[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Modern Debian packaging system for DevOps: does it exist?



On 05/13/2015 06:14 PM, Исаев Виталий wrote:
Hello! I'm looking for a convenient wrapper of standard Debian packaging
toolchain in order to automatize the deployment process. We use Ubuntu
and Debian, and the most part of code is written in C++, therefore we
need to compile and build binary debs. Currently our infrastructure
consists of:

 1. Gitlab;
 2. Isolated build environment inside Docker containers (where we
    usually do `git clone && mk-build-deps && debuild`);
 3. Aptly;
 4. Self-written Python scripts linking all these components;is l

You shouldn't use the above, but sbuild instead, which will do what you do with Docker, mk-build-deps and debuild, but getter.

At the moment we're trying to collect more information about existing
packaging systems. Our self-written scripts no longer meet our needs.
Now we have faced a choice: either we move our deployment process into
third-party packaging system (if we find the good one), or we get
involved into the development of own full-featured system.

I would like to put an emphasis on the most in-demand features:

 1. Lightweight isolated environment (hardware virtualization is not
    suitable);
 2. Git support;
 3. RESTful API (in order to provide clear integration with git hooks
    that will launch build process);
 4. Web interface;
 5. Support for a different build backends (Debian default toolchain |
    CPack);
 6. Binary package repository integration;
 7. Package version control (support for builds from different branches,
    build number incrementation, keep changelog consistent, etc.);
 8. Email notification;
 9. Privacy (ability to deploy the system on the own facilities);

This looks like what I'm doing doing with openstack-pkg-tools. Have a look inside it, and more precisely to pkgos-setup-sbuild, which is capable of setting-up Jenkins. I'm open to contributions inside it.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)


Reply to: