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.
