7:54 a.m.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org>
To: "Fedora community advisory board"
<advisory-board(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:03:09 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal: Revision of policy surrounding 3rd party and non-free software
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Christian Schaller <cschalle(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> The thinking is simply that we can solve this and we can solve it in a way
> that isn't detrimental to the user experience of Fedora users.
>
> It is already likely there will be some changes in the Fedora kernel policy
> due to the Cloud WG wanting a different kernel, so as part of the process
> going forward there will be negotiations between the different WGs and
> with the Fedora kernel team to figure out what the different needs are,
> what is viable within the constraints of the resources we have, what are
> the possibilities and challenges each available solution bring.
Just a note, the kernel efforts around the Cloud product thus far have
mostly be in terms of packaging, not a _different_ kernel. Mostly
splitting it up into kernel-core and kernel-drivers, etc. That
doesn't change policy. It has also been discussed on the kernel and
cloud lists, as well as in the cloud meetings, just so that people
don't think we're off making changes without discussion.
Along these lines (and a GIANT ADVERTISEMENT to those of you who don't follow the
advisory-board list that that is srs discussion going on, heh) -
I know we talked last week about the inclusion of OVS-related kernel things in the Cloud
image and it was debated whether or not it was needed. (This was mostly me pondering aloud
and not being super-sure, and less of a debate, I suppose. :D)
My investigation into this - which admittedly consisted of mentioning it to my significant
other (who is on this list, and does OpenStack things) over dinner a few nights ago -
resulted in the following:
* You guys were right, it's really only needed on the host
* Unless you are doing something along the lines of Triple-O (OpenStack-on-OpenStack,
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO) - where you have OpenStack running in the
traditional way, and then one or more OpenStack(s) running on *top* of that
infrastructure, in which case you'd be doing nested virtualization, and then the
additional OpenStacks running on top of the primary OpenStack would need OVS in the
kernel.
So I'm not really sure how in the heck we'd want to handle that, or what we'd
recommend for those "secondary" OpenStacks - the Cloud or Server product - I am
sure some folks on this list have opinions being more in tune with that particular
OpenStack project than I am.
The third "investigatory point" - which I'm sure most of you guys know
anyway - is that including it in the kernel is not really something that is significant in
terms of size. But I know we are trying to get down to as small of a footprint as
possible. I also don't know if it presents an additional point of failure (could OVS
go haywire and break the kernel if it's not being utilized, but just present? more
technical things I am not sure about) - but if it does I am sure that might be something
to consider.
mestery, cdub, anyone else... if there are other thoughts (or, uh, corrections) you folks
have - they are (as always) welcomed :D
-robyn
ps. If you guys already figured all of this out and I'm just blind... ignore me :D
josh
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board