While we're in full bug-triaging mode for Aeolus , I've spent time on
my own on improving Snap (the system snapshotter for Linux/Windows/Mac
OSX which can be used to perform cross-cloud and cross-os migrations).
Just figure I'd share some updates.
- incorporated full test harness
- many documentation improvements / fixes
- many code cleanups / optimizations
- starting adding ability to migrate snapshots between OS's (for example
Ubuntu to Fedora and vice-versa)
- pushed snap into Fedora! (simply install via 'yum install snap' on
Fedora15+ and RHEL6, should be pushed into Debian / Ubuntu soon)
See the commit log  for full details. Stay tuned for more updates!
There were some questions re ruby 1.9 in Fedora at Friday's cloud-sig
meeting. You can find the answers attached below.
> Hey Vit, a couple questions came up RE: Ruby 1.9.3 at today's
> cloud-sig meeting
> - what changes to packaging guidelines if any will ruby 1.9.3 entail
There will be definitely new packaging guidelines. I hope we will be
able to prepare the guidelines draft before end of the week. Some of the
changes that we are planing are:
* New ruby(abi) constant version
* ruby-devel newly provides some RPM macros, typically used by non-gem
* rubygems-devel package now provides macros required by gem install
(instead of querying ruby each time)
* New location for RubyGems and their binary extensions
* Deprecation of ruby- subpackages
* Encourage execution of test suite, however discourage of using Rake
for such purpose
> - what fedora version are you targeting this for and are you going to
> file a feature?
We are targeting Fedora 17. I have already prepared the draft of feature
proposal  and I'd like to submit it to FESCo aproval before Christmas.
> - to what extent will rubygems need repackaging/rebuilding/mass
> rebuilding? how to best go about proceeding w/ that
We have already tested to rebuild all ruby packages we were able to
found (327 in total) and for most of them, we have already prepared
patches. We were not able to rebuild 14 of them yet (but we'll try to
reduce this number further). Nevertheless, these packages are typically
un-maintained for longer period of time.
> From: Steven Dake <sdake(a)redhat.com>
> Note until your in the packaging group, only proven packagers can review
> your packages. (ie: David, there are others).
Just a small clarification:
* Any packager (i.e., any member of the packager group:
(officially) review the packages of anyone, including of the
not-yet-packagers. However, only the sponsors (i.e., sponsor members of the
same packager group:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/packager) can approve
the packages of the not-yet-packagers.
* Even the proven packagers (i.e., members of the advanced-packager group:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/provenpackager) can not
approve the first packages of the not-yet-packagers. Again, only sponsors
can do that. Proven packagers can commit into the Fedora package Git
repository, for any package. Where as ordinary packagers can commit into
that Git repository only for the packages they own.
Deck the halls with Cloud SIG meetings,
Fa-la-la-la-la, la la, la la
'Tis the season to be Cloudy,
Fa-la-la-la-la, la la, la la
Don we now our cloudy features,
Fa-la-la, fa-la-la, LA LA LA
Troll the ancient Cloud SIG leader,
Fa-la-la-la-la, LA, LA, LA,
Yes, so many things to do at the Cloud SIG meeting today. See you there. :)
When: 1900 UTC (2pm US Eastern, 11am US Pacific)
Where: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:37:17 -0500 (EST)
> From: Oved Ourfalli <ovedo(a)redhat.com>
> We didn't submit anything yet. We are just in the beginning of the process.
> All we have for now is the oVirt wiki page.
> We are happy to have you as our sponsor.
> Steven - we'll be also happy to have you as a reviewer to our packages as
> We'll keep you all posted to changes in the wiki, and new submission of
> spec files for the different packages.
> Thank you,
I'd be happy to be in copy of the review requests as well. I am not a
sponsor, but I can do formal reviews (I just cannot approve a package for a