Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-364

make eups.lsst.codes the canonical EUPS_PKGROOT

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Adopted
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None
    • Location:
      #dm-square

      Description

      SQRE would like to change from using sw.lsstcorp.org to eups.lsst.codes as the canonical published EUPS product hostname. This change is motivated by the desire to have the software publishing workflow within a single administrative/support domain.

      An HTTP[ S ] direct has been established from:

      http[ s ]://sw.lsstcorp.org/eupspkg/... -> https://eups.lsst.codes/stack/src/...

      newinstall.sh based installations have already been using eups.lsst.codes for several months now. This change should be transparent to most users and would be essentially a documentation update.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            This RFC triggered no comments. Please add the triggered tickets for updating the documentation.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - This RFC triggered no comments. Please add the triggered tickets for updating the documentation.
            Hide
            jhoblitt Joshua Hoblitt added a comment -

            Tim Jenness Is it appropriate to make this RFC as implemented? While I agree we should have better low level documentation I think it could also be argued its absence hasn't been an issue for developers either.

            Show
            jhoblitt Joshua Hoblitt added a comment - Tim Jenness Is it appropriate to make this RFC as implemented? While I agree we should have better low level documentation I think it could also be argued its absence hasn't been an issue for developers either.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            I think I'd prefer DM-11474 to be done even if it was just a couple of sentences. This RFC otherwise essentially has no work associated with it. The RFC specifically states that the actual outcome of the RFC should be a document update.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - I think I'd prefer DM-11474 to be done even if it was just a couple of sentences. This RFC otherwise essentially has no work associated with it. The RFC specifically states that the actual outcome of the RFC should be a document update.

              People

              • Assignee:
                jhoblitt Joshua Hoblitt
                Reporter:
                jhoblitt Joshua Hoblitt
                Watchers:
                John Swinbank, Joshua Hoblitt, Kian-Tat Lim, Robert Lupton, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel