Open Stack

+1 if we can get debian version

and also my question, where the openstack repo for debian?

because that i know, canonical manage outside the ubuntu repo for
openstack (cloud-archive)

F
--
Frans Thamura (曽志胜)
Shadow Master and Lead Investor
Meruvian.
Integrated Hypermedia Java Solution Provider.

Mobile: +628557888699
Blog: http://blogs.mervpolis.com/roller/flatburger (id)

FB: http://www.facebook.com/meruvian
TW: http://www.twitter.com/meruvian / @meruvian
Website: http://www.meruvian.org

"We grow because we share the same belief."


On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry that I missed the thread. Thanks to Andreas for poking me.
>
> On 11/12/2014 10:23 AM, Matt Kassawara wrote:
>> I'm seeing some bugs pop up for the Debian variant of the Juno
>> installation guide that merely add to the list of existing open bugs
>> from prior releases.
>
> I may have missed them. I'm also doing the packaging in Debian alone
> (for the moment), which keeps me really busy, so it's expected that I
> don't *see* all.
>
> Could you point to them so I have a look? If you see some, please make
> sure to add me in the loop, and I'll do my best do work on them.
>
>> Considering the bugs and installation testing
>> status page [1], I don't see any attempts to test and/or maintain this
>> variant.
>
> Well, first I wasn't aware of that page. But I can already mark some of
> the items as ok. For example, I can assert that these are ok:
> - identity
> - image service
> - dashboard
> - compute
>
> I'd have to run through the instruction for compute and network, to make
> sure that it just work. I've already simplified the Neutron default
> setup to make it closer to the install-guide, so that there's less
> things to edit. I did also the same for the compute part.
>
> There's sill issues to tackle for the Neutron part, I know that.
>
> However, the fact that nobody worked on marking the items as checked is
> a very bad metric to tell if the Debian install-guide should go away.
>
>> The Debian packages use debconf, a configuration system that
>> requires un-translatable screen shots to configure services.
>
> The debconf system is fully translatable, and that's the whole point of
> it. I do have a lot of translations in many packages already. For
> example, just for nova, I have:
> - cs.po
> - da.po
> - de.po
> - es.po
> - fr.po
> - gl.po
> - it.po
> - ja.po
> - nl.po
> - pl.po
> - pt_BR.po
> - pt.po
> - ru.po
> - sk.po
> - sv.po
> - zh_CN.po
>
> That's 16 translations!!!
>
>> However,
>> some items still require manually editing configuration files. Also,
>> Debian receives minimal readership compared to other distributions
>> which reduces the return on investment to maintain a system different
>> from any other distribution.
>
> Since I've done all the work for Debian in the install-guide (including
> screenshots, and all), it's only up to me to evaluate if it's a good
> return on the time I'm spending. And I would like to continue doing that
> work. For those who did the review, I think they were ok doing them, or
> at least, they didn't complain too much about it (thanks Andreas, Tom
> and others).
>
>> I brought this issue up several weeks
>> ago and thought we wanted to pursue disabling debconf to make Debian
>> mostly follow Ubuntu and therefore easier to maintain.
>
> No, I don't want to do this. I'm also very bothered by the fact this
> topic comes back often, as if it was a huge issue that Debian and Ubuntu
> things were different. It's not, and it only reflects reality.
>
> What if I proposed to remove the SUSE doc on that ground? How would
> Andreas feel? Probably (and rightly) very bad... Well, I feel very bad
> with your proposal as well.
>
> That there is less people involved in OpenStack upstream using Debian is
> a fact I can agree with, but we do have some users, and they are very
> happy to read the Debian version of the official doc (I had some
> feedback on it). I am happy to provide them a good doc, and that it is
> in the official site.
>
> BTW, we aren't doing a kind of competition, are we? It's a normal thing
> to give enough room for Debian in the install-guide. That's part of the
> "big tent" model which was discussed at large, and I don't think it is
> correct to just try to erase all of the work that was done in the docs,
> just because you want to make it uniform with Ubuntu. Debian and Ubuntu
> are different. Let me give you some hints here.
>
> See this:
>
> http://docs.openstack.org/juno/install-guide/install/apt-debian/content/glance-install.html
>
> Then see this:
> http://docs.openstack.org/juno/install-guide/install/apt/content/glance-install.html
>
> Then tell me which of the 2 is the most easy, and which one newbies will
> want to read.
>
> Clearly, just doing "apt-get install glance", responding to a few
> prompts, and that's it, is a lot more easy than all of the 10 shell
> commands and the 7 config file editions that you have to do manually in
> Ubuntu. It is normal that I would like to see the Debconf mode
> documented, as it is also something I am proudly providing to Debian
> users, which I think is an advantage over Ubuntu. I do not want the docs
> to hide this.
>
> Then another thing. In the doc for Ubuntu, there is:
>
> "You need to install the required packages. For now, sahara doesn't have
> packages for Ubuntu. Documentation will be updated once the packages are
> available. The rest of this document assumes that you have the sahara
> service packages installed on the system."
>
> But in Debian, I did the work, and there are packages for Sahara. How
> would you then write this? Display both cases for Ubuntu and Debian in
> the same doc? This doesn't feel the right thing to do.
>
> Another example. In Ubuntu, we see this:
> http://docs.openstack.org/juno/install-guide/install/apt/content/ch_nova.html
>
> See the section about VNC setup. Well, in Debian, the default is SPICE,
> because I think it's so much nicer, and also, there's a unique
> "nova-consoleproxy" package instead of 3 for Ubuntu, which holds all of
> the nova console stuff.
>
> All together, if we were going *backward* (yes, that's a step backward
> that you are proposing, since it was merged before with lots of "Note:"
> stuff, which then lead to a specific guide for Debian) we would end up
> with lots of "NOTES:" specific about Debian, polluting the Ubuntu doc.
> This is what pushed the doc team to make a clear cut, and have
> a separate Debian guide.
>
> So going back to the mess we had before, I don't agree...
>
>> Any alternative
>> installation processes using debconf and/or automation would reside
>> outside of the official installation guide.
>
> I don't see why. Debconf is completely part of Debian and the Debian
> packages for OpenStack I wrote. Pushing it out is, for me, not an
> option, and I don't see any valid reason to do so.
>
>> Did we reach an agreement?
>
> Clearly, no. I spent a large amount of time to do the work, reviewers
> too, and I don't want it to go away, back to what it was 2 years ago.
>
> On 11/18/2014 11:25 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2014-11-18 13:42:37 +0000 (+0000), Phil Hopkins wrote:
>>> I agree that we should not use debconf to make this install guide
>>> similar to the Ubuntu guide.
>>
>> I worry the problem you're going to encounter there is that Debian's
>> packages _do_ use debconf to prompt the sysadmin for configuration
>> choices, database setup, et cetera. I suppose the install guide
>> could override it to non-interactive and then show how to go back
>> and perform all the same configuration and setup tasks, but that
>> seems like it's counter to how Debian consumers are expected to make
>> use of those packages.
>
> There's that, and also the fact that, even with the non-interactive mode
> activated, there's sill a lot of differences that you will find when
> using Debian.
>
> On 11/26/2014 04:51 PM, Jason Bishop wrote:
>> Hi Andreas, I wonder if it is feasible to rely more on pre-seed files
>> in the docs.  If the docs described the pre-seed config options then
>> the maybe the rest would more closely resemble the ubuntu docs.
>> Speaking personally, i'm a debian openstack user but i have edited
>> files rather than debconf so far.
>
> I wanted to write more about preseeding, but I've been told that this
> was out of the scope of the install guide, so I gave up.
>
> I'd like to have a bit more freedom for the Debian specific part, and
> talk about the "openstack-deploy" package, which contains a preseed
> library. If this doesn't fit the install-guide, I can understand, though
> I haven't been told were to put that part in docs.openstack.org. And no,
> this is *not* about a "magic install button", but about documenting the
> existing packages available and providing a way for users to write
> automation themselves, using the available interface. But anyway, let's
> not restart that discussion *now*. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs