[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Openstack Compute nova, Cactus release, Squeeze built available in our private repo

On 04/16/2011 01:32 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 16/04/11 at 10:43 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> Hi,
>> This is a short email to let everyone know about the current status of
>> the package.
>> Cactus, the first serious release of Openstack Compute - nova, has been
>> released yesterday. I have done loads of patches to have the package to
>> fit in Debian, comply with the policy, and be lintian clean. The
>> resulting packages are available here:
>> deb http://ftparchive.gplhost.com/debian openstack main
>> deb-src http://ftparchive.gplhost.com/debian openstack main
>> The only clean packages currently are the one from Nova. The rest of are
>> hacked (build) dependencies to be able to work with it, but I didn't
>> have time to look deeper in it so that they would be in acceptable shape
>> for Debian.
> Hi Thomas,
> Your source package points to:
> Vcs-Bzr: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~openstack-ubuntu-packagers/ubuntu/natty/nova/ubuntu/

That's not mine, that's the one of Ubuntu guys, I just didn't change it
yet. I hope it will still be the same though.

You can pull my branch from here:

My package is lintian clean (the Ubuntu package, really, is not), but
there are still issues in my Debian packaging, like nova-instancemonitor
not starting (I think I have to review the init.d script again for that
one). But generally, it does work quite well, instances start within
less than 10 seconds on my test server.

There's going to be more work needed for packaging both Swift and
Glance, these aren't ready at all yet.

> What the state of collaboration with the upstream packagers?

Replied more extensively privately to that one. But in short: my patches
were not pulled, and I hope to get more feedback and reactivity from
upstream packagers in the future. It hasn't been great so far, most
probably due to the fact they were busy doing the Cactus release.


Reply to: