Hi Matjaz,
The problem with "the one" is that I think it might be hard to find that
person. We have a whole host of issues, for instance, many developers use mac
os and ubuntu to develop but most installations seem to happen on rhel. While
we could write packages for every OS, we would quickly find that that's not
sustainable (you and I agree on this point). But, would it be sustainable to
have *developer instructions* which use scripts, and *a single packaged
distribution* for adopters? I don't know.
So, I haven't seen any opposition yet, but here is what I'm #proposing:
Ruben, matjaz, greg, tobias, rrolf form this group. In the next two weeks this
group comes up with a *clear* and *sustainable* installation process. This
group can fight over the details, but hopefully will come up with some
consensus around what needs to be done. And that this group deliver their
results to the main body of us by creating a set of 1.4 tasks around two
stories ("As an adopter I want an easy installation process" and "As a
developer I want an easy installation process"). Maybe we could have someone
from the group present the results at the December 20th team meeting? This
would be ideal to me as there is a board meeting the next day, and I know this
is an issue that the board is interested in.
1.3 installation is explicitly not an issue this group would deal with, we just
do it the same way we always have and osna might commit some installers.
Ruben and Matjaz: you have both done the most on the install setup thus far.
Are you willing to lead these meetings and be responsible for reporting back to
the group the by Dec 20?
Chris
Matjaz Rihtar <[email protected]> wrote:
>Having a dedicated working group is a great idea, but there should be "The
>One" who will decide at the end what will be implemented.
>
>>> Lots of suggestions have come up in several discussions; make deb and rpm
>>> packages, provide vms, write a core install bash script, don't advertise
>>> support for certain OSes, etc.
>> +1 to the idea of the Matterhorn packages!
>
>As much as packages are useful for quick installations, they are typically
>bound to the current OS environment (mostly libraries).
>This means somebody will have to maintain a lot of different packages because
>of different OSes we support *or* have complex pre-install and post-install
>scripts built into the packages. If we create these scripts, I don't see any
>particular value to put them in a package.
>Maintaining separate scripts is in my opinion easier and we can still create a
>single installation script, which would do everything.
>
>I already did something similar for MH 1.2 (sent to this list), which includes
>several scripts which adapt to the environment. Default MH 1.2 is installed
>and configured with a simple call to "install_all.sh". This then installs
>java, maven, subversion, felix, 3rd party tools, gets MH sources and compiles
>MH. A simple config file providing local configuration parameters could easily
>be added. The same could also be done for CA or other combinations.
>
>About support for certain OSes: maybe we should more clearly state that MH is
>tested & supported on OSx only. On all other or newer versions support will be
>added if there's enough interest. From the bug report that we receive we don't
>know how many people besides the reporter use the new (version of) OS.
>
>Regards,
> Matjaz
>_______________________________________________
>Matterhorn mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
>
>
>To unsubscribe please email
>[email protected]
>_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Matterhorn mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn
To unsubscribe please email
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
