I'm almost completely with Achim here. I would also like to add that currently there is another point we've to take care of before we can do this. The "location splitting" in karaf is currently not far enough to do this. Linux with it's typical folder structure in bin, var, usr, ... doesn't match the current possibilities in Karaf. Maybe we can target this for 3.1 (or something like this) identifying all issues we've with splitting the karaf distri before.
Kind regards, Andreas On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:12, Achim Nierbeck <[email protected]>wrote: > I agree with Brian that the granularity needed for OSGi aps doesn't > match the thinking of RPMs but never the less I think a RPM for the > basic installations of the pure Karaf Server > is a nice Idea. For providing applications I'm on the side of Brian > that I don't think this is the best way to deploy :) > > just my 2 cents here ;) > > regards, Achim > > > 2011/9/22 Brian Topping <[email protected]>: > > There was a discussion on #karaf tonight about features and dependencies. > While I've also been a proponent in the past of RPM packaging for Java > artifacts and do not allow system software to be installed on production > machines in my realm that does not come out of a RPM, it was rapidly obvious > to me that in an OSGi environment, the package is the correct level of > granularity focus for long-term goals, not the bundle. > > > > The smallest granularity that RPM can manage is a file, which correlates > to a bundle. Thus, not the best way forward. > > > > So while traditional deployments that do not use OSGi may be well-suited > for RPM packaging (witness the continuing suitability of jpackage.org in > many environments), putting effort toward supporting RPM in an OSGi > environment would do more to unnecessarily fragment the deployment landscape > than provide optimal long-term solutions. > > > > $0.02... Brian > > > > On Sep 21, 2011, at 11:38 PM, mikevan wrote: > > > >> Currently, we distribute Karaf as a tar.gz, and a zip. I'm finding that > >> .rpm's are also a useful deployment mechanism. In fact, when creating > >> virtual appliances, I continue seeing rpm's as an option (sometimes the > only > >> option) for uploading applications into the Vapp. With this in mind, > should > >> we be creating .rpm distributions of Karaf, Cellar, Cave, and the > >> Webconsole? > >> > >> ----- > >> Mike Van > >> Mike Van's Open Source Technologies Blog > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > http://karaf.922171.n3.nabble.com/Karaf-rpm-distribution-tp3357636p3357636.html > >> Sent from the Karaf - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > -- > *Achim Nierbeck* > > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> > Committer & Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/> >
