[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud

On 2015-11-12 21:04:46, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I don't think it's helpful for the project to let $cloud-provider to do
> as his pleased with our Debian trademark, and call whatever as "Debian
> stable", just because it makes sense for the marketing department. We
> have long established rules, I don't see why they wouldn't apply for the
> "official Debian" cloud images.

I agree and that's why I think those images should be build by Debian and if
cloud provider want to host them in their cloud should be able to do so.
If those images will fulfil all 'official Debian' requirements and will be
accepted by providers they should be IMHO called 'official'.

On 2015-11-12 21:11:25, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 11/12/2015 12:53 PM, Narcis Garcia wrote:
> > - default ssh user: +Leave at cloud provider criteria (can have own good
> > security policy).
> I'd very much prefer if the cloud-init default config (ie: debian as the
> username) wasn't tempered with. I've seen cloud providers that prefer to
> use $cloud-provider as username, though this means changing the normal
> Debian image which we would provide from cdimages.debian.org by some
> $cloud-provider sepcifics. IMO, there should be only a single Debian
> image source, ie: debian.org, and users should be able to verify its
> hash.

I agree in regards to not fiddling with cloud-init but single Debian source is
not sustainable unless we'll stick into it all provider dependant pieces and
then why openstack img should have waagent installed?
If such additional soft is not needed then indeed we can have single source but
why to deny that if azure image (if build as we wish it to be where we wish it
this to be done) calling it Official Debian?

> Otherwise, It means the image has been made outside of the Debian
> infrastructure.

Zigo can you elaborate how do perceive 'single Debian image source'? Is it
single config file, set of files, app generating it?

> If we do decide to use azure as the default user for the Azure cloud,
> and publish an image with such configuration through
> cdimages.debian.org, then it's a different issue for which I don't
> really have an opinion (it's IMO a distraction of very low importance).

To be honest I'd prefer to use platform agnostic name for default user on 'the
cloud image'

On 2015-11-13 14:05:33, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> So, by all means, let every cloud provider do as they pleased (that's
> free software anyway). But let's stamp only what we think represent
> *our* collective work. And that's what we're discussing here.

I agree and I think that all people agree with this.

> >> I don't think it's helpful for the project to let $cloud-provider to do
> >> as his pleased with our Debian trademark, and call whatever as "Debian
> >> stable", just because it makes sense for the marketing department. We
> > We build the images and we do call them "Debian stable" because it makes 
> > sense for our users.
> And we shall not temper with the requirements to call something "Debian
> Stable", otherwise, the meaning goes away.

Debian Cloud Image - stable, what's wrong with it? It will have cloud-init
which is not in default stable installer it may have waagent or other soft
needed by provider. As long as this soft is in stable main or via backports I'd
say it's stable cloud image.

> What I'm asking for, is only that a cat is called a cat. So if you are
> creating a cloud images with stable + backports, state it clearly, don't
> pretend it is "pure" stable, because it is not. There's nothing bad
> about using stable-backports. If the image is made out of Debian, with
> software that isn't even uploaded to Sid, then IMO, it can't be called
> "official Debian", because it's effectively a derivative.

I see your point but really is it all about semantics and perception? So lets
forget about word 'official' anywhere in the image names we're providing or
going to provide. Just call it ex 'Jessie Debian Cloud Image' or 'Debian Cloud
Image - Jessie' and then there is no word about stable or official and as long
as it's going to be build and published by DDs and no one will try to us for
those images a word 'official' (all are treated equally) IMO it should be ok.

|_|0|_|                                          |
|_|_|0|         "Heghlu'Meh QaQ jajVam"          |
|0|0|0|         -------- kuLa ---------          |

gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x58C338B3
3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD  58C3 38B3

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: