Re: Eucalyptus Cloud infrastructure and kernels/initrds
On 29/05/10 at 01:13 +0200, Steffen Möller wrote:
> The bottleneck for the selection of Debian as a cloud
> OS (at least for the AWS clouds) is the offering of
> some certified kernel and root images, from which one
> then jumps into "the rest" of Squeeze. Amazon restricts
> that, with Eucalyptus there is no such restriction,
> in principle. But every cloud provider will need to
> do just a bit of work to get the latest Debian release
> into an EMI that could then be run.
Why do we need to ship official images, instead of simply shipping tools
enabling to build images, such as VMBuilder
(http://wiki.debian.org/VMBuilder)? We even had a GSoc about this tool
in 2009...
I think that enabling users to build their own customized images is more
in the spirit of doing things the Debian way, and also has the advantage
of not adding more work for any core debian team.
And of course it's also possible to provide unofficial images.
> Upstream is very open towards Debian, actually an
> official partnership is considered by both sides,
> all postponed a bit until the situation at Eucalyptus
> becomes less stressful again.
What does "official partnership" mean? How will it be binding for
Debian?
> We have Daniel already accepted as a DM, Chris and Kyo are expected to
> come, too. I expect Chris and Daniel to be the ones to be working the
> closest with you on a technical level while for organisatorial bits
> there may also be Shashi.
I'm not sure I understand why it is so important to have upstream
developers involved directly with Debian, instead of using a DD (you) as
a proxy, as we do with 99.9% of our packages. Are we going to add all
our upstreams as DM? It seems to me that getting upstreams directly in
touch with core teams might result in a big loss of time on both sides
due to upstreams' lack of Debian knowledge.
> I hope you share the joys of Eucalyptus' advent in Debian as much as
> we do.
I must admit I don't really care, but I'm happy of you are happy. ;)
Lucas
Reply to: