I can start preparing DEB packages right after adding RPM build to nightly release build (as an experiment / experience for future addition of packages build into release process) basing on current RPM architecture. I will create branch from IGNITE-7647, then.
> On 28 Mar 2018, at 10:06, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks, Petr! > > I would love to test the package installation, but I can only do it on > Ubuntu. Do you know when will we be able to get the Debian instructions, > similar to this: > > https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#rpm-package > > D. > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:01 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No, not yet. >> >> >> Currently we are discussing RPM packages only. >> I want to get all feedback and possible errors working on RPM packages, so >> that when we have stable agreed architecture and etc. I can recreate it in >> DEB packages without necessity to fix bugs in both RPM and DEB packages >> simultaneously. >> >> >> >>> On 28 Mar 2018, at 03:17, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Petr, >>> >>> I am confused. Do we already have Debian packages? >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Igniters! >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are some news on our RPM packages initiative. >>>> >>>> 1. I’ve finished preliminary developing of Stage II version of RPM >>>> packages [1]. Main “new feature” is — split design. Also I’ve added >>>> package.sh script for automating package building process which will >> help >>>> organise corresponding builds in TC as well as simplify process for >>>> developers who wishes to have custom packages. >>>> PR#3703 [2] is ready for review. Denis, in order to catch up with Apache >>>> Ignite 2.5 release, I’d greatly appreciate your help in finding >> reviewer. >>>> 2. With the help of ASF INFRA team, we now have RPM [3] and DEB [4] >>>> repositories on Apache Bintray. Though they are already prepared for >>>> hosting RPM and DEB packages respectively, and there is a way of linking >>>> them to apache.org/dist/ignite page, there is possible alternative in >>>> storing there only plain directory layout corresponding to each >> repository >>>> type (RPM and DEB) and manage this layout (repodata, distributions, >>>> versions, etc.) by ourselves, having more control over repositories but >>>> lacking some simplicity of deploying new releases. WDYT? Should we try >>>> Cassandra approach? They are storing their DEB packages as I described >>>> above [5]. >>>> >>>> Also — a question arose while I was working on this issue: which OSes >> (and >>>> which versions of each) are we going to support (if we are going) in >> terms >>>> of step-by-step list? Currently RPM packages are tested only with latest >>>> CentOS (and, respectively — RHEL), but there are a lot more RPM-based >>>> distributives [6] some of which are more o less popular among OS >> community >>>> (ALT, Fedora, openSUSE, etc.). >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-7647 >>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/3703 >>>> [3] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-rpm >>>> [4] https://bintray.com/apache/ignite-deb >>>> [5] https://bintray.com/apache/cassandra/debian#files/ >>>> [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:RPM-based_Linux_ >> distributions >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:15, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I suppose that most everything if not all from libs/options will go to >>>> OPTIONAL (I’d call it simply ‘apache-ignite-libs'). >>>>> More precise lib selection (if something from optional would better to >>>> have in core package) will be discussed right after preliminary split >>>> architecture agreement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 22:11, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I like idea of keeping simple system of modules, so +1 from me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Where optional libs (e.g Direct IO plugin) would be included, would it >>>> be >>>>>> core or optional? >>>>>> >>>>>> чт, 15 мар. 2018 г. в 22:09, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How big would be a final core module? >>>>>>>> Around 30M. Can be shrinked to ~15M if separate Visor and create >> it’s >>>> own >>>>>>>> package. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guys, 30 vs 280M is a huuuuge difference. I would agree with Petr >> and >>>>>>> propose the simplest modular system: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - core module that includes basic Ignite capabilities including SQL, >>>>>>> compute grid, service grid, k/v >>>>>>> - optional module hosts the rest - ML, streamers integration (kafka, >>>>>>> flink), kubernetes, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Denis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *DEB package >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 10:35, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Considering that DEV package for now is almost platform independent >>>>>>> (its >>>>>>>> a java application more or less), that package will work almost on >> any >>>>>>>> DEB-based linux, including but not limited to Ubuntu, Debian, etc. >>>>>>>>> The only restriction is existence of systemctl (systemd) service >>>>>>> manager >>>>>>>> — we are dependent on it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thats why, for instance, our RPM repository is called simply ‘rpm’ >>>> and >>>>>>>> package has no arch or dist suffix — it will work on CentOS, RHEL, >>>>>>> Fedora, >>>>>>>> etc. with presence of aforementioned systemd. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 07:57, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will Debian package work for Ubuntu? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Petr Ivanov <mr.wei...@gmail.com >>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not a problem, rather nuisance. Also, when we will move to >> official >>>>>>>>>>> repositories, there can be a problem from OS community. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Concerning DEB packages — I plan to use RPM as base for DEB >> package >>>>>>>> build >>>>>>>>>>> (package layout / install scripts) for speeding up things and >>>>>>> excluding >>>>>>>>>>> possible duplication and desynchronisation, so its a matter of >> ’sit >>>>>>>> and do’ >>>>>>>>>>> rather then some technical research. Thats why I rose discussion >>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>> future package architecture, so that after agreement I'm be able >> to >>>>>>>> pack >>>>>>>>>>> both RPM and DEB identically. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yet, if you insist, I can create DEB package according to current >>>> RPM >>>>>>>>>>> layout in no time. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15 Mar 2018, at 04:53, Dmitriy Setrakyan < >>>> dsetrak...@apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think the package size of 280M is going to be a problem >> at >>>>>>>> all, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>>> what you are suggesting can be an improvement down the road. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In the mean time, I think our top priority should be to provide >>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>> for Debian and Ubuntu. Having only RPMs is not nearly enough. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Agree? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 5:36 AM, vveider <mr.wei...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Igniters! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Release 2.4 is almost there, at least binary part of it, so I'd >>>>>>> like >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> move >>>>>>>>>>>>> forward to further improve and widen AI delivery through >>>> packages. >>>>>>>>>>>>> As of now, Apache Ignite ships in RPM package weighing about >>>> 280M+ >>>>>>>> and, >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>> improve usability and significantly reduce required download >>>>>>> sizes, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> purpose that in 2.5 release we introduce splitted delivery as >>>>>>>> follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - CORE >>>>>>>>>>>>> - bin >>>>>>>>>>>>> - config >>>>>>>>>>>>> - libs (!optional) >>>>>>>>>>>>> - OPTIONAL LIBS >>>>>>>>>>>>> - BENCHMARKS >>>>>>>>>>>>> - DOCS (?) >>>>>>>>>>>>> - EXAMPLES >>>>>>>>>>>>> - .NET PLATFORM FILES >>>>>>>>>>>>> - C++ PLATFORM FILES >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This architecture, as I assume, will add flexibility (no reason >>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> download >>>>>>>>>>>>> all 280M+ of binaries where you are to run only core node >>>>>>>> functionality) >>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>> maintainability (you are in full control of what is installed >> on >>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>>>>> system). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> After successful architecture choice, same scheme are planned >> to >>>> be >>>>>>>>>>> used in >>>>>>>>>>>>> DEB packages as well. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble. >>>> com/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>
