❦ 1 avril 2016 00:13 +0200, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> : >> See Riku's talk at DebConf Heidelberg - there are many tools and >> it would be generally better for customized tools to give way to >> generalist tools which can use wrappers or enhancements to provide the >> remaining functionality. > > I don't agree. Better for what? Specialized tools do what they do well. > Generalist tools are over-engineered. To the contrary, > openstack-debian-images is composed of a unique, very small shell > script, easy to hack. There are many choices that are quite discutable in those images. Notably, the choice of extlinux without any proper integration. This is a pain to get another kernel or just to change a few boot parameters. An official Debian image should use grub2. As far as I understand, the choice of extlinux is because it's easier to install. Other tools are able to use grub2. I just noticed that it is using ext3 instead of ext4 too (just opened a bug about this). I am happy to have those images instead of nothing but it doesn't seem to be the state of the art of what a Debian cloud image is. Of course, this has nothing to do with its size. > And by the way, if we were to use a generalist tools, I'd certainly vote > for diskimage-builder, which really, does a lot (really a lot) and is > really modular. If there's one tool to work on so it becomes *the* > generalist solution, then it's that one. Didn't know about this one. It seems nice and flexible if you need to handle different distributions. However, "generalist tools are over-engineered". It would be simpler to use a Debian-only tool for Debian images. -- Water, taken in moderation cannot hurt anybody. -- Mark Twain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature