Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

+1 On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! > > I recommend inclusion of this change so that it can make way into 2.5. > > Regards, > > -- > Ilya Kasnacheev > > 2018-04-19 9:03 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov : > > > There is not

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Hello! I recommend inclusion of this change so that it can make way into 2.5. Regards, -- Ilya Kasnacheev 2018-04-19 9:03 GMT+03:00 Petr Ivanov : > There is not much time left for Apache Ignite 2.5 release, so let’s move > stage II of packaging architecture

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

There is not much time left for Apache Ignite 2.5 release, so let’s move stage II of packaging architecture implementation (with additional split scheme discussion) to 2.6 scope. Instead, I’d like to include DEB package to Apache Ignite 2.5 release. Corresponding PR is already prepared [1].

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Copying anything manually to anywhere /usr (excluding /usr/local) is an example of slackwarization that package users and creators try to avoid. > By linux file hierarchy convention, home dir should be in /usr/lib Citation needed! I bet you're interpreting it wrong, since I've listed a random

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> On 15 Apr 2018, at 10:19, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > > Hello! > > With existing binary archive, user can move directories from > apache-ignite-fabric/libs/optional to apache-ignite-fabric/libs to activate > them. > > But with RPM, user should not contemplate moving

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Hello! With existing binary archive, user can move directories from apache-ignite-fabric/libs/optional to apache-ignite-fabric/libs to activate them. But with RPM, user should not contemplate moving directories from /usr/lib/apache-ignite/optional to /usr/lib/apache-ignite. User lacks

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Current packages design (after installation) does not differ from binary archive - everything works (except necessity to run service instead ignite.sh) just the same way, including libs/optional. Also, there can be issues with system JDK version by default, but every problem will be in journalctl

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Ilya, Thanks for your inputs. The reason why we decided to split Ignite into several packages mimics the reason why Java community introduced modular subsystem for JDK. That's all about size. Ignite distribution is too big, and we're trying to separate it into several components so that people

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

2018-04-13 7:42 GMT+03:00 Peter Ivanov : > On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 20:04, Ilya Kasnacheev > wrote: > > > > > Moreover I did not find a way to start service if default installed JVM > is > > Java 7 :( I understand it's EOL, still this is something

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 20:04, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote: > Hello! I have tried your RPM scripts. > > First of all, I'm not sure that apache-ignite-core is a good name for > package which contains the actual server node kit, and that apache-ignite > is a good name for a

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

I am not sure that an email thread of over 20 messages is a good medium to discuss proposals. In Ignite, we create IEPs. Can you please summarize your proposal there and send a link there? Please explain not only the change itself, but the reason why we need it. D. On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:00

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Petr, I wouldn't postpone this until 2.6 that will be out nor earlier than 3 months from now. *Anton V.*, could review and sign off the changes? Not sure we have a better person in the community who can do that. -- Denis On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 9:10 AM, Petr Ivanov wrote:

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Hello! I have tried your RPM scripts. First of all, I'm not sure that apache-ignite-core is a good name for package which contains the actual server node kit, and that apache-ignite is a good name for a package that will install everything (including cpp bindings). How does other packages solve

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

If someone from PMCы or Committers still sees necessity about including these tasks into Apache Ignite 2.5 release, this is the last chance to do so. Otherwise this task will be moved to at 2.6 release at least, or even moved to backlog indefinitely. > On 9 Apr 2018, at 19:08, Petr Ivanov

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

To top new RPM architecture off, update to release process is introduced — [1] [2]. Both tasks (this one and IGNITE-7647) are ready for review and should be merged simultaneously. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8172 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite-release/pull/1 >

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Hello! Let me share my idea of how this shoud work. Splitting package into sub-packages should be dependency-driven. It means that all Ignite modules without dependencies or with small dependencies (such as ignite-log4j) should be included in ignite-core. It doesn't make sense to make a zillion

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 12:32, Max Shonichev wrote: > > > > 1. About packaging/package.sh > > 1.1. I personally dislike the use of bashism, e.g. like reserved keywords, > double '[[', double '((', but that's ok > for targeted distro (RHEL/Centos). The only requirement is

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

1. About packaging/package.sh 1.1. I personally dislike the use of bashism, e.g. like reserved keywords, double '[[', double '((', but that's ok for targeted distro (RHEL/Centos). The only requirement is please add more comments in tough places to improve code readability and maintanbility.

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Peter, great work! I'll check up PR in the near time. -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> > We can either > store files as is (as Cassandra does, see link below) in something > that is called Generic Repository — this way we manage directory layouts > ourselves and have more control over what is published and how > or > store files in prepared RPM / DEB repositories

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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,

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Petr, I am confused. Do we already have Debian packages? D. On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 5:10 AM, Petr Ivanov 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].

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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 : > > > > > > > > How big would be a final core module? > > Around 30M. Can be

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> > > > > 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 hge difference. I would agree with Petr and propose the simplest modular system: - core module that includes basic Ignite

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

*DEB package > On 15 Mar 2018, at 10:35, Petr Ivanov 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,

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Will Debian package work for Ubuntu? D. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Petr Ivanov 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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> On 14 Mar 2018, at 22:12, Denis Magda wrote: > > Petr, > > How big would be a final core module? Around 30M. Can be shrinked to ~15M if separate Visor and create it’s own package. > As for the optional libs do you > suggest installing them with a single command or each

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Petr, How big would be a final core module? As for the optional libs do you suggest installing them with a single command or each module can be installed separately? -- Denis On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:36 AM, vveider wrote: > Hi, Igniters! > > > Release 2.4 is almost

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

> On 14 Mar 2018, at 12:46, Dmitry Pavlov wrote: > > Hi, > > Did not understand fully that splitted delivery means. > Is it correct,that user will have install > install ignite:core > install ignite:opt_libs > with separated commands? It will be one command with several

Re: Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

Hi, Did not understand fully that splitted delivery means. Is it correct,that user will have install install ignite:core install ignite:opt_libs with separated commands? Or there will be some aggregating package like ignite:full and several options like ignite:core. Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov

Apache Ignite RPM packaging (Stage II)

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