On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The *could* be the same thing, >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single >> offering we had for some kind of C&S WG I would cry. I hate it >> because it is ridiculous to use in a non-cloud environment, and Server >> very much has that as part of it's reach. > > Forking this thread briefly because I think this deserves its own > discussion. I apologize if my rambling wasn't clear on this point. Hopefully this tangent is short-lived. > Is your objection primarily to the concept of cloud-init or the > implementation? If it's the concept, not much we can help with there. If > it's the implementation... Well, neither really. Admittedly my use of the Cloud images, and therefore cloud-init, was in attempted to boot it in a VM and log in more like a traditional install for simple test purposes. That didn't work and getting it to the point where I could log in required running some virt-tool thing to modify the image offline. So in the context of "Server & Cloud", where people expect to be able to log in after an install in many cases, cloud-init makes it really hard and is ill-suited to that kind of environment. Specific to cloud environments, I have no idea if the hassle of getting it setup is the norm or worthwhile. I've been told it is, and I can see where having the infrastructure setup to provide the credentials already in place might make the hassle much less problematic. (It is also quite possible I hit a bug in the cloud image. I tried running the local setup to provide cloud-init with ssh keys and it didn't work, hence the virt-tool thing. It has been a while since I tried again.) > We've talked about replacing cloud-init a few times in the past, but > there are two objections: > > - cloud-init is "standard" and we have an uphill marketing battle to get > our image adopted with something else. > - lack of a great alternative. I completely believe both of these. > Mike has talked about a "rich boot process" previously, and I wonder if > we're ready to start working on that? I'm not sure what "rich boot process" means. I'd immediately interpret that as "a real init process" which to me means using systemd. Somehow I don't think that's what you're thinking... :) > Also, one of the CentOS GSoC projects was "Flamingo" "a lightweight > contextualization tool that aims to handle initialization of cloud > instances." [1] Maybe this is something we could look at for F24? CC'ing > Tamer Tas, the student who worked on that. (It's targeted at being a > cloud-init replacement for Atomic, so...) > > [1] https://github.com/tmrts/flamingo That might be nice for "get rid of python" reasons. If it had cloud-init compatibility that would be even better, since people wouldn't need to migrate their provisioning infrastructure. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
