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

Re: Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud

To cross that bridge is good, being aware all the time about what's
exactly the thing.
In the meanwhile, a "derivative" image can be named as "Debian based".

"Official mirrors" shouldn't contain differences to debian.org
repositories. Otherwise they should be named "Debian based" too.

I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at lists.debian.org archives.

El 20/11/15 a les 04:42, Brian Gupta ha escrit:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Martin Zobel-Helas
> <martin.zobel-helas@credativ.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Wed Nov 11, 2015 at 15:18:51 -0500, Brian Gupta wrote:
>>> (Note: Although some of you may know that I am a member of the Debian TM
>>> team, I am raising the following issues as a long-time participant in the
>>> debian-cloud group/mailing-list. I also apologize upfront for the length of
>>> this email, and for any inevitable omissions.)
>> I see some conflict of interest here, but i will answer the technical
>> questions.
> Responding here as an individual member of the TM team. (Not on behalf of the
> TM team, as I've been swamped and we haven't had a chance to discuss).
> While I'm not sure if I have a "conflict" of interest, I will admit that I am
> hoping to kill more than one bird with a single stone. First, I'd like to
> help you resolve your TM request, in a way that is agreeable to the Debian
> Project and your team.
> Second, as there is a growing consensus developing for Debian to be publishing
> official cloud images, and at least one of the teams involved in publishing
> Debian images has expressed an interest in building/blessing cloud images,
> I'm hoping that this discussion promotes the development of a more fleshed out
> set of standards and policies related to Debian cloud images. This will
> hopefully make everyone's lives easier in the future.
> I'll also add that it's not the TM team's role to privately set technical
> policy, which is why we advocated to have this discussion in public
> with the appropriate technical teams.
>> First of all, i want to stress out, that i didn't request the trademark for the
>> name "Official Debian images on Microsoft Azure cloud". I am happy to help here
>> that we, at some future point, might reach that status, but as per discussion
>> (where never a final decission was made!) during DebConf15 we mostly agreed
>> that we should be careful what we call "Official Debian". Therefor we would
>> like to use "Debian Jessie/Debian Wheezy build for Microsoft Azure".
> So my position here, which is being shaped by ongoing discussions, is that you
> are asking the Debian TM team for blessing or sanctioning to call a product you
> built, "Debian". That's about as "legally official" a blessing as one can get.
> Going forward, if one of our teams (say debian-cd) decided they wanted to also
> build Azure images, do you feel that there should be two separate sets of
> images, built by two separate sets of DDs? Which is official, if they both
> received the blessing of the project? From a user's point of view this could
> lead to great confusion, and would make the job of the TM team quite a bit
> harder, especially if there were disagreements about how the images are
> built.
> At this point in time, the only "non-official" blessing I would prefer the TM
> team  be involved in would be perhaps for temporary transitional images
> that may not quite be ready for official status, but the DDs are committed
> to resolving any issues, the issues aren't considered showstoppers, and the
> technical teams involved support that plan. (Definitely open to feedback here,
> and this may change over time as we evolve our policies.)
>>> 1) the image includes only software available in Debian [2]
>> Check. Our image only includes software available in Debian, except waagent.
>> waagent is available in Debian itself, but not the version we currently need
>> for the image, see my initial mail for more information.
>>> 2) the image generation process is controlled solely by Debian [2]
>> Check. Only DD have write access to the Jenkins instance used to generate
>> images and control the scripts used by the process. Apart from the usual vendor
>> operation staff, of cause.
>>> 3) the image is generated using tools available in Debian, or maintained [2]
>>>     by Debian
>> Check. The tools are maintained by DD.
>>> 4) Only DFSG-compliant Software in the image. Only main enabled, with
>>>     perhaps a temporary exception for backports [3], for specific enablement
>>>     software
>> Check.
>>> 6) the images most provide a user experience (in terms of default
>>>     choice of packages, or of default configuration) identical to other
>>> means of installing Debian. Differences must be documented and      justified.
>>> [4]
>> Check.
>>> 7) Debian kernel [5]
>> Check. For Wheezy we need to use the kernel from backports.
>>> 8) Built using Debian infrastructure [6] (I think this should be modified to
>>>     have a caveat, "to as much an extent as possible")
>> In general I support this idea. But for the current process of building those
>> images is based on a contract our company have with Microsoft. This would
>> violated the DMUP that clearly says: "Don't use Debian Facilities for private
>> financial gain or for commercial purposes, including consultancy or any other
>> work outside the scope of official duties or functions for the time being,
>> without specific authorization to do so." The process of modifing the DMUP
>> should be discussed elsewhere.  The publishing of images requires login
>> credentials to the vendors publishing API. In most cases those credentials are
>> in some way linked to credit card data.... Do I really need to say more?
>> Currently building images for whatever vendor requires root permissions on
>> debian.org boxes. While I have them, using them would be an abuse of my DSA
>> position.  Also we eat our own dogfood and use Azure images to build Azure
>> images.
> It's my opinion that if the relevant teams believe that these tasks
> should be run on Debian hardware, then we will support that decision.
> Many people are paid to "work on Debian" so I'm not sure I understand
> the issue? It's also likely that the work could fall under "official duties"
> if they were blessed by the appropriate team(s), which is a likely outcome
> of this discusison.
>>> There are other considerations as well that I'm not sure if we've addressed
>>> before.
>>> 1) Should we require that the images only point to Debian repos, and/or
>>> official
>>>     mirrors? If not, what are the requirements here?
>> That idea is complete nonsense.  a) We have several layers of checksums and
>> cryptographical signatures on the Debian archive and apt requiring the correct
>> archive signing keys, so apt would start to complain immediately. What we could
>> do as requirement is that every vendor needs to list all imported keys from
>> "apt-key list" in the published build log of the image.  b) In most cases
>> vendors offering Debian run mirrors internally, which are available with much
>> better connection than our official ones. Those can be verified by apt (see
>> (a)). Cloud vendors usually bill for external traffic, sometimes only one
>> direction, sometimes both. So your idea would result in our users needing to
>> pay even more money to the cloud vendors. While the cloud vendors might support
>> your idea, I personaly (without any hat on) think it is a very bad idea.
> To be clear I am NOT proposing that a Debian mirror can't exist within
> a public cloud.
> Perhaps I have a misunderstanding of how official mirrors work, (Or even may be
> mistaken in my believe that there are such things as "official mirrors"?)
> My view would be that images should point to "official repos/mirrors",
> and if an image building team wanted to point to different repos, they
> would get the blessing of the team responsible for overseeing our mirror
> network. (DSA?).
> IE: Why can't these mirrors become "official mirrors", for use with a
> specific public cloud, if they follow Debian's rules, and don't have
> random arbitrary packages in them?
>>> 2) Require public review of images/plans (where? I think debian-cloud
>>>     and debian-cd are the right places, but there may be others)
>> I like the idea in general. Will we be able to support the review process for
>> all different vendors? Will we be able to verify images / review images for
>> cloud systems that are not that widely used as Azure, AWS, GCE or Openstack?
> I don't think there is a formal process, but there has been countless
> discussions shaping decisions made for AWS and GCE on the debian-cloud
> mailing lists. I know the AWS images are announced to the list, and
> peer reviewed.
> I can also say with certainty that both AWS and GCE went through an
> initial public vetting on list. As for vetting images for unpopular systems,
> I don't know the answer, but I think we can cross that bridge when we
> come to it.
> Cheers,
> Brian
>>> 4) Documentation? Is it enough to just put it in wiki.d.o, in the cloud
>>> section?
>> started on https://wiki.debian.org/MicrosoftAzure.
>>> Other questions:
>>> 1) bootstrap-vz is used to build the AWS and GCE images. bootstrap-vz has
>>> also had support for Azure for at least two years. Is there a reason the
>>> same tool wasn't used?
>> The answer to this is quite simple: At the time we started to create images for
>> Azure, bootstrap-vz was not in shape for generating Azure images that worked.
>> For the demonstration purpose during DebConf15 we needed an image and Thomas
>> openstack-debian-images script generated an image that was more or less out of
>> the box usable for Azure. So we continued to use that script. Long term we plan
>> to support both scripts.
>> Best regards,
>> Martin
>> --
>> Martin Zobel-Helas
>> Technischer Leiter Betrieb
>> Tel.:   +49 (2161) 4643-0
>> Fax:    +49 (2161) 4643-100
>> E-Mail: martin.zobel-helas@credativ.de
>> pgp fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D  BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B
>> http://www.credativ.de
>> credativ GmbH, HRB Mönchengladbach 12080
>> USt-ID-Nummer: DE204566209
>> Hohenzollernstr. 133, 41061 Mönchengladbach
>> Geschäftsführung: Dr. Michael Meskes, Jörg Folz, Sascha Heuer

Reply to: