "community repo". However since we only vote on source, we do not vote on packages and we should not say that this "community repo" is a blessed repo (there is a bit of grey area here). We have always said that this is a community maintained repo in contrary to an official ASF repo. > Furthermore, the vote for 4.6.0 was only for the source deliverable — not > distribution packages. As such the packages contained in the > apt-get.eu<http://apt-get.eu> repository are no more “blessed” or endorsed > than any other packages distributed by other parties. > They are not blessed (as voted on), but have grown organically to be maintained by several folks with different affiliations. > In my opinion, favoring one 3rd-party repository over another is detrimental > to the community. We should either list all maintained 3rd-party package > repositories or we should list none at all. By maintained, I mean a > repository that meets the following criteria: > > * All contained packages are built from project release tags > * The packages contained in the repository are up-to-date with latest > release tags > > The only variations in the packages across “maintained” repositories should > be the plugins from the CloudStack source tree included in the package. In > order to be listed on the downloads page, a repository must meet this > definition and provide a brief description of the repository’s purpose. > > Some on the PR discussion asked about the purpose and composition of the > packages in the ShapeBlue repository. The packages in the ShapeBlue > repository are noredist builds of community release tags. Remembering when Rohit started this, (as he happened to be at my house couple times during that timeframe), the idea that triggered this was to start build packages for every commit, not just releases. As well as starting to offer packages that contained hot fixes. > They contain no additional patches or changes. > This repository was created to provide users with an convenient/familiar way > to install the noredist build of a release. > > Finally, as I have stated elsewhere, I think the project should build > distribution packages signed by the project and distributed from official > package repositories. However, we must come to a consensus as community this > change in deliverables and work out a variety of issues (e.g. supported > platforms, repository management, signing, etc) to ensure that users receive > well-tested, community voted packages. Finally, it seems like there will be > a role for 3rd-party repositories now and in the future. Listing all > available 3rd-party repos as I propose would be convenient for users, and > ensure fairness to all contributors. > > Thanks, > -John > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/cloudstack-www/pull/20 > [2]: http://cloudstack.apache.org/downloads.html > [3]: http://cassandra.apache.org/download/ > All in all, as was mentioned by Pierre Luc on the PR, I do not see a problem with listing (on the www download page): * Official source * Community maintained repo (not voted but maintained by more than single vendor) * Third party repo In the rest of the documentation however, I don't think we should be using vendor specific URLs. The only risk with this is the user "confusion" question: - What is different between the repos ? - Which one should I use ? - I used a third party repo, I have a problem who can help me ? > --- > John Burwell (@john_burwell) > VP of Software Engineering, ShapeBlue > (571) 403-2411 | +44 20 3603 0542 > http://www.shapeblue.com | @ShapeBlue > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4HS > > > > Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services > > IaaS Cloud Design & Build<http://shapeblue.com/iaas-cloud-design-and-build//> > CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<http://shapeblue.com/csforge/> > CloudStack Consulting<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-consultancy/> > CloudStack Software > Engineering<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-software-engineering/> > CloudStack Infrastructure > Support<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-infrastructure-support/> > CloudStack Bootcamp Training > Courses<http://shapeblue.com/cloudstack-training/> > > This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended > solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or > opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not 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 > believe you have received this email in error. Shape Blue Ltd is a company > incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India LLP is a company > incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. > Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is > operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company > registered by The Republic of South Africa and is traded under license from > Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered trademark.
