Re: Straw poll - cloud-init in base AMIs (was Re: cloud-init_0.7.1-3~bpo70+1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into wheezy-backports, wheezy-backports)
On 04.05.13 10:31, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sat, May 04, 2013 at 02:20:26PM +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
I'd like to poll the audience if I may about if we should pull
wheezy-backports into the sources.list of the EC2 AMIs, and/or if should
pull in cloud-init from backports for today/tomorrows base AMI builds?
Many may feel passionately that a base AMI should be only including
packages from main and not from backports - but counter to this is that
this is not a general purpose image but specific for EC2?
I'm definitely in the first camp: adding backports by default is a big
depart from "regular" (i.e. non cloud) Debian images that we shouldn't
do lightly. Generally speaking, I've no preclusion to having
differences in the cloud images wrt regular Debian, but they should be
justified with cloud-specific, or EC-2 specific in this case, needs. I
hardly see why EC2 would need backports whereas regular Debian images
don't. (Maybe they *both* need backports enabled by default, but then
the change should be discussed more broadly and pushed everywhere.)
I full agree. There shouldn't be such fundamental differences between
standard debian installs and EC2 (or other cloud) images.
The build-debian-cloud script already installs some init scripts in
the generated images that do the same thing as far as I can tell, that
the cloud-init package would do. Is this correct ?