Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

To trow into the mix clear Linux reimplemented minimal cloud-init in C. See https://github.com/clearlinux/clr-cloud-init /Rickard von Essen On Oct 29, 2015 2:47 PM, "Subhendu Ghosh" wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2015 9:30 AM, "Josh Boyer" wrote: > >

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2015 10:36, "Joe Brockmeier" wrote: >> >> On 11/03/2015 11:24 AM, Adam Miller wrote: >> > I've been a fan of testcloud for this use case because I'm of the >> > opinion that vagrant is

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

> > Because we can not even guess what all use cases people have while using a > cloud instance? I'd say we have the same process with Server. Most people take a minimal server image and deploy required applications with their own tooling. There are some opinions (roles) that exist to do some

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On 03/11/15, Matt Micene wrote: > I think this highlights the problem we're currently seeing with the Fedora > Cloud Base adoption > > On 10/28/2015 07:42 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > Actually, I don't think that's true. Take a look at "fr1st p0st": > > > > > >

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:30:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >> > > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > >> The *could* be the same thing, >> > >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

> > However another important point to make here is that "run a cloud image > locally > in libvirt on a workstation" is basically the use case for Vagrant - it does > things > like detecting the IP address so you can `vagrant ssh` etc. +1000 I'm trying to reproduce an issue in a

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

- Original Message - > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <j...@redhat.com> > To: "Fedora Cloud SIG" <cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org>, > ser...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:43:27 AM > Subject: [DISCUSS] Clou

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Nov 3, 2015 10:36, "Joe Brockmeier" wrote: > > On 11/03/2015 11:24 AM, Adam Miller wrote: > > I've been a fan of testcloud for this use case because I'm of the > > opinion that vagrant is overkill when all I want to do is boot a cloud > > image and ssh in. > > I've lost track,

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

I think this highlights the problem we're currently seeing with the Fedora Cloud Base adoption On 10/28/2015 07:42 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Actually, I don't think that's true. Take a look at "fr1st p0st": > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2010-January/01.html

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 04:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> Is that the same as this procedure [1]? Or else can you point at the details? >> >> [1] http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2014/10/getting-started-with-cloud-init/

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015, at 04:28 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > Is that the same as this procedure [1]? Or else can you point at the details? > > [1] http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2014/10/getting-started-with-cloud-init/ Yes. When I want to test the cloud image I often use:

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On 11/03/2015 11:24 AM, Adam Miller wrote: > I've been a fan of testcloud for this use case because I'm of the > opinion that vagrant is overkill when all I want to do is boot a cloud > image and ssh in. I've lost track, have we packaged that for F23? I would love to recommend it. Best, jzb --

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 11/03/2015 11:24 AM, Adam Miller wrote: >> I've been a fan of testcloud for this use case because I'm of the >> opinion that vagrant is overkill when all I want to do is boot a cloud >> image and ssh in. > > I've lost

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:30:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> The *could* be the same thing, > >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single > >>

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:30:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > >> The *could* be the same thing,

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The *could* be the same thing, >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single >> offering we had for some kind of C WG I would cry. I hate it >>

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:30 AM, "Josh Boyer" wrote: >>> thinking... :) >>> >>> > Also, one of the CentOS GSoC projects was "Flamingo" "a lightweight >>> > contextualization tool that aims to handle initialization of cloud >>> > instances." [1] Maybe this is something we

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:20:36AM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> CoreOS has built cloud-config as a Go implementation of cloud-init to get > >> around the python problem. > > Did they tell anyone they were doing that? I'm curious if we have two > > groups that could be working together here

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:20:36AM +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> CoreOS has built cloud-config as a Go implementation of cloud-init to get >> >> around the python problem. >> > Did they tell anyone they were

Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > The *could* be the same thing, > except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single > offering we had for some kind of C WG I would cry. I hate it > because it is ridiculous to use in a non-cloud environment, and Server > very much

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Oct 29, 2015 9:30 AM, "Josh Boyer" wrote: > thinking... :) > > > Also, one of the CentOS GSoC projects was "Flamingo" "a lightweight > > contextualization tool that aims to handle initialization of cloud > > instances." [1] Maybe this is something we could look at

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The *could* be the same thing, >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single >> offering we had for some kind of C WG I would cry. I hate it >>

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On 10/29/2015 09:33 AM, Michael McGrath wrote: > If you hate cloud-init, then you'll love rich boot. Which is > essentially a handoff at boot time from cloud-init to Ansible for > further configuration. What's the state of this at the moment? -- Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Michael McGrath wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The *could*

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On 10/29/2015 09:50 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > Did they tell anyone they were doing that? I'm curious if we have two > groups that could be working together here that are now duplicating > effort simply because of lack of communication. C'mon Josh. That *never* happens. Best, jzb -- Joe

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/29/2015 09:33 AM, Michael McGrath wrote: >> If you hate cloud-init, then you'll love rich boot. Which is >> essentially a handoff at boot time from cloud-init to Ansible for >> further configuration. > > What's the

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/29/2015 09:50 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Did they tell anyone they were doing that? I'm curious if we have two >> groups that could be working together here that are now duplicating >> effort simply because of lack of

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > Hi all, > > During today's Cloud Working Group meeting we had a short but spirited > discussion on the roles of the Cloud and Server Working Group and the > editions we're producing. > > I wanted to open a discussion on

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On 10/28/2015 03:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > Could you provide a bit more context without necessarily offering your > suggestions? It's somewhat hard to discuss this without it going > everywhere without some kind of background into the overlaps or > disparities that you see. I can try to give

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/28/2015 03:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Could you provide a bit more context without necessarily offering your >> suggestions? It's somewhat hard to discuss this without it going >> everywhere without some kind of