Hi Zack,Currently even the EC2 part of Amazon's build script pulls a specific version of euca2ools from Eucalyptus's github site during the build process. It also pulls a boto patch from Red Hat's bugzilla and applies it. While none of this bothers me from a freeness perspective, it doesn't meet Lucas's criterion (A) (about all software coming from Debian). I'm not trying to make value judgments based on semantics here - clearly everyone's goal is for all of the images, tools, and _if_ appropriate the official criteria, to evolve toward happy harmony in the end.Discussing this in an extended fashion as a tangent within a tangent of the original thread topic is probably the wrong place for it, though. :) I'm happy to report that I'll be attending DebConf13, and a non-DD colleague or two from this effort at Google will be joining me. That seems like the ideal place to get started on comprehensive progress bridging all the relevant gaps.- JimmyOn Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <email@example.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 11:10:25AM -0400, Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:Uh? Can you expand on why you think it is the case? AFAICT the EC2
> even though most or all of Debian's public cloud images don't yet
> count as official by Lucas's definition
images should qualify as official images, ditto for the Azure ones
(although I'm less on top of their build process so I might be missing
Either way, if we have criteria, it would be useful to go through them
as a sort of checklist and see who's in and who's out.
FWIW, I've clarified with Lucas point (C) on IRC, arriving at a slightly
C) the image generation tools are maintained inside Debian and/or by a
Debian team, using usual Debian recommended practices
My objective, IMHO satisfied by the above criterion, was to make it
clear that Anders' script totally qualifies.