This sounds really nice. I've been using apt as a deployment mechanism not unlike the use-cases describe. While the whole thing's been rock solid, the repo management could do with a cleaner interface. Looking forward to giving it a go!
Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
21–30 of 53 posts
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm no grammar Nazi but Our author seems to consistently make the same mistake: there's a distinct lack of articles in the writing. Sprinkle some in, and things start to make sense: > [A] Linux distribution is [a] well-tested collection of packages > we would like to have [an] internal mirror of [a] package repository > some packages are missing in [the] official distribution > we would like to own [a] package repo…
For some reason, native speakers of Slavic languages who learn English as a second language, often omit some prepositions in English. It's 100% understandable, but I'm really curious what's the actual reason why this happens.
Not sure about prepositions, but the articles are often omitted because most Slavic languages don't have articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Variation...
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the concept, but wouldnt it be better to offload deployment/rollbacks to docker?
Aptly is a repository manager, it works in terms of tightly defined package versions and dependencies. Docker is for deployment, it works in terms of graphs of filesystem images. The tools do slightly overlap in use case, but they operate in entirely different domains. It wouldn't be unreasonable to mix both in the same project, but there is no hard rule for when this would be appropriate.
I think I will stick with a Docker. DEB packages are very complicated and this tool does not really handle dependency conflits and so on that well. Plus it does not work with RPM and other packages systems.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#24For anyone who has ever battled with maintaining their own apt/yum repos, this seems like a godsend.
The most-used tools for getting a package into your repo involve scp'ing the file to the repository server and running a command to update its index. It's nice to have a proper toolset to do this, but it's too bad I spend most of my time with YUM nowadays.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#25I'm no grammar Nazi but the first sentence on this website had me completely tripped up: >> Linux distribution is well-tested collection of packages carefully organized and supported by the vendor. wat?
Sorry for my bad English. Does this sound better: "Linux distribution is a well-tested collection of packages that are carefully organized and supported by the vendor."
Grammar aside, I'd say the plural feels more natural in this case:
"Linux distributions are well-tested collections of packages …"
But for singular you need to qualify "Linux distribution":
"A Linux distribution is a well-tested collection of packages …"
And I'd probably say "by a vendor" instead of "by the vendor" as it's not clear you're talking about a specific vendor.
Also, the "a" is wrong in this:
"There’s a support for …"
This should be: "There is support for …", in other words: "Support exists for …". Support is non-countable (like water, peace or terrorism) in English.
As a rule of thumb:
* if it's non-countable, just leave it bare: "I bought water", "It has support", "This is murder". * if you're referring to a specific instance of something the audience knows about or you're going to qualify, use "the": "I bought the house [I previously told you about]", "I shot the gopher that kept digging up my lawn". * otherwise use "a": "I bought a house" (this is news to you), "I ran over a cat" (if you say "the cat", the listener would instantly think "which one?").
English is "fun".
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm no grammar Nazi but Our author seems to consistently make the same mistake: there's a distinct lack of articles in the writing. Sprinkle some in, and things start to make sense: > [A] Linux distribution is [a] well-tested collection of packages > we would like to have [an] internal mirror of [a] package repository > some packages are missing in [the] official distribution > we would like to own [a] package repo…
For some reason, native speakers of Slavic languages who learn English as a second language, often omit some prepositions in English. It's 100% understandable, but I'm really curious what's the actual reason why this happens.
Funny thing is, when we(native speakers of Slavic languages) read such english text with omitted articles we do understand it as intended and often we do not even realize that it's missing something.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#27So, basically Nexus/Artifactory for deb. Cool.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#28Half of the posts in this thread are about the author's English. I know that clear communication and constructive feedback on one's command of a language is good, but... come on.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your suggestions!
Have you considered making the website / documentation source available in github? That would make it very easy for others to contribute suggestions.
It is actually available: https://github.com/aptly-dev/aptly-dev.github.io/tree/trunk
In trunk branch, the markdown under content/ folder.
Re: Aptly: Owning Your Debian Distribution
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aptly is a repository manager, it works in terms of tightly defined package versions and dependencies. Docker is for deployment, it works in terms of graphs of filesystem images. The tools do slightly overlap in use case, but they operate in entirely different domains. It wouldn't be unreasonable to mix both in the same project, but there is no hard rule for when this would be appropriate.
I think I will stick with a Docker. DEB packages are very complicated and this tool does not really handle dependency conflits and so on that well. Plus it does not work with RPM and other packages systems.
DEB packages are very complicated
Not really, it's just a tar file with some metadata. Using fpm¹, making packages from a directory is extremely simple. I've been building internal packages from our different components, and the build script only has three or four lines. And besides, even Dockerfiles often use apt/yum.