Re: Required manifest changes for Cloud Foundry


Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod@...>
 

Why are you looking forward to independent releases?
A single release option appears pretty straightforward. Single release that
includes the correct dependent versions.
What are the advantages of breaking them out?

Thanks,
Tom

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Mike Youngstrom <youngm(a)gmail.com> wrote:

This is excellent! I love the decomposition of the buildpacks. I look
forward to the day when cf-release disappears and we just have a bunch of
small independent releases. Hopefully that day is getting closer and
closer.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Amit Gupta <agupta(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hey developers,

The buildpacks team has recently extracted the buildpacks as separate
releases. As we transition to deploying CF via a bunch of composed
releases, for now we're making the change more transparent, by submoduling
and symlinking the buildpacks releases back into cf-release. This requires
some manifest changes: buildpacks are now colocated with cloud controller,
rather than package dependencies of cloud controller.

If you are using spiff to generate manifests, and are not overriding the
templates/jobs colocated on the api_zN jobs, you can ignore this email. If
you are overriding the api_zN templates in your stub, or if you are not
using spiff, you will need to add the following:

templates:
- name: consul_agent
release: cf
+ - name: go-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: binary-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: nodejs-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: ruby-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: php-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: python-buildpack
+ release: cf
+ - name: staticfile-buildpack
+ release: cf
- name: cloud_controller_ng
release: cf

Please see this commit (
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/commit/549e5a8271bbf0d30efdb84f381f38c8bf22099d)
for more details.

Best,
Amit

Join cf-dev@lists.cloudfoundry.org to automatically receive all group messages.