Cloud infrastructure package group

[Bill Nottingham]

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

[David Nalley]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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??

[Steven Dake]

On 08/22/2011 11:52 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Pete Zaitcev]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:52:10 -0400
David Nalley  wrote:
> eucatools
> aeolus
> deltacloud
> sheepdog
> ceph
> glusterfs
> hekafs
> boxgrinder
>
> What else??

hail and tabled.

-- Pete

[Mo Morsi]

On 08/22/2011 02:52 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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
> [e-mail]
> 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

[Robyn Bergeron]

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 Nottingham   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
> > [e-mail]
> > 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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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...

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley  wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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

[David Nalley]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley  wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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.

[Jorge Gallegos]

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"  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson

wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen

wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley  wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham

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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Jorge Gallegos  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

[Chris Lalancette]

On 08/23/11 - 11:51:19PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Jorge Gallegos  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.

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 2011-08-23 14:25, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley  wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham  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]

Bill Nottingham ([e-mail]) 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

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 08/30/2011 11:43 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Bill Nottingham ([e-mail]) 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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Matt Domsch]

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 ([e-mail]) 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.

[Robyn Bergeron]

On Aug 30, 2011 12:33 PM, "Matt Domsch"  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 ([e-mail]) 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
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 2011-10-16 13:21, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 01:49:22PM -0500, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > > > Bill Nottingham ([e-mail] )
>
> 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