Cloud infrastructure package group

Garrett Holmstrom gholms at
Wed Aug 24 05:14:55 UTC 2011

On 2011-08-23 14:25, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen<smooge at>  wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley<david at>  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham<notting at>  wrote:
>>>> 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
>>> 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.

+1; marking them all as optional would be enough to get them into the 
appropriate menus without adding irrelevant packages to installs. 
(Basically what everyone else has already written)

In the interest of preventing a mis-typed package name in the yum group, 
note that the Eucalyptus/EC2 CLI tools are called "euca2ools", not 
"eucatools".  Upstream seems to enjoy word-play.  ;)

More information about the cloud mailing list