What do we want in the way of Zope binary distributions?
Hi, With the new Zope 2.7 install and configuration stuff (currently on the Zope trunk), ZC needs to redo its mechanisms for Zope binary distribution. Currently, ZC distributes binaries for Win32, Linux, and Solaris on Zope.org. The Linux and Solaris distributions are in the form of a tarball containing binaries. The Win32 distribution contains an executable installer generated by WISE. I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc. It's getting a bit scary to try to distribute a "generic" Linux binary release (who knows what's different about each?), and we really don't have the resources to do a functional test of the binary release on every Linux platform. Additionally, most Linux distributions typically come with all the required tools to compile Zope from source, and compiling Zope from source is now a matter of 'configure; make; make install'. If people don't want to do this, they can install the RPM or their distribution's repackaging of Zope (ala Debian). I also propose we drop the Solaris binary distribution in favor of providing instructions to Solaris folks about how to compile and install the source package. This might be the most contentious proposal: I really have no idea how many people use the Solaris binary distro. The Win32 binary release should likely stay much like it is. I'm not sure about the "upgrade" release packages. Does anybody use these? Comments? - C
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I may volunteer for updating the gentoo ebuild.... Anyone else using gentoo linux here?
Comments?
I would appreciate a pgp signature for official releases, source and binary. -- Toby Dickenson http://www.geminidataloggers.com/people/tdickenson
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 07:37, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I may volunteer for updating the gentoo ebuild.... Anyone else using gentoo linux here?
I am... putting some effort toward keeping the Zope ebuild current would be really helpful. Last time I checked, it's only current to 2.6.0. Don't know much about making ebuilds, but I've been meaning to get good at it for a few months now... this would be as good a reason as any. I'm willing to help, but probably not the best person to lead. Dylan
FWIW, the installation and configuration process for 2.7 will be different than others in the 2.X series, so you may end up maintaining two significantly different build generators if you intend on "signing up" to them for both 2.6 and 2.7/8/9, etc. Just a heads-up. On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 12:37, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 07:37, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I may volunteer for updating the gentoo ebuild.... Anyone else using gentoo linux here?
I am... putting some effort toward keeping the Zope ebuild current would be really helpful. Last time I checked, it's only current to 2.6.0.
Don't know much about making ebuilds, but I've been meaning to get good at it for a few months now... this would be as good a reason as any. I'm willing to help, but probably not the best person to lead.
Dylan
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:37:34PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
It's quite unfair. I would second this proposal, only if you list other form of packages / linux distribution as far as possible. RPM and Red Hat are not the only one. Debian packages may be found at http://packages.debian.org/zope.
Comments?
I would appreciate a pgp signature for official releases, source and binary.
I agree. This issue would have been more appropriate no zope-packagers though. ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][-A-Za-z]*[iy]'?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Infinite loop: see `Loop, infinite'. | something in common: they Loop, infinite: see `Infinite loop'. | don't depend on the language.
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 06:02, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:37:34PM +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
It's quite unfair. I would second this proposal, only if you list other form of packages / linux distribution as far as possible. RPM and Red Hat are not the only one. Debian packages may be found at http://packages.debian.org/zope.
Of course we will continue to list other binary packages on the download pages, just like we do now. The only thing the proposal deals with is the packages that are created by ZC itself. Other folks are free to continue packaging Zope however they like, and we will link to those packages as requested. ZC has never produced a Debian package, so nothing will have changed .. unless you count the dropping of the creation by ZC of a generic Linux tarball Zope distro as "unfair". Do you consider its future omission unfair? On that note, several months ago I had a long stream of slow-motion email exchanges with folks that (at the time at least) were responsible for creating the Zope Debian distro. At the time, they were not interested in receiving ZC's upstream packaging help. I offered help, but I left those discussions with the impression that there was nothing I could do. Has this changed? I would be happy to help. I use Debian too. ;-) As far as supporting other (non-Debian) Linux releases in binary format, But creating many slightly different binary packages is not something ZC has the resources to do. For these, there is the source distro and other community contributed packages. Same for FreeBSD and NetBSD and HPUX and IRIX and Solaris, as far as I'm concerned.
Comments?
I would appreciate a pgp signature for official releases, source and binary.
I agree.
This issue would have been more appropriate no zope-packagers though.
Errr... probably. If I had known about it. What is its subscription address and archive URL, so I can add it to the mailing lists page on Zope.org? - C
Just to get to some closure on this thread, it sounds like we have basic agreement, so the decision is that as of the Zope 2.7 release: - ZC will package and provide a source tarball - ZC will package and provide a win32 binary version (logs show that *lots* of people begin dabbling in Zope with this version) - ZC won't provide any other binary packages, but *will* link to versions produced by other packagers on the download page for a particular Zope version. Brian Lloyd brian@zope.com V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com
Also, another decision: we will no longer make "upgrade" releases. So the long and short of it becomes that a Zope 2.7+ package download page will list only the source release and the Windows binary release (no upgrade packages, no Solaris binary, and no Linux binaries). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@zope.com> To: <zope@zope.org>; <zope-dev@zope.org> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [Zope] decision on binary distributions (2.7+)
Just to get to some closure on this thread, it sounds like we have basic agreement, so the decision is that as of the Zope 2.7 release:
- ZC will package and provide a source tarball
- ZC will package and provide a win32 binary version (logs show that *lots* of people begin dabbling in Zope with this version)
- ZC won't provide any other binary packages, but *will* link to versions produced by other packagers on the download page for a particular Zope version.
Brian Lloyd brian@zope.com V.P. Engineering 540.361.1716 Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 10:32:22AM -0400, Chris McDonough wrote:
ZC has never produced a Debian package, so nothing will have changed .. unless you count the dropping of the creation by ZC of a generic Linux tarball Zope distro as "unfair". Do you consider its future omission unfair?
I considered unfair the proposal of dropping the generic linux binary distribution in favour of one specific type of package. Linux is open to many implementation and i think that one cannot easily tell what user face/use: Debian (and deb packages) is one of them as gentoo ebuild system, stampede and so on. I'm fine with the decision of releasing the source and suggest link to other form of packages which is more flexible for you and give some bonus to the people packaging zope.
On that note, several months ago I had a long stream of slow-motion email exchanges with folks that (at the time at least) were responsible for creating the Zope Debian distro. At the time, they were not interested in receiving ZC's upstream packaging help. I offered help, but I left those discussions with the impression that there was nothing I could do. Has this changed? I would be happy to help. I use Debian too. ;-)
We have changed somthing (i hope better): please, join us again. Any volunteer may track changes and bugs (mostly Debian specific) with our Package Tracking System: http://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zope.html Here you'll find some intersting information about the Zope Debian package.
address and archive URL, so I can add it to the mailing lists page on Zope.org?
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-packagers ciao, -- Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis | Elegant or ugly code as well aliases: Luca ^De [A-Z][-A-Za-z]*[iy]'?s$ | as fine or rude sentences have Infinite loop: see `Loop, infinite'. | something in common: they Loop, infinite: see `Infinite loop'. | don't depend on the language.
Apologies if this is a little late... On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 09:37, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I may volunteer for updating the gentoo ebuild.... Anyone else using gentoo linux here?
We're using a lot of gentoo internally here - up-to-date gentoo ebuilds would be *greatly* appreciated.
Comments?
Along the lines of gentoo ebuilds - if you're going to provide RPMs, could you provide the Source RPM as well? That makes the RPM more widely usable... -- Nathan 'Nato' Uno Zope Developer Hostway Corporation http://www.hostway.com/
I think we decided that there will be no ZC-distributed UNIX binary distribution nor a source distribution packaged any other way but as a tar.gz... but if other folks want to package them as they like, they're free to do so. On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 16:09, Nathan 'Nato' Uno wrote:
Apologies if this is a little late...
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 09:37, Toby Dickenson wrote:
On Wednesday 16 April 2003 3:25 pm, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I may volunteer for updating the gentoo ebuild.... Anyone else using gentoo linux here?
We're using a lot of gentoo internally here - up-to-date gentoo ebuilds would be *greatly* appreciated.
Comments?
Along the lines of gentoo ebuilds - if you're going to provide RPMs, could you provide the Source RPM as well? That makes the RPM more widely usable...
-- Nathan 'Nato' Uno Zope Developer Hostway Corporation http://www.hostway.com/
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Chris McDonough wrote at 2003-4-16 10:25 -0400:
... I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake,
Personnaly, I do not like RPM. It often wants to install at places where I do not want the installation. I much prefer "tar" balls (but I use the source distribution anyway). Dieter
On Wed, 2003-04-16 at 15:32, Dieter Maurer wrote:
Chris McDonough wrote at 2003-4-16 10:25 -0400:
... I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake,
Personnaly, I do not like RPM.
It often wants to install at places where I do not want the installation.
I much prefer "tar" balls (but I use the source distribution anyway).
Hi Dieter, Yup. I'd rather install from source too. I'm interested in hearing from people who you think we should continue to create binary tarball distributions for Linux. It doesn't sound like you use the binary Zope distro for Linux, or do you? - C
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:25 am, Chris McDonough wrote:
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
I'm all for this! The RPM would install everything into /usr/lib/zope-2.7/* except the bin directory, which it'd install in /usr/bin. That'd work on any RPM platform, and thanks to the mk* scripts, the actual installation of a zope instance is soooo much easier now. Previously the RPM had to worry about creating stuff in /var and /lib and all that mess. Now that problem's just gone away :) Richard
Richard Jones wrote I'm all for this! The RPM would install everything into /usr/lib/zope-2.7/* except the bin directory, which it'd install in /usr/bin.
Could it not be /usr/bin, please? /usr/bin is a sewer on linux distributions, and trying to find the damn zope scripts there will be such a pain. Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 03:57 pm, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Richard Jones wrote
I'm all for this! The RPM would install everything into /usr/lib/zope-2.7/* except the bin directory, which it'd install in /usr/bin.
Could it not be /usr/bin, please? /usr/bin is a sewer on linux distributions, and trying to find the damn zope scripts there will be such a pain.
It'll end up in the user's path, that's all. It'll go wherever they set the install prefix to. Is that OK? Richard
I might be tempted to just dump the software home in /opt/Zope-X.X (or somewhere else suitable) and not bother with putting the mk* scripts into the a directory on the PATH (just keep them in sw_home/bin). Then again, it would be kinda nice to just type: $ sudo rpm -Uvh Zope-2.X.X.rpm $ mkzopeinstance ~/instance But going forward we'd have the problem of multiple Zope versions on the same machine.. to which one would "mkzopeinstance" belong, or would we name one "mkzopeinstance27" and the other "mkzopeinstance28"? Like I said, I might be tempted to just punt and leave the binaries in the software home bin dir. On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 01:57, Anthony Baxter wrote:
Richard Jones wrote I'm all for this! The RPM would install everything into /usr/lib/zope-2.7/* except the bin directory, which it'd install in /usr/bin.
Could it not be /usr/bin, please? /usr/bin is a sewer on linux distributions, and trying to find the damn zope scripts there will be such a pain.
Anthony -- Anthony Baxter <anthony@interlink.com.au> It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
_______________________________________________ Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Chris McDonough writes:
I might be tempted to just dump the software home in /opt/Zope-X.X (or somewhere else suitable) and not bother with putting the mk* scripts into the a directory on the PATH (just keep them in sw_home/bin). Then again, it would be kinda nice to just type:
$ sudo rpm -Uvh Zope-2.X.X.rpm $ mkzopeinstance ~/instance
Perhaps it would be, but the multi-version issue is real. I think the right thing is to let people deal with that on a per-site basis; some people will want to extend their PATH to include the Zope installation they want to use, and others will want to always be explicit. Infecting a "standard" bin directory isn't something we should do; if a site wants that, they can add symlinks there on their own. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fred at zope.com> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 10:20, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
again, it would be kinda nice to just type:
$ sudo rpm -Uvh Zope-2.X.X.rpm $ mkzopeinstance ~/instance
Perhaps it would be, but the multi-version issue is real. I think the right thing is to let people deal with that on a per-site basis; some people will want to extend their PATH to include the Zope installation they want to use, and others will want to always be explicit. Infecting a "standard" bin directory isn't something we should do; if a site wants that, they can add symlinks there on their own.
I agree. Oh and "me too", and "first post". ;-) - C
Personally, I am happy with this. We install binaries on Win32 and build from source on Linux. We dumped Solaris a year ago :-p We have never used the upgrade packages and likely never will. --Craeg Chris McDonough wrote:
Hi,
With the new Zope 2.7 install and configuration stuff (currently on the Zope trunk), ZC needs to redo its mechanisms for Zope binary distribution. <snip/>
I'm not sure about the "upgrade" release packages. Does anybody use these?
Comments?
- C
In article <1050503118.1421.48.camel@james> you write:
Hi,
With the new Zope 2.7 install and configuration stuff (currently on the Zope trunk), ZC needs to redo its mechanisms for Zope binary distribution. Currently, ZC distributes binaries for Win32, Linux, and Solaris on Zope.org. The Linux and Solaris distributions are in the form of a tarball containing binaries. The Win32 distribution contains an executable installer generated by WISE.
Ok if you dig into the build process, could you please ensure that all necessary .so files are built and shipped? See http://collector.zope.org/Zope/678
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get reproducible environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance. Well ok, I know lots of ways to get what I need (rpm2cpio for one), but it will complicate my life a bit. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) +33 1 40 33 79 87 http://nuxeo.com mailto:fg@nuxeo.com
Ok if you dig into the build process, could you please ensure that all necessary .so files are built and shipped? See http://collector.zope.org/Zope/678
Sure, thanks. FWIW, I am trying at this very moment to understand how to compile pyexpat on Windows. :-(
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get reproducible environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance.
Not just one Zope instance, but probably just one Zope software_home for any particular major Zope release. E.g. you will likely not be able to install both Zope-2.7.0 and Zope-2.7.1 via RPM without doing some hackery, but you should be able to install Zope-2.7.1 and Zope 2.8.0 without fear of conflicts. Many instances can use the same software home and making an instance home will be very easy under 2.7+. It will also be a required step, so there's no chance you'll forget it. ;-)
Well ok, I know lots of ways to get what I need (rpm2cpio for one), but it will complicate my life a bit.
Does what I said above change this? - C
Chris McDonough wrote:
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get reproducible environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance.
Not just one Zope instance, but probably just one Zope software_home for any particular major Zope release. E.g. you will likely not be able to install both Zope-2.7.0 and Zope-2.7.1 via RPM without doing some hackery, but you should be able to install Zope-2.7.1 and Zope 2.8.0 without fear of conflicts.
Many instances can use the same software home and making an instance home will be very easy under 2.7+. It will also be a required step, so there's no chance you'll forget it. ;-)
Well ok, I know lots of ways to get what I need (rpm2cpio for one), but it will complicate my life a bit.
Does what I said above change this?
Yes, that's a cleaner way to look at it. I'm not overly fond of several instance_homes with only one software_home as I really want to keep different sites completely separated (i.e., when upgrading the software for one site I don't want it to impact my other test sites). But that's probably only me. In this light an RPM is ok. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) +33 1 40 33 79 87 http://nuxeo.com mailto:fg@nuxeo.com
I am happy with the proposal that started this thread. We do have a number of customers that use Zope on windows. Will there be a way to use several diffferent Zope instances when thay are run as services? Robert Am Donnerstag, 17. April 2003 17:53 schrieb Chris McDonough:
Ok if you dig into the build process, could you please ensure that
all
necessary .so files are built and shipped? See http://collector.zope.org/Zope/678
Sure, thanks. FWIW, I am trying at this very moment to understand how to compile pyexpat on Windows. :-(
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get
reproducible
environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance.
Not just one Zope instance, but probably just one Zope software_home for any particular major Zope release. E.g. you will likely not be able to install both Zope-2.7.0 and Zope-2.7.1 via RPM without doing some hackery, but you should be able to install Zope-2.7.1 and Zope 2.8.0 without fear of conflicts.
Many instances can use the same software home and making an instance home will be very easy under 2.7+. It will also be a required step, so there's no chance you'll forget it. ;-)
Well ok, I know lots of ways to get what I need (rpm2cpio for one),
but
it will complicate my life a bit.
Does what I said above change this?
- C
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
-- mit freundlichen Grüssen Robert Rottermann www.redCOR.ch
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary distribution in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
Don't forget about SuSE (or UnitedLinux) for non-Americans ;-) It should be possible to get help from SuSE with doing official or semi-official SuSE RPMs of Zope. I could get a contact for you if you need one.
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get reproducible environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance.
Binary builds have been quite useful for us, too. They always work, even if you don't have the possibility to use gcc on a machine, which is the case for a lot of people in a hosting environment. But of course you CAN run multiple Zope instances from an RPM install: Just use instance homes! Joachim
I think we've decided to abandon Linux binaries entirely. The pain doesn't seem to be worth the gain. That may change, but for now, that's the working assumption. - C ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joachim Werner" <joe@iuveno.de> To: "Florent Guillaume" <fg@nuxeo.com>; "Zope Developers list" <zope-dev@zope.org> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [Zope-dev] What do we want in the way of Zope binary distributions?
I'd like to propose that ZC drops the "generic" Linux binary
distribution
in favor of an RPM distribution that would be "guaranteed" to run on the latest Red Hat release or the one before it, but might also work on Mandrake, etc.
Don't forget about SuSE (or UnitedLinux) for non-Americans ;-)
It should be possible to get help from SuSE with doing official or semi-official SuSE RPMs of Zope. I could get a contact for you if you need one.
Well I like to use "pristine" binary builds from ZC to get reproducible environment, but having an RPM will mean that it'll only allow me to install it in one place, so only one Zope instance.
Binary builds have been quite useful for us, too. They always work, even if you don't have the possibility to use gcc on a machine, which is the case for a lot of people in a hosting environment.
But of course you CAN run multiple Zope instances from an RPM install: Just use instance homes!
Joachim
_______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
participants (14)
-
Anthony Baxter -
Brian Lloyd -
Chris McDonough -
Craeg K Strong -
Dieter Maurer -
Dylan Reinhardt -
Florent Guillaume -
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Joachim Werner -
Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis -
Nathan 'Nato' Uno -
Richard Jones -
robert -
Toby Dickenson