https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
What else??
On 08/22/2011 11:52 AM, David Nalley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
pacemaker-cloud
What else?? _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:52:10 -0400 David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
What else??
hail and tabled.
-- Pete
On 08/22/2011 02:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottinghamnotting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
What else?? _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
aeolus-all aeolus-conductor aeolus-configure rubygem-aeolus-image rubygem-imagefactory-console imagefactory iwhd deltacloud-core libdeltacloud python-cloudservers rubygem-amazon-ec2 rubygem-aws
-Mo
On 08/23/2011 01:19 PM, Mo Morsi wrote:
On 08/22/2011 02:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottinghamnotting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
What else?? _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
aeolus-all aeolus-conductor aeolus-configure rubygem-aeolus-image rubygem-imagefactory-console imagefactory iwhd deltacloud-core libdeltacloud python-cloudservers rubygem-amazon-ec2 rubygem-aws
-Mo
So while I have nothing else to contribute to this thread as far as package names - I just want to note that a sizeable chunk of what we listed wasn't in Fedora at *all* a year ago.
Nice work, folks. :) We've come a long way!
Let me ask this question, though: I know that we have folks working on packaging at least the following (and their dependencies), and I'm hoping they'll be more done-ish in the next few weeks/months/before F17 is out the door: * opennebula * openstack * cloudstack
What's the protocol for getting these added to the master list when they are finished? Does someone need to own that, or do we just harass notting when it's time, or... ?
-Robyn
cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
Peter
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
I tend to agree, the spread is so wide, and includes everything from HA stuff for the cloud to multiple distributed filesystems, to IaaS platforms..... short of us defining cloud rather restrictively, I think this needs to be all optional.
Quick question, I seem to remember there was a review request for python-cloudservers that was semi-abandoned, did I miss when it got packaged? It certainly is not in fedora 15 last time I checked. On Aug 23, 2011 2:30 PM, "David Nalley" david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com
wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
I tend to agree, the spread is so wide, and includes everything from HA stuff for the cloud to multiple distributed filesystems, to IaaS platforms..... short of us defining cloud rather restrictively, I think this needs to be all optional. _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Jorge Gallegos kad@blegh.net wrote:
Quick question, I seem to remember there was a review request for python-cloudservers that was semi-abandoned, did I miss when it got packaged? It certainly is not in fedora 15 last time I checked.
Only packaged for F-16 and later http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python-cloudservers.git
On 08/23/11 - 11:51:19PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Jorge Gallegos kad@blegh.net wrote:
Quick question, I seem to remember there was a review request for python-cloudservers that was semi-abandoned, did I miss when it got packaged? It certainly is not in fedora 15 last time I checked.
Only packaged for F-16 and later http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python-cloudservers.git
Right. I have no fundamental objection to putting it into F-15 if people want, I just had no need for it.
On 2011-08-23 14:25, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogensmooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalleydavid@gnsa.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottinghamnotting@redhat.com wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks, Bill
While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about comps-f17.xml.in?
If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
eucatools aeolus deltacloud sheepdog ceph glusterfs hekafs boxgrinder
I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional and required...
I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
+1; marking them all as optional would be enough to get them into the appropriate menus without adding irrelevant packages to installs. (Basically what everyone else has already written)
In the interest of preventing a mis-typed package name in the yum group, note that the Eucalyptus/EC2 CLI tools are called "euca2ools", not "eucatools". Upstream seems to enjoy word-play. ;)
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks for the suggestions - the initial group has been added in comps for Fedora 17. Feel free to update it.
Bill
On 08/30/2011 11:43 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks for the suggestions - the initial group has been added in comps for Fedora 17. Feel free to update it.
Mark or Matt - we'll probably want to update this with all the new openstack stuff that has been packaged over the past few days, I don't know that any of that stuff made it into this thread.
Can one of you double-check? :)
-Robyn
Bill _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 01:49:22PM -0500, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On 08/30/2011 11:43 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks for the suggestions - the initial group has been added in comps for Fedora 17. Feel free to update it.
Mark or Matt - we'll probably want to update this with all the new openstack stuff that has been packaged over the past few days, I don't know that any of that stuff made it into this thread.
Can one of you double-check? :)
openstack-glance and -swift were in there. I'll add -nova and python-novaclient.
On Aug 30, 2011 12:33 PM, "Matt Domsch" Matt_Domsch@dell.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 01:49:22PM -0500, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On 08/30/2011 11:43 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com) said:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks for the suggestions - the initial group has been added in comps for Fedora 17. Feel free to update it.
Mark or Matt - we'll probably want to update this with all the new openstack stuff that has been packaged over the past few days, I don't know that any of that stuff made it into this thread.
Can one of you double-check? :)
openstack-glance and -swift were in there. I'll add -nova and python-novaclient.
Do we now also have keystone?
Also - thoughts on cloud-init?
Bringing back threads from the dead, -Robyn
-- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
On 2011-10-16 13:21, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 01:49:22PM -0500, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
Bill Nottingham (notting@redhat.com mailto:notting@redhat.com)
said:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for
their
package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure' or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
Thanks for the suggestions - the initial group has been added in comps for Fedora 17. Feel free to update it.
Also - thoughts on cloud-init?
Cloud-init is for VM images, not cloud infrastructure. You usually need to have a very specific reason to want it on a system. Then again I have no idea what group, if any, would be most appropriate for it.
-- Garrett "Just my two cents" Holmstrom
-
Bill Nottingham -
Chris Lalancette -
David Nalley -
Garrett Holmstrom -
Jorge Gallegos -
Matt Domsch -
Mo Morsi -
Pete Zaitcev -
Peter Robinson -
Robyn Bergeron -
Robyn Bergeron -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Steven Dake