On 06/15/2015 10:43 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
On 06/15/2015 03:03 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/15/2015 11:48 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 06/15/2015 04:55 PM, James Page wrote:
The problem of managing delta and allowing a good level of
distribution independence is still going to continue to
On 06/16/2015 06:41 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/15/2015 01:43 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
While I agree those points are valid, and going to be helpful, moving
under OpenStack (even Stackforge) does also offer the chance to get more
test integration upstream (not saying this was the original
On 06/16/2015 12:41 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/15/2015 01:43 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
While I agree those points are valid, and going to be helpful, moving
under OpenStack (even Stackforge) does also offer the chance to get more
test integration upstream (not saying this was the original
On 06/15/2015 01:43 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
While I agree those points are valid, and going to be helpful, moving
under OpenStack (even Stackforge) does also offer the chance to get more
test integration upstream (not saying this was the original scope).
However, this could also be achieved
On 06/15/2015 10:55 AM, James Page wrote:
We understand and have communicated from the start of this
conversation that we will need to be able to maintain deltas between
Debian and Ubuntu - for both technical reasons, in the way the
distributions work (think Ubuntu main vs universe), as well as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Thomas
On 15/06/15 19:48, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
During our discussions at the Summit, you seemed to be
enthusiastic about pushing our packaging to Stackforge. Then others
told me to push it to the /openstack namespace to make it more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi All
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
tl;dr: - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on
upstream gerrit with reviews. - The intention is to better share
the workload, and improve the overall QA for packaging *and*
On 06/15/2015 04:55 PM, James Page wrote:
Hi All
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
tl;dr: - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on
upstream gerrit with reviews. - The intention is to better share
the workload, and improve the overall QA for packaging *and*
On 06/15/2015 11:48 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 06/15/2015 04:55 PM, James Page wrote:
The problem of managing delta and allowing a good level of
distribution independence is still going to continue to exist and will
be more difficult to manage due to the tighter coupling of development
On 06/15/2015 03:03 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/15/2015 11:48 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 06/15/2015 04:55 PM, James Page wrote:
The problem of managing delta and allowing a good level of
distribution independence is still going to continue to exist and will
be more difficult to manage
On 06/10/2015 04:31 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Ian Cordasco
ian.corda...@rackspace.com mailto:ian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote:
On 6/10/15, 09:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org
mailto:z...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave
On 10/06/15 12:07, Robert Collins wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote:
Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages
project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e.
checking, if requirements are packageable,
On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote:
Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages
project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e.
checking, if requirements are packageable, if versions fit, etc.
I think we
Hi Derek,
I selected these 80 to move all of what RDO is currently maintaining on
gerrithub to review.openstack.org, this was perhaps too big a set and in RDO
we instead may need to go hybrid.
Yeah, In my opinion we ahve lots of repeated divergence between the
different python modules, so
On 10 June 2015 at 11:07, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote:
Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages
project consider itself to be responsible for global requirements? I.e.
Excerpts from Matthias Runge's message of 2015-06-10 12:29:45 +0200:
On 10/06/15 12:07, Robert Collins wrote:
On 10 June 2015 at 20:12, Matthias Runge mru...@redhat.com wrote:
Since our software is to be consumed by packages, shouldn't the packages
project consider itself to be
On 27/05/15 10:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention is to better share the workload, and improve the overall
QA for packaging *and*
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote:
The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and
vendors to get their input on viability in distro's.
Really? James, were you made core on the requirements?
I once tried to follow the requirements repo, though it moves too
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 10/06/15 15:12, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of
distro's and
vendors to get their input on viability in distro's.
Really? James, were you made core on the requirements?
Believe it or not,
On 10 June 2015 at 15:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote:
The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and
vendors to get their input on viability in distro's.
Really? James, were you made core on the requirements?
I
On 6/10/15, 09:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote:
The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and
vendors to get their input on viability in distro's.
Really? James, were you made core on the requirements?
I once
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Ian Cordasco ian.corda...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On 6/10/15, 09:12, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
On 06/10/2015 12:25 PM, Dave Walker wrote:
The initial core reviewers was seeded by representatives of distro's and
vendors to get their input on
On 06/09/2015 10:20 AM, James Page wrote:
LGTM - although for any initial repository migration, I'd like to see
Ubuntu (from bzr) and Debian (git.debian.org) branches separately for
projects that have Vcs branches for Ubuntu so that we can manage that
delta I keep going on about effectively;
Hi Derek,
2015-06-09 0:34 GMT+02:00 Derek Higgins der...@redhat.com:
This patch would result in 80 packaging repositories being pulled into
gerrit.
I personally would prefer to start with fewer but common packages
between all RPM distros (is there more than Red Hat and SUSE ?) than
starting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/06/15 22:36, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
I have sorted this list into categories, and sorted these
categories in an increasing order of likelihood to be maintained in
upstream gerrit.
On the below list, I believe we should have in
On 06/09/2015 05:37 AM, Dirk Müller wrote:
Hi Derek,
2015-06-09 0:34 GMT+02:00 Derek Higgins der...@redhat.com:
This patch would result in 80 packaging repositories being pulled into
gerrit.
I personally would prefer to start with fewer but common packages
between all RPM distros (is there
On 09/06/15 10:37, Dirk Müller wrote:
Hi Derek,
2015-06-09 0:34 GMT+02:00 Derek Higgins der...@redhat.com:
This patch would result in 80 packaging repositories being pulled into
gerrit.
I personally would prefer to start with fewer but common packages
between all RPM distros (is there
On 06/08/2015 10:39 AM, James Page wrote:
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
3) What are the plans for repositories and their contents?
What repos will be created, and what will be in them. When will
new ones be created, and is there any process around that.
Having taken some time
On 03/06/15 17:28, Haïkel wrote:
2015-06-03 17:23 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org:
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thomas
On 03/06/15 16:23, Thomas Goirand wrote:
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to
provide an update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to
make super clear.
We, ie:
On 06/04/2015 01:25 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 06/03/2015 08:07 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers reviewing
proposed packaging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
3) What are the plans for repositories and their contents?
What repos will be created, and what will be in them. When will
new ones be created, and is there any process around that.
Having taken some
On 04/06/15 22:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The init scripts used to be hard to maintain because they were many, but
since Debian Ubuntu are using automatic generation out of a tiny
template (with sysv-rc, systemd and upstart all supported), this is a
problem solved.
Ooh, that sounds like
On 06/08/2015 10:26 AM, James Page wrote:
The Ubuntu packaging is used widely by end-users and a number of other
projects including the OpenStack Puppet and Chef modules as well as
the Juju charms for OpenStack - any changes to structure and behaviour
are going to have much wider impact and
On 06/08/2015 08:32 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
The control files (specs, deb) are indeed different, the question is
what they can share.
I see collaboration possibilities on package names and layout - like how
to split a package up -, configuration files, defaults... This doesn't
need to be
On 06/08/2015 05:29 PM, Neil Jerram wrote:
On 04/06/15 22:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The init scripts used to be hard to maintain because they were many, but
since Debian Ubuntu are using automatic generation out of a tiny
template (with sysv-rc, systemd and upstart all supported), this is a
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:30:17PM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
The closer we can get logic about what a service should look like on
disk back into that service itself, the less work duplicated by any of
the installers, and the more common OpenStack envs would be. The fact
that every installer /
Hi Clint,
Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
On 06/04/2015 10:35 PM, Clint Adams wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 04:30:17PM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
The closer we can get logic about what a service should look like on
disk back into that service itself, the less work duplicated by
[purely outside-looking-in observation below...]
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Andreas Jaeger a...@suse.com wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers
On 06/03/2015 12:08 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
On 06/03/2015 07:22 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, talking with James Page (from Canonical, head of their server
team which does the OpenStack packaging), we believe it's best if we had
2 different distinct teams: one for
On 2015-06-03 20:15:05 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
[...]
You could still have one shared repository with the understanding
of who approves what. Working on one repo makes it easier to see
what the other team does.
[...]
For that matter, if different distros used different branches
On 06/03/2015 08:07 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers reviewing
proposed packaging changes needs to be aligned IMO - so I think it
On 06/03/2015 03:31 PM, Haïkel wrote:
2015-06-03 23:41 GMT+02:00 Allison Randal alli...@lohutok.net:
I have to disagree on that point, integration with underlying OS and low-level
services is important. If that integration doesn't exists, it's
off-loaded to the
operators. So downstream
Hi Haikel!
On 06/03/2015 06:28 PM, Haïkel wrote:
First, we all agree that we should move packaging recipes (to use a
neutral term)
and reviewing to upstream gerrit. That should *NOT* be delayed.
We (RDO) are even willing to transfer full control of the openstack-packages
namespace on github.
On 06/03/2015 09:21 PM, Dean Troyer wrote:
I think it would be beneficial to have a single team and single PTL with
multiple sets of repos
This isn't the direction we're taking, sorry. Yes, we can try to work as
much as possible together, and try to have consistency across
distributions if
On 06/03/2015 01:30 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
So wouldn't that be more of an arguement to move as much of the
installation logic back into the python packages as possible.
So that pip install nova was a thing that you could do, and get
reasonable results, and then the packaging teams would
2015-06-03 23:41 GMT+02:00 Allison Randal alli...@lohutok.net:
TBH, I don't think pip or distro packaging are ever going to be the
right answer for fully configuring an OpenStack cloud. Because, there is
no one true cloud, there are a variety of different configurations and
combinations
On 2015-06-04 02:01:25 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
FYI, I'm also for having a separate namespace, just because adding more
than 150 Git repositories at once in /openstack will be a huge mess.
[...]
Simply from an infra standpoint there's no real distinction. We only
ended up with that
On 06/03/2015 08:15 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 06/03/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We could try to work as a single entity (RPM + deb teams), but rpm+yum
and dpkg+apt are 2 distinct worlds which have very few common
attributes. So even if it may socially be nice, it's not the right
On 06/02/2015 10:40 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The
On 06/03/2015 04:15 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
o Tools to build packages in CI jobs should provide a consistent
interface regardless of packaging being built
Sure, we can have *some* of the tooling converging. But I don't see
Debian/Ubuntu using anything else than git-buildpackage and sbuild (as
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The discussion here has been great; we need to answer a few
On 06/03/2015 06:47 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/02/2015 10:40 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James
On 02/06/15 23:41, James E. Blair wrote:
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide
an update from the discussion.
Thankyou - much appreciated.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James B.,
Thanks for this reply.
As you asked for ACK from all parts, my words will be very much like the
ones of James P. (I've just read his message, and I'm jealous of his
nice native-English wording...:)).
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E.
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super clear.
We, ie: Debian Ubuntu folks, are very much clear on
On 06/03/2015 07:22 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
However, talking with James Page (from Canonical, head of their server
team which does the OpenStack packaging), we believe it's best if we had
2 different distinct teams: one for Fedora/SuSe/everything-rpm, and one
for Debian based distribution.
2015-06-03 17:23 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org:
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super
On 06/03/2015 11:23 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
i
On 06/03/2015 12:41 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
I've just read the IRC logs. And there's one thing I would like to make
super clear.
We, ie:
On 06/03/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi James B.,
Thanks for this reply.
As you asked for ACK from all parts, my words will be very much like the
ones of James P. (I've just read his message, and I'm jealous of his
nice native-English
On 06/03/2015 03:57 PM, James Page wrote:
[...]
After some discussion with Thomas on IRC, I think this is more than
one effort; The skills and motivation for developers reviewing
proposed packaging changes needs to be aligned IMO - so I think it
makes sense to split the packaging teams between:
On 06/01/2015 07:16 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-06-01 14:55:06 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
So, should I start writing a script to build an image for package
building (ie: an image with sbuild, git-buildpackage, and so on...)?
[...]
Probably what we'd want to do is
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The discussion here has been great; we need to answer a few
questions, get some decisions written down, and
On 06/02/2015 05:41 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
This came up at the TC meeting today, and I volunteered to provide an
update from the discussion.
In general, I think there is a lot of support for a packaging effort in
OpenStack. The discussion here has been great; we need to answer a
On 2015-06-02 12:39:30 + (+), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
Well, my point is those repos are already cached on every worker in
/opt/git (e.g., /opt/git/openstack/nova) and you can git clone, cp
or rsync those into your package build chroot. Then git remote
set-url, update and reset --hard to
On 2015-06-02 09:02:42 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
That will be the little bit more tricky part. Some libraries are very
small, and probably caching will not be useful (too much work when
building the VM image). However, for big projects (nova, neutron,
cinder...), then we'll
On 06/02/2015 02:39 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-06-02 09:02:42 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
That will be the little bit more tricky part. Some libraries are very
small, and probably caching will not be useful (too much work when
building the VM image). However, for big
On 05/29/2015 11:03 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2015-05-28 23:19:36 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
By the way, I was thinking about the sbuild package caching system, and
thought: how about network mounting /var/cache/pbuilder/aptcache using
something like Manila (or any other
On 05/29/2015 11:37 AM, Derek Higgins wrote:
Whats important I think is
that we can change things to use sbuild without docker if that is what
works best for you for debs.
Ok. Though if we are to use delorean, we'll have to switch to that in
upstream Debian as well, and I'm not sure if that's
On 2015-06-01 14:55:06 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
So, should I start writing a script to build an image for package
building (ie: an image with sbuild, git-buildpackage, and so on...)?
[...]
Probably what we'd want to do is something like debootstrap/rpmstrap
a chroot for each
On 28/05/15 22:09, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/28/2015 02:53 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
On 28/05/15 12:07, Jaume Devesa wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Delorean is a tool to build rpm packages from master branches (maybe any
branch?) of OpenStack projects.
Check out here:
On 28/05/15 20:58, Paul Belanger wrote:
On 05/27/2015 05:26 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The
On 29/05/15 02:54, Steve Kowalik wrote:
On 29/05/15 06:41, Haïkel wrote:
Here's the main script to rebuild a RPM package.
https://github.com/openstack-packages/delorean/blob/master/scripts/build_rpm.sh
The script basically uses rpmbuild to build packages, we could have a
build_deb.sh that
On 2015-05-28 22:45:37 + (+), Fox, Kevin M wrote:
You could pass the cache through with a volume
Yeah, from the what can we do with our current CI infrastructure?
perspective, we would just need a way to identify what bits benefit
from being cached for these particular builds and
On 2015-05-28 23:09:41 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
Also, it is my understanding that infra will not accept to use
long-living VMs, and prefer to spawn new instances.
[...]
Right, after we run arbitrary user-submitted code on a server, we
cease to be able to trust it and so
On 2015-05-29 10:37:43 +0100 (+0100), Derek Higgins wrote:
[...]
I think the feature in delorean that is most useful is that it
will continue to maintain a history of usable package repositories
representing the openstack projects over time, for this we would
need a long running instance, but
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote:
On 2015-05-28 23:09:41 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
Also, it is my understanding that infra will not accept to use
long-living VMs, and prefer to spawn new instances.
Right, after we run arbitrary
On 2015-05-28 23:19:36 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
By the way, I was thinking about the sbuild package caching system, and
thought: how about network mounting /var/cache/pbuilder/aptcache using
something like Manila (or any other distributed filesystem)? Does infra
have such
On 2015-05-29 21:01:23 + (+), Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
I think is unnecessarily maximalist. Trust is not an
all-or-nothing boolean flag: why can't you trust that server to do
more work at the same level of trust and run another batch of
user-submitted code?
Because it turns out to be
From: Thomas Goirand [z...@debian.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:09 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack
project
On 05/28/2015 02:53 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
On 28/05/15 12:07
On 05/28/2015 04:32 PM, Haïkel wrote:
2015-05-28 21:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Belanger pabelan...@redhat.com:
Personally, I'm a fan of mock. Is there plan to add support for it? Also,
currently containers are not being used in -infra. Not saying it is a show
stopper, but could see some initial
On 05/28/2015 09:58 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
Not sure I'm a fan of rdorpm, seems too specific to RDO and would not
foster other people using the git repo for packaging. Personally, I
simple say rpm- prefix, allowing for branches to be used for distro
specific changes.
I full agree with that.
2015-05-28 21:58 GMT+02:00 Paul Belanger pabelan...@redhat.com:
Personally, I'm a fan of mock. Is there plan to add support for it? Also,
currently containers are not being used in -infra. Not saying it is a show
stopper, but could see some initial planning that is required for it.
Nothing
2015-05-28 10:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org:
I don't know delorean at all, but what should be kept in mind is that,
for Debian and Ubuntu, we *must* use sbuild, which is what is used on
the buildd networks.
I also started working on openstack-pkg-tools to provide such sbuild
On 05/27/2015 05:26 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention is to better share the workload,
2015-05-27 23:26 GMT+02:00 Derek Higgins der...@redhat.com:
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention is to better
On 29/05/15 06:41, Haïkel wrote:
Here's the main script to rebuild a RPM package.
https://github.com/openstack-packages/delorean/blob/master/scripts/build_rpm.sh
The script basically uses rpmbuild to build packages, we could have a
build_deb.sh that uses
sbuild and add dockerfiles for the
Derek,
Thanks for what you wrote.
On 05/27/2015 11:26 PM, Derek Higgins wrote:
4. For deb packages you can create new repositories along side the
rdorpm-* repositories
My intention is to use deb-* as prefix, if Canonical team agrees.
5. Add deb support to delorean, I know of at least one
Hi Thomas,
Delorean is a tool to build rpm packages from master branches (maybe any
branch?) of OpenStack projects.
Check out here:
https://www.rdoproject.org/packaging/rdo-packaging.html#master-pkg-guide
Regards,
On Thu, 28 May 2015 10:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Derek,
Thanks for what you
On 28/05/15 12:07, Jaume Devesa wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Delorean is a tool to build rpm packages from master branches (maybe any
branch?) of OpenStack projects.
Check out here:
https://www.rdoproject.org/packaging/rdo-packaging.html#master-pkg-guide
Following those instructions you'll notice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/28/2015 01:07 PM, Jaume Devesa wrote:
Hi Thomas,
Delorean is a tool to build rpm packages from master branches
(maybe any branch?) of OpenStack projects.
It's now also used for stable/kilo. I suspect all supported branches
starting from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention is to better share the workload, and improve the overall
QA for packaging *and* upstream.
- - The goal is *not* to publish
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [packaging] Adding packaging as an OpenStack project
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention
Many thanks to Thomas and the other packagers for a great discussion at
the summit and this fast follow-up, explained well. Looking forward to
seeing what can be achieved!
On 27/05/15 16:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on
On 27/05/15 09:14, Thomas Goirand wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
tl;dr:
- - We'd like to push distribution packaging of OpenStack on upstream
gerrit with reviews.
- - The intention is to better share the workload, and improve the overall
QA for packaging *and*
95 matches
Mail list logo