I assume you are referring to Mitch Garnatt here, who I contacted
independently a few days ago.  ;-)  The notion of "only one package" is
a bad idea for binaries since different distributions have different
conventions and software versions.  Having one spec file that supports

note also that since Eucaluptus isn't a monolythic, single-system tool for managing clouds...it makes no sense to install absolutely everything, when most systems will only need a subset of the tools.  You already mentioned that some of these things are being broken out, but just reiterating why "only one package" is far from ideal.
have packages included in distributions' package repositories.  This
would render upstream-provided spec files and packages meaningless.  For

If Eucalyptus is instead the upstream provider /and/ the package maintainer, then the spec file is useful again.  So if Eucalyptus is wanting to do that (be the official Fedora package maintainer) then the wouldn't really need to stop spec development ;)
> How do you think we should proceed for Eucalyptus? Is it possible to have
> a 'mentor' to help us get Eucalyptus into Fedora?

I would first work on breaking the dependencies into separate packages
and make sure it is possible to build Eucalyptus in its entirety from
source without the need for JAR files.  I personally don't have much

If Eucalyptus is themselves willing to do it, you all might make the most sense as package maintainers.  I would think that would be the ideal hope of Fedora, ultimately; you all know the product the best, after all.  However, note that without certain things that you all don't seem to have tackled yet, note that even if you get Eucalyptus in as a package and all cleaned up there are many people who still couldn't use it.  I, for example, have to have SELinux.  I can create my own policies for it, but I'm *much* happier with policies that sit in the testing repos before live, and are hopefully tested a bit ;)

Brian LaMere