On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Garrett Holmstrom <gholms at fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Feb 25, 2010, at 13:32, Jeremy Katz wrote: >> One thing to keep in mind is that the images we're talking about end >> up having some things that are pretty specific to the way EC2 works as >> a part of them. ?The minimal kickstart could be helpful to point them >> to as a starting point, but sadly, I'm not sure that it will be much >> more as depending on how they market their VPS, they may have their >> own reasons to, eg, go ahead and have apache or php or some other >> thing installed as part of their "base" image. > > Is our plan to only support EC2/Eucalyptus, then? 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 :-) - Jeremy
