Cloud infrastructure package group

[David Nalley]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
>>>>
>>>> The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group for their
>>>> package. I was thinking that perhaps having a 'cloud infrastructure'
>>>> or 'cloud support' group might be the best place, but we don't have
>>>> one of those, and I'm not sure what all packages should be in it.
>>>>
>>>> Would someone fom the Cloud SIG like to take a stab at it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I am happy to do this, haven't we already hit string freeze for
>>> F16 (August 2nd per the schedule)? So we are talking about
>>> comps-f17.xml.in?
>>>
>>> If I were to do so I think I'd put the following in the group:
>>>
>>> eucatools
>>> aeolus
>>> deltacloud
>>> sheepdog
>>> ceph
>>> glusterfs
>>> hekafs
>>> boxgrinder
>>
>> I am guessing that there will also be a need to have what is optional
>> and required...
>
> I would possibly suggest that they're all optional, there's lots of
> different cloud technologies there a lot of which are completely
> standalone separate products that aren't required to interoperate. By
> having them all optional there's a menu with the list there and people
> can select the particular type of cloud technologies they wish to use.
>

I tend to agree, the spread is so wide, and includes everything from
HA stuff for the cloud to multiple distributed filesystems, to IaaS
platforms..... short of us defining cloud rather restrictively, I
think this needs to be all optional.