2011/12/6 Jay Pipes :
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
>> 2011/12/1 Jay Pipes :
>> There are basically two things that are relevant: The image type and the
>> container format.
>>
>> The image type can be either of kernel, ramdisk, filesystem, iso9660,
>> disk, or "other".
> W
Hi Soren, thanks for your detailed input. Comments inline...
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/12/1 Jay Pipes :
>> structure tar'd up. However, I think this can be more easily
>> accomplished by consolidating the disk and container formats in the
>> 2.0 API to just a sing
t; From: Soren Hansen [mailto:so...@linux2go.dk]
> Sent: 05 December 2011 20:25
> To: Donal Lafferty
> Cc: Jay Pipes; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] Proposal: Combine the "container_format"
> and "disk_format" fields in 2.0 Ima
On Dec 5, 2011, at 12:12 PM, Scott Moser wrote:
> Is anything actually using OVA from glance?
Yes, it is used in XenServer | Xen Cloud Platform fairly commonly (IMHO -- OVA
with VHD for Windows images).
http://wiki.openstack.org/XenServerDevelopment
/k
---
Ken Pepple
ken.pep...@rabbitya
2011/12/5 Donal Lafferty :
>> Perhaps the finer details of what "MIME-style categorization" is are lost on
>> me.
>> Can you elaborate? Your original example was "vhd/x-ms-tools" which, to my
>> eye, is simply a container type string with a vendor part added. What am I
>> missing?
> 'vhd' isn't a
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/12/1 Jay Pipes :
> > structure tar'd up. However, I think this can be more easily
> > accomplished by consolidating the disk and container formats in the
> > 2.0 API to just a single format field with the possible values:
> >
> > ova - This indicat
> -Original Message-
> 2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty :
> >> I simply don't think adding a vendor part to the container type
> >> string is going to be a very good way to encode this.
> > Can this even be done with a MIME-style categorization?
>
> Perhaps the finer details of what "MIME-style
2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty :
>> I simply don't think adding a vendor part to the container type
>> string is going to be a very good way to encode this.
> Can this even be done with a MIME-style categorization?
Perhaps the finer details of what "MIME-style categorization" is are
lost on me.
Can you
> I simply don't think adding a vendor part to the container type string is
> going to
> be a very good way to encode this.
>
Can this even be done with a MIME-style categorization?
> --
> Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/ Ubuntu Developer |
> http://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Devel
2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty :
> The key in my email was to ask whether MIME-like specialisations were
> appropriate either for combining characteristics of an image into a
> single property.
>
> E.g. /. The example I provided was
> /
>
> That second example came from observing that a VHD produced by
ipes; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [GLANCE] Proposal: Combine the "container_format"
> and "disk_format" fields in 2.0 Images API
>
> 2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty :
> > During October I noticed that Microsoft's vhdtool.exe creates VHD
2011/12/2 Donal Lafferty :
> During October I noticed that Microsoft's vhdtool.exe creates VHDs that
> XenServer can't understand. Boy was that painful.
> The underlying problem is that some vhd's should be described as VM specific.
Can you elaborate on this, please? I don't think I understand w
nces+donal.lafferty=citrix@lists.launchpad.net] On
> Behalf Of Jay Pipes
> Sent: 01 December 2011 15:53
> To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: [Openstack] [GLANCE] Proposal: Combine the "container_format" and
> "disk_format" fields in 2.0 Images A
2011/12/1 Jay Pipes :
> structure tar'd up. However, I think this can be more easily
> accomplished by consolidating the disk and container formats in the
> 2.0 API to just a single format field with the possible values:
>
> ova - This indicates the data stored in Glance is an OVF container
> th
On Dec 1, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> What do people think of this proposal to combine the two into a single
> "format" field?
I think it's a good idea. When I was trying to figure out how to migrate the
glance-upload examples to "glance add", I found it confusing that there were
two
Hey all,
OK, so I'm almost done with Draft 3 of the OpenStack Images API 2.0
Proposal. While doing this, however, I have come to the conclusion
that the container_format we added in the Cactus timeframe just makes
things more confusing and should probably be removed.
We have two fields in the cur
16 matches
Mail list logo
