I like cloud-init as well, but it sounds to me that we are hurting the
investment of existing CloudStack users who have built hundreds of
templates with the extant scripts.

On 2/4/13 10:51 AM, "Ahmad Emneina" <aemne...@gmail.com> wrote:

>+1 cloud-init is the way to go IMO. It's also supported as long as the vm
>can query its respective virtual router/dhcp server, since thats where
>cloudstack places the user/meta data.
>
>
>On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:35 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2013 12:44 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>>> Hi folks:
>>>
>>> One of the discussions that came up while we were in Ghent was whether
>>> or not to package the SSH key reset and password reset utilities, or
>>> whether we should focus our PW/SSH efforts on cloud-init.
>>>
>>> The points for consideration are essentially:
>>>
>>> * If we begin packaging them, they will be expected to be maintained
>>> over the long term - are we as a project ready to do that?
>>> * Do we keep the scripts in the repo, or perhaps consider adding a
>>> separate repo for the scripts themselves. (This would make it easier
>>> for distribution packagers to consume - and even if they don't wish to
>>> package all of CloudStack - packaging the scripts themselves would be
>>> substantially easier.
>>> * cloud-init has CloudStack support IIRC, does it make sense to adopt
>>> that rather than doing our own thing, or perhaps to elect one as the
>>> primary method.
>>>
>>>
>> +1 cloud-init
>>
>> We want CloudStack to be accepted by more and more users and they
>>probably
>> want to use cloud-init.
>>
>> cloud-init has cool Puppet and Chef plugins as well which make it very
>> easy to get it all up and running.
>>
>> Do we have full cloud-init support yet? Are we able to pass "User Data"
>>to
>> a VM?
>>
>> I think it would be wise to support cloud-init and do not use our own
>> custom, homegrown scripts.
>>
>> This makes it also easier for companies to make templates which work on
>> OpenStack and CloudStack. Interoperability!
>>
>> Wido
>>

Reply via email to