Syed, I did a bunch of work on XenServer with Packer [1] before leaving Citrix. My stuff works rather well and was tested with XS 6.2, 6.5 and 7. It shouldn't be hard to validate with newest XS and updated Packer - I just lack the infra to do the testing.
[1] https://github.com/xenserverarmy/packer -tim On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Syed Ahmed <sah...@cloudops.com> wrote: > -1 on Arch as well. Moving to Debian 9 seems the wiser choice IMO. I've > used Packer before and I really like it, the only downside that I see is > that Packer lacks support for XenServer VHD images. There is some work on a > XenServer plugin but I haven't tested that. If the community decides to use > Packer, I can do some initial validation of it on XenServer. > > Thanks, > -Syed > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > wrote: > > > > > > Op 24 juli 2017 om 19:07 schreef Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net>: > > > > > > > > > Hi Rohit > > > > > > > > > On 07/23/2017 06:08 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote: > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > Just want to kick an initial discussion around migration to Debian9 > > based systemvmtemplate, and get your feedback on the same. > > > > > > > > Here's a work-in-progress PR: https://github.com/apache/ > > cloudstack/pull/2198 > > > > > > Have you considered to replace veewee by packer? > > > > > > > Packer is really nice indeed. We use it to build our templates [0] which > > we use on CloudStack. > > > > Building the SSVM using Packer should be rather easy I think. > > > > [0]: https://github.com/pcextreme/packer-templates > > > > > Our friends from schubergphilis have already done some work here > > > https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/systemvm-packer. > > > > > > However there would be also an official way to convert the definitions > > > https://www.packer.io/guides/veewee-to-packer.html > > > > > > Regards René > > >
