Re: FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit
Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> writes:
> On 04/17/2013 02:49 PM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> I think it does: I might be interested in running less trusted code in
>> KVM, since it provides more isolation, and more trusted code in lxc,
>> which provides less isolation, so running both lxc and kvm at the same
>> time certainly makes a ton of sense to me.
> You guys are writing this as if it was impossible to switch from one
> hypervisor to another. Yet this is simply not the case.
I don't think you understood what Tollef said. He's not talking about
switching from one to another. He's talking about running both at the
same time. Other people have commented similarly.
> If we consider that I'm requesting 5 more binary packages, and that we
> have 30 000 packages in Debian, we are talking about 0.016% more binary
> packages in Debian. I can't believe that only for 0.016% more binaries
> is so unbearable for the archive.
I addressed this point in a previous message. Briefly, this is one of
those fuzzy creeping problems. Each individual case looks reasonable in
isolation, but the cumulative impact can be significant, so ftp-master is
in the unenviable position of having to apply a general policy that makes
each individual packager unhappy. (And which prompts arguments that
*their* individual package won't cause an *immediate* problem, which have
indeed predictably been raised in every discussion I've seen of this
particular problem.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: