Re: Re: Official Debian image request: Google Compute Engine (was: Re: Please let's not talk about "clouds")
That seems a reasonable strategy, then we don't even need to manage
our special repository to host them. I like it. I'll file an ACL
ticket.
-david
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 5:27 AM, "Steffen Möller"
<steffen_moeller@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> For extra software Google aims at rendering publicly available for its cloud
> environments:
> if your image would allow to feature packages from backports.debian.org,
> then this should
> be a fairly safe bet. I personally would go as far as to say that anything
> shipping with
> unstable should be allowed to create your images, which may be where the
> initial
> setup of "rudimentary acconts" I would expect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steffen
>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 24. April 2013 um 17:41 Uhr
> Von: "David McWherter" <cache@google.com>
> An: "Lucas Nussbaum" <leader@debian.org>
> Cc: "Jimmy Kaplowitz" <jkaplowitz@google.com>, debian-cloud
> <debian-cloud@lists.debian.org>
> Betreff: Re: Official Debian image request: Google Compute Engine (was: Re:
> Please let's not talk about "clouds")
> Hi Lucas, I'm David, from the Google Compute team.
>
> Looking at your list of requirements, I generally like them.
>
> The main concern is that some features of Google Compute are available
> only with the installation of additional software inside the VM, and
> some software we put in our images simply make users' lives easier
> (rudimentary accounts and ssh key management, for instance).
>
> To be honest, if Debian wants to include this software in Debian in
> some way, shape, or form, we'd be *VERY HAPPY*. The only "problem" we
> see is that we iterate quite quickly (release once every month or
> two), and it's unclear how to make that fit in the Debian release
> process.
>
> -david
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <leader@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 24/04/13 at 01:50 -0700, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
>>> [+David - please correct me if I get any details wrong in this email.]
>>>
>>> Hi Lucas,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Lucas Nussbaum <leader@debian.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Right. Note, however, that this is not very different from HP shipping
>>> > a
>>> > server with "Debian" pre-installed. So ideally, we would have a policy
>>> > that addresses both cases.
>>> >
>>> > Does it sound doable that the requester would provide a script or
>>> > another complete description (e.g. Puppet/Chef) of the customizations
>>> > made from a standard Debian installation (either using d-i or
>>> > debootstrap)?
>>>
>>> Let's try this out now. :) As you can tell from my other recent posts
>>> here, Google would like to collaborate with Debian to provide official
>>> Debian images in the Google Compute Engine cloud. Please let us know
>>> if Debian is okay with us doing the plan I describe in this email as
>>> an official Debian image, of course always open to feedback from
>>> Debian and adjustments as appropriate. If the request needs to go
>>> somewhere else, please redirect appropriately.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> First, Nothing below is a definitive answer, either positive or negative.
>> As you know, we don't have clear guidelines/policies for that question.
>> I'm trying to get a better understanding first, and I'm open to changing
>> my mind. :)
>>
>> There are two different questions in your email, even if it's not
>> explicitely stated: naming that image "Debian image", and naming that
>> image "official Debian image".
>>
>> Given the amount of customization you describe, my current feeling is
>> that naming that image "Debian image" should be approved, and even more
>> after you switch to using a Debian-provided kernel.
>>
>> Now, "official Debian image". I don't think that for EC2, "official" has
>> been explicitely defined. It could mean "generated and provided by
>> Debian", "recognized by Debian as being 'pure'", but also "part of the
>> list of default images on GCE" (that would be "official" from the GCE
>> POV, not from the Debian POV).
>>
>> Could you clarify what you are aiming for?
>>
>> For "official Debian images", I think that the list of requirements
>> should include at least:
>> A) the image includes only software available in Debian
>> B) the image generation process is controlled solely by Debian
>> C) the image is generated using tools available in Debian, or maintained
>> by Debian
>> Based on that, I don't think that we can approve naming those images
>> "official Debian images".
>>
>> Lucas
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cloud-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive:
> [🔎] CAG0yJ4JAdqE2tVbGyzipezJ4Lbw9V7=8Y2ZxM5_wWD9oeopX+w@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CAG0yJ4JAdqE2tVbGyzipezJ4Lbw9V7=8Y2ZxM5_wWD9oeopX+w@mail.gmail.com
>
Reply to: