Request from FESCo

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On Feb 25, 2010, at 16:33, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> You *can't* have one image that supports multiple providers as it
> currently stands.  There's too much variation, some of which is ways
> which really matters a lot.  eg, for EC2/Eucalyptus, you have to deal
> with the somewhat ridiculous way they set up block devices.  For other
> providers, things are more "normal" but most of them have their own
> quirks and idiosyncracies.  eg, I remember I had to do something
> quirky when I hand-installed Fedora 11 on my Linode, but I've now
> forgotten what it was I had to do.
> 
> The first target really is getting newer than Fedora 8 available for
> use on EC2 (including the kernel being used) and some tools around
> that.  There's then more that can be done, but I'm of the opinion that
> the more focused we are at first, the more we'll be able to have
> success.  I know Greg disagrees with me there, though :-)

You're absolutely right - everybody's images will be somewhat different.  (EC2's fstab is... strange.)  I was still under the impression that we planned on publishing several different types of images.  Now that you mention it, focusing on just EC2 to begin with sounds like a great plan to me.

FESCo's suggestion is something along the lines of, "Dear VPS Provider, we noticed that you provide Fedora 9 and 10.  Those releases are end-of-life.  Would you consider offering Fedora 12?  Would you like assistance in making an image for your needs?  We have F12 images in formats X, Y, and Z available.  Please contact cloud at l.fp.o if you have questions."  Of course if we only offer one image type such a message will have to be different if it even makes sense to send one at all.