> Am 25.01.2016 um 20:04 schrieb Alexander Shorin <[email protected]>: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Clemens Stolle > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Am 25.01.2016 um 11:44 schrieb Alexander Shorin <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi Clemens! >>> >>> My own opinion below: >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Clemens Stolle >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> - Should we use ubuntu and the PPA instead of building from source? The >>>> ubuntu base image is 60MB bigger than debian's. >>> >>> We don't provide any PPA builds to use, especially for 2.0, today. >>> Ubuntu vs debian - doesn't matter for me. >> >> I was referring to this PPA >> https://launchpad.net/~couchdb/+archive/ubuntu/stable >> Isn’t it maintained by the CouchDB project? I guess my question is if it >> were preferable to use such a pre-built package instead of building from >> source. > > Well, Dave is indeed a member of CouchDB team, but I cannot recall > that we discussed any PPA during release preparation. I added him to > CC, so may be he can clarify this moment. > Currently, all our official artefacts are listed on website download section.
This is confusing. The ubuntu packages are listed in the download section on the website. I think I’ll just keep building from source. > >>>> - Building from git branches is not feasible in official images. Are there >>>> tags or pre-release snapshots for 2.0? >>> >>> There was developer-preview-2.0 branch for that purpose, but it's >>> outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase. For current >>> state of 2.0 I don't see any point to add special intermediate tags >>> for reproduceable builds. >>> Also, it may be a bit rushy to include 2.0 image into officials as >>> people may accidentally thought that this version is released while >>> that's not true. >> >> The docker image for 2.0 is currently tagged as 2.0-dev to make it clear >> that it’s a developer preview. It could also be called 2.0-alpha. Maybe 2.0 >> isn’t ready for the official image, but it should be docker-available >> somewhere to ease testing. > > I have crazy idea, but tell me if it's possible to: bound 2.0-alpha > image to specific git commit hash on apache/couchdb repo, but update > this image on weekly basis. So, for today that will be > 2.0-alpha-20160125 that points on 3619c80 commit. On the next week you > publish 2.0-alpha-20160201 that points to hypothetical feeddeef > commit. And so on. So, these images are get rotated, they provides > reproducible builds and clearly tells you for what state they were > made. Older images could be removed during rotation. Whole process > could be easily automated. > > What do you think about this? While I’d be all for it, according to this comment [1] the Docker folks would prefer not to do that. [1] https://github.com/docker-library/official-images/pull/1288#issuecomment-173604247 Maybe once there are official pre-releases like alphas, betas or RCs it’s more feasible. > > -- > ,,,^..^,,,
