Re: lack of replacement for linux-vserver
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 07:48:02PM +0000, Andrei Morgan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been aware for a few years that linux-vserver was planned to be
> dropped from the next stable release in favour of 'lxc' as a
> replacement solution.
>
> As I believe has been recently discussed on this list, lxc is far from
> ready for production use, and there is no other good replacement that I
> am aware of.
>
> I therefore would like to add my voice to those asking that vservers are
> *not* dropped at the present time, and that this should instead be
> reconsidered for a future release, after wheezy.
[...]
Debian is a do-ocracy and no-one has been prepared to do that work.
Just to be clear, 'that work' is not just a matter of forwarding
messages back and forward between the Debian BTS and the Linux-VServer
developers. Unless the VServer project continues to support whichever
version we use in a stable release (3.2 in this case) then Debian
users are likely to run into different bugs that they won't want to
deal with. There will also be integration issues to be resolved when
fixes from the stable/longterm branch conflict with the VServer
changes. This requires real understanding of Linux and VServer
internals (see #618485 for an example of what happens without that).
If anyone wishes to volunteer to maintain VServer in Debian - you are
very welcome, but please start by addressing the bugs filed against
them in squeeze and reviewing the existing conflicts. If you can
prove yourself by doing that, then you may convince me and the rest of
the kernel team that you can maintain it in wheezy as well.
Otherwise, no chance.
The above all applies to OpenVZ as well, and what I've suggested to is
that the interested developers maintain an APT repository of kernel
packages for Debian using whichever version the OpenVZ project is
prepared to support. Maybe the Linux-VServer project can do that too.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Reply to: