Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora

[graziano obertelli]

Hello,

I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1] we
are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora
image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we
are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.

Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other
Eucalyptus related question.

cheers,
graziano

[1] http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available

[Matt Domsch]

Will you be submitting your packages into the standard Fedora package collection, as you have with Ubuntu?

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano obertelli
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 PM
To: Fedora Cloud SIG
Subject: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora

Hello,

I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1] we are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.

Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other Eucalyptus related question.

cheers,
graziano

[1] http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available

--
Graziano Obertelli
Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
[e-mail]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[graziano obertelli]

Of course we would love to do so. My understanding is that out packages
won't be included as they are, since we package a lot of our dependencies
into them and we don't have the expertise or capabilities to package and
maintain all the dependencies.

If I'm mistaken, and such pacakges  are allowed. please let me know and
we'll readily start the process.

cheers,
graziano

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30:08AM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> Will you be submitting your packages into the standard Fedora package collection, as you have with Ubuntu?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> --
> Matt Domsch
> Technology Strategist
> Dell | Office of the CTO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano obertelli
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 PM
> To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> Subject: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
>
> Hello,
>
> I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1] we are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.
>
> Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other Eucalyptus related question.
>
> cheers,
> graziano
>
> [1] http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available
>
> --
> Graziano Obertelli
> Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Matt Domsch]

You are correct, packaging guidelines would prohibit bundling in libraries.  But with over 9000 packages in the repositories, developers and packagers have found that it's not (in general) that hard a bar to get over.  At a quick glance:

Euca2ools:

You package in python-boto, which is already in Fedora.  It should be trivial to stop bundling this, and simply RPM requires: it.
Your package has a requirement on m2crypto, which is already in Fedora, so that's easy.

Eucalyptus:
You bundle in axis2c and rampartc, and neither are in Fedora, but you package them separately so it's quite possible they could be included in Fedora directly.
Eucalyptus-common-java has a bunch of JARs, most of which you shouldn't be bundling I think.  But that's the worst of it.

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano obertelli
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:23 AM
To: Fedora Cloud SIG
Subject: Re: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora

Of course we would love to do so. My understanding is that out packages won't be included as they are, since we package a lot of our dependencies into them and we don't have the expertise or capabilities to package and maintain all the dependencies.

If I'm mistaken, and such pacakges  are allowed. please let me know and we'll readily start the process.

cheers,
graziano

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30:08AM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> Will you be submitting your packages into the standard Fedora package collection, as you have with Ubuntu?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> --
> Matt Domsch
> Technology Strategist
> Dell | Office of the CTO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano 
> obertelli
> Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 PM
> To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> Subject: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
>
> Hello,
>
> I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1] we are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.
>
> Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other Eucalyptus related question.
>
> cheers,
> graziano
>
> [1] 
> http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available
>
> --
> Graziano Obertelli
> Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

--
Graziano Obertelli
Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
[e-mail]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[graziano obertelli]

Matt,

we would love to be able to coordinate with Fedora about Fedora's and our
releases and web page (where to file bugs and where to find packages): are
you the right person to coordinate with?

We already have one engineer looking into the euca2ools packages. He
already reached out to the euca2ools packages and we hope to have only one
package soon.

How do you think we should proceed for Eucalyptus? Is it possible to have
a 'mentor' to help us get Eucalyptus into Fedora?

cheers,
graziano

On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:03:52PM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> You are correct, packaging guidelines would prohibit bundling in libraries.  But with over 9000 packages in the repositories, developers and packagers have found that it's not (in general) that hard a bar to get over.  At a quick glance:
>
> Euca2ools:
>
> You package in python-boto, which is already in Fedora.  It should be trivial to stop bundling this, and simply RPM requires: it.
> Your package has a requirement on m2crypto, which is already in Fedora, so that's easy.
>
> Eucalyptus:
> You bundle in axis2c and rampartc, and neither are in Fedora, but you package them separately so it's quite possible they could be included in Fedora directly.
> Eucalyptus-common-java has a bunch of JARs, most of which you shouldn't be bundling I think.  But that's the worst of it.
>
> --
> Matt Domsch
> Technology Strategist
> Dell | Office of the CTO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano obertelli
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:23 AM
> To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> Subject: Re: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
>
> Of course we would love to do so. My understanding is that out packages won't be included as they are, since we package a lot of our dependencies into them and we don't have the expertise or capabilities to package and maintain all the dependencies.
>
> If I'm mistaken, and such pacakges  are allowed. please let me know and we'll readily start the process.
>
> cheers,
> graziano
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30:08AM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> > Will you be submitting your packages into the standard Fedora package collection, as you have with Ubuntu?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > --
> > Matt Domsch
> > Technology Strategist
> > Dell | Office of the CTO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] 
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano 
> > obertelli
> > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 PM
> > To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> > Subject: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1] we are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.
> >
> > Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other Eucalyptus related question.
> >
> > cheers,
> > graziano
> >
> > [1] 
> > http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available
> >
> > --
> > Graziano Obertelli
> > Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cloud mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> > _______________________________________________
> > cloud mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>
> --
> Graziano Obertelli
> Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Brian LaMere]

if I may jump in; there's already an official fedora package in the works
for euca2ools I believe (that's what drives Robert's need for python-boto,
correct?).  I'm sure he'd love help from the Eucalyptus folk with it.

I've offered to help Robert co-maintain the python-boto package, since I use
python-boto directly instead of just as something a different tool uses.
 There is a process for becoming an official packager; your wait would
likely be shorter than mine since you are an upstream package maintainer
already (I've just started the process myself, and am not an upstream
provider).  I'd love to help you out myself; let me know and I can work with
your team to get additional packages in to Fedora.

I should note however that I don't currently use Eucalyptus, to be honest,
though it's almost entirely because it isn't well integrated with Fedora and
managing my current setup isn't hard with my internal tools. I will soon
need to use something external to manage our rapidly growing clouds though,
so working to get Eucalyptus working well on Fedora is something I could
likely get my employer to OK as during-business-hours work.

At the very least, you should consider joining the meeting on Thursday;
likely you could get all your questions answered and worked out then.

Brian LaMere

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:37 PM, graziano obertelli <[e-mail]
> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> we would love to be able to coordinate with Fedora about Fedora's and our
> releases and web page (where to file bugs and where to find packages): are
> you the right person to coordinate with?
>
> We already have one engineer looking into the euca2ools packages. He
> already reached out to the euca2ools packages and we hope to have only one
> package soon.
>
> How do you think we should proceed for Eucalyptus? Is it possible to have
> a 'mentor' to help us get Eucalyptus into Fedora?
>
> cheers,
> graziano
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:03:52PM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> > You are correct, packaging guidelines would prohibit bundling in
>
> libraries.  But with over 9000 packages in the repositories, developers and
> packagers have found that it's not (in general) that hard a bar to get over.
>  At a quick glance:
> > Euca2ools:
> >
> > You package in python-boto, which is already in Fedora.  It should be
>
> trivial to stop bundling this, and simply RPM requires: it.
> > Your package has a requirement on m2crypto, which is already in Fedora,
>
> so that's easy.
> > Eucalyptus:
> > You bundle in axis2c and rampartc, and neither are in Fedora, but you
>
> package them separately so it's quite possible they could be included in
> Fedora directly.
> > Eucalyptus-common-java has a bunch of JARs, most of which you shouldn't
>
> be bundling I think.  But that's the worst of it.
> > --
> > Matt Domsch
> > Technology Strategist
> > Dell | Office of the CTO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:
>
> [e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano obertelli
> > Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 11:23 AM
> > To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> > Subject: Re: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
> >
> > Of course we would love to do so. My understanding is that out packages
>
> won't be included as they are, since we package a lot of our dependencies
> into them and we don't have the expertise or capabilities to package and
> maintain all the dependencies.
> > If I'm mistaken, and such pacakges  are allowed. please let me know and
>
> we'll readily start the process.
> > cheers,
> > graziano
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:30:08AM -0500, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Will you be submitting your packages into the standard Fedora package
>
> collection, as you have with Ubuntu?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matt
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matt Domsch
> > > Technology Strategist
> > > Dell | Office of the CTO
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail]
> > > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of graziano
> > > obertelli
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 9:47 PM
> > > To: Fedora Cloud SIG
> > > Subject: Eucalyptus 2.0 and Fedora
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I just wanted to mentioned that with the release of Eucalyptus 2.0 [1]
>
> we are now providing packages for Fedora. We have been providing a Fedora
> image for sometime now (albeit is a fairly old version of Fedora), and we
> are happy to be able now to provide packages for Fedora.
> > > Feel free to send me any comment about the packages, or any other
>
> Eucalyptus related question.
> > > cheers,
> > > graziano
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://open.eucalyptus.com/news/2010-08-24-eucalyptus-20-now-available
> > >
> > > --
> > > Graziano Obertelli
> > > Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cloud mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cloud mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> >
> > --
> > Graziano Obertelli
> > Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cloud mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> > _______________________________________________
> > cloud mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>
> --
> Graziano Obertelli
> Eucalyptus Systems, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 31-Aug-10 20:37, graziano obertelli wrote:
> we would love to be able to coordinate with Fedora about Fedora's and our
> releases and web page (where to file bugs and where to find packages): are
> you the right person to coordinate with?

I maintain Fedora's euca2ools package, so I ultimately see all of the 
bug reports raised against it on Red Hat's Bugzilla [0].  When people 
file bug reports against Fedora's package I usually forward it upstream 
and then try to backport the resulting fix into Fedora's package.  While 
I typically wait for stable upstream releases before looking into adding 
features, I can try to accommodate RFEs as well.  If you need something 
fixed that is the best place to send communications.  For other 
cloud-related things this list is probably better.

Where possible, please direct people to their systems' native package 
managers (e.g. yum or PackageKit in Fedora) instead of offering binaries 
via the Eucalyptus web site.  This reduces confusion for me as a package 
maintainer since I don't have to worry about where someone's software 
came from, and for the Eucalyptus people since it's one less 
distribution to build for.

At one point someone looked into packaging Eucalyptus, though it cannot 
make it into Fedora until all of its dependencies are broken out into 
separate packages and it doesn't bundle any JAR files.  Since there is 
currently no Fedora package for Eucalyptus, this mailing list is 
probably the best point of contact for work on getting it packaged.
> We already have one engineer looking into the euca2ools packages. He
> already reached out to the euca2ools packages and we hope to have only one
> package soon.

I assume you are referring to Mitch Garnatt here, who I contacted 
independently a few days ago.  ;-)  The notion of "only one package" is 
a bad idea for binaries since different distributions have different 
conventions and software versions.  Having one spec file that supports 
multiple distributions is definitely possible, though.  I discussed this 
a bit with Mitch.  For licensing reasons I cannot simply provide you 
with a spec file that does what you need, though I am happy to provide 
feedback.

Ideally, Eucalyptus will not provide any binaries at all, but instead 
have packages included in distributions' package repositories.  This 
would render upstream-provided spec files and packages meaningless.  For 
instance, as a Fedora packager I cannot use the euca2ools spec file 
included with its source because I must maintain my own spec file in 
Fedora's version control system.
> How do you think we should proceed for Eucalyptus? Is it possible to have
> a 'mentor' to help us get Eucalyptus into Fedora?

I would first work on breaking the dependencies into separate packages 
and make sure it is possible to build Eucalyptus in its entirety from 
source without the need for JAR files.  I personally don't have much 
experience with Java packaging, but you can also direct questions to 
either Fedora's packaging list [1] or this list.  There are plenty of 
people who can help.

[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
[1] [e-mail]

--
Garrett Holmstrom

[Brian LaMere]

> I assume you are referring to Mitch Garnatt here, who I contacted
> independently a few days ago.  ;-)  The notion of "only one package" is
> a bad idea for binaries since different distributions have different
> conventions and software versions.  Having one spec file that supports

note also that since Eucaluptus isn't a monolythic, single-system tool for
managing clouds...it makes no sense to install absolutely everything, when
most systems will only need a subset of the tools.  You already mentioned
that some of these things are being broken out, but just reiterating why
"only one package" is far from ideal.
> have packages included in distributions' package repositories.  This
> would render upstream-provided spec files and packages meaningless.  For

If Eucalyptus is instead the upstream provider /and/ the package maintainer,
then the spec file is useful again.  So if Eucalyptus is wanting to do that
(be the official Fedora package maintainer) then the wouldn't really need to
stop spec development ;)
> > How do you think we should proceed for Eucalyptus? Is it possible to have
> > a 'mentor' to help us get Eucalyptus into Fedora?
>
> I would first work on breaking the dependencies into separate packages
> and make sure it is possible to build Eucalyptus in its entirety from
> source without the need for JAR files.  I personally don't have much

If Eucalyptus is themselves willing to do it, you all might make the most
sense as package maintainers.  I would think that would be the ideal hope of
Fedora, ultimately; you all know the product the best, after all.  However,
note that without certain things that you all don't seem to have tackled
yet, note that even if you get Eucalyptus in as a package and all cleaned up
there are many people who still couldn't use it.  I, for example, have to
have SELinux.  I can create my own policies for it, but I'm *much* happier
with policies that sit in the testing repos before live, and are hopefully
tested a bit ;)

Brian LaMere