On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:36 PM, Clemens Stolle <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
Oh...really. Seems like I miss something. Then you can try (: >>>>> - 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 outdated for now and quickly becomes after each rebase.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. Ok, seems like there is nothing much to do then. -- ,,,^..^,,,
