The whole ruby platform is running out of steam, high time to move to Packer
while moving system VMS to Debian9.
- Satki
> On 31-Jul-2017, at 2:41 PM, Paul Angus wrote:
>
> Depending on the timescales that we looking at, if we can get an agreement to
> use Packer going forward, there is an argument to say that spending time
> getting the Debian 9 template to work on VeeWee and then on Packer is wasted
> effort and that we should just use this as the opportunity to move over to
> Packer/Debian9.
>
> Having spent the weekend fighting with RVM/VeeWee/Ruby. And finding that
> we've hard linked rvm to Ruby 2.1.1 when it's now on 2.4, Veewee hasn't been
> updated for years and other mismatches. I'm very interested to see other
> options explored.
>
> Veewee doesn't do the disk conversions at them moment, so we can still keep
> that a separate process for corner cases that Packer (or something else)
> can't manage..
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Paul Angus
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK
> @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rohit Yadav [mailto:rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com]
> Sent: 28 July 2017 20:30
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Debian9 systemvmtemplate
>
> I think we can move to packer once we can get the Debian9 based
> systemvmtemplate to work.
>
> I think we should focus on doing this first and then focus on migration to a
> new build system as a next step.
>
>
> I spent some time today and with some help from veewee authors, I could get a
> base template up and running:
>
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2211
>
>
> The above PR branch is pushed on ASF remote and allows for
> cross-collaboration with all ACS committers. Please collaborate with me on
> this and feel free to push changes on the branch as separate commits and/or
> make changes to the PR. Thanks.
>
>
> - Rohit
>
>
> From: Tim Mackey
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 3:59:36 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Move to Debian9 systemvmtemplate
>
> Syed,
>
> I did a bunch of work on XenServer with Packer [1] before leaving Citrix.
> My stuff works rather well and was tested with XS 6.2, 6.5 and 7. It
> shouldn't be hard to validate with newest XS and updated Packer - I just lack
> the infra to do the testing.
>
> [1] https://github.com/xenserverarmy/packer
>
> -tim
>
>
> rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Syed Ahmed wrote:
>
>> -1 on Arch as well. Moving to Debian 9 seems the wiser choice IMO.
>> I've used Packer before and I really like it, the only downside that I
>> see is that Packer lacks support for XenServer VHD images. There is
>> some work on a XenServer plugin but I haven't tested that. If the
>> community decides to use Packer, I can do some initial validation of it on
>> XenServer.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Syed
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:19 AM, Wido den Hollander
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
Op 24 juli 2017 om 19:07 schreef Rene Moser :
Hi Rohit
On 07/23/2017 06:08 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
> All,
>
>
> Just want to kick an initial discussion around migration to
> Debian9
>>> based systemvmtemplate, and get your feedback on the same.
>
> Here's a work-in-progress PR: https://github.com/apache/
>>> cloudstack/pull/2198
Have you considered to replace veewee by packer?
>>>
>>> Packer is really nice indeed. We use it to build our templates [0]
>>> which we use on CloudStack.
>>>
>>> Building the SSVM using Packer should be rather easy I think.
>>>
>>> [0]: https://github.com/pcextreme/packer-templates
>>>
Our friends from schubergphilis have already done some work here
https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloud/systemvm-packer.
However there would be also an official way to convert the
definitions https://www.packer.io/guides/veewee-to-packer.html
Regards René
>>>
>>
>