* meta-cloud layer @ 2012-11-28 16:10 David Nyström 2012-11-28 16:22 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: David Nyström @ 2012-11-28 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core Hello everyone, I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" from the meta-xen layer. Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not working properly. Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new recipes should eventually go into oe-core ? Best Regards, David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-28 16:10 meta-cloud layer David Nyström @ 2012-11-28 16:22 ` Richard Purdie 2012-11-28 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-11-28 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström; +Cc: openembedded-core On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:10 +0100, David Nyström wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup > running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" from > the meta-xen layer. Great news! It might be worth growing meta-xen into a meta-virtualisation layer since kvm, openstack and xen all seem to be sharing a lot of pieces. This depends on the maintainers but it would seem to be logical rather than many small interdependent layers. > Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not > working properly. > > Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. > > https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git > > Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called > "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new recipes > should eventually go into oe-core ? The Yocto Project has been using the Yocto list for that and OpenEmbedded has openembedded-devel. Its not expected for everything to end up in OE-Core, quite the opposite. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-28 16:22 ` Richard Purdie @ 2012-11-28 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-29 8:41 ` David Nyström 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-11-28 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2189 bytes --] On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Richard Purdie < richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:10 +0100, David Nyström wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > > > I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup > > running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" from > > the meta-xen layer. > > Great news! > > It might be worth growing meta-xen into a meta-virtualisation layer > since kvm, openstack and xen all seem to be sharing a lot of pieces. > This depends on the maintainers but it would seem to be logical rather > than many small interdependent layers. > FWIW. I'd like to see this as well, and can contribute/help where possible. I was considering a meta-ovs (Open Virtualization Solutions), but if there are already plans afoot for a meta-virtualization, then anything I did could be pushed down keeping any other layers small. In particular I'm keen to drive some common kernel configuration, and work on consolidating kernel features in trees versus having a whole set of out of tree modules with better tie in's to userspace enabling features dynamically. So I'll keep an eye out for things as well and help where possible. Cheers, Bruce > > > Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not > > working properly. > > > > Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. > > > > https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git > > > > Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called > > "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new recipes > > should eventually go into oe-core ? > > The Yocto Project has been using the Yocto list for that and > OpenEmbedded has openembedded-devel. Its not expected for everything to > end up in OE-Core, quite the opposite. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3296 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-28 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-11-29 8:41 ` David Nyström 2012-11-29 10:05 ` Prica, Mihai 2012-11-29 13:44 ` Raymond Danks 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: David Nyström @ 2012-11-29 8:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: Patches, discussions about the oe-core layer Adding Ray Danks to CC. Ray, how do you want to go forward with the meta-xen layer ? From my perspective, having the actual hypervisor technology abstracted from the userspace virtualization stuff is preferable. So a user could pick-and-place hypervisor layer/s depending on needs. (And good for use-case benchmarks as well). libvirt package and others are smart enough to autodetect underlying hypervisor tech capabilities, and should work out-of-the-box from that aspect. As to where all this will finally end up, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. I'll continue working in meta-cloud for now, until consensus is reached on the final whereabouts for the virtualization specific recipes. If anyone want to join me on github, send me an email. Best Regards, David On 11/28/2012 06:25 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Richard Purdie < > richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:10 +0100, David Nyström wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup >>> running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" from >>> the meta-xen layer. >> >> Great news! >> >> It might be worth growing meta-xen into a meta-virtualisation layer >> since kvm, openstack and xen all seem to be sharing a lot of pieces. >> This depends on the maintainers but it would seem to be logical rather >> than many small interdependent layers. >> > > FWIW. I'd like to see this as well, and can contribute/help where possible. > I > was considering a meta-ovs (Open Virtualization Solutions), but if there are > already plans afoot for a meta-virtualization, then anything I did could be > pushed down keeping any other layers small. > > In particular I'm keen to drive some common kernel configuration, and work > on consolidating kernel features in trees versus having a whole set of out > of > tree modules with better tie in's to userspace enabling features > dynamically. > > So I'll keep an eye out for things as well and help where possible. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > >> >>> Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not >>> working properly. >>> >>> Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. >>> >>> https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git >>> >>> Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called >>> "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new recipes >>> should eventually go into oe-core ? >> >> The Yocto Project has been using the Yocto list for that and >> OpenEmbedded has openembedded-devel. Its not expected for everything to >> end up in OE-Core, quite the opposite. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-29 8:41 ` David Nyström @ 2012-11-29 10:05 ` Prica, Mihai 2012-11-29 13:44 ` Raymond Danks 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Prica, Mihai @ 2012-11-29 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström, Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: discussions, layer Great job! I've done some work on integrating KVM into yocto. You can find it on git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib on the mihaip/meta-kvm. It's functional but it requires a PU for libnl to the latest version that you can find on the mailing list (it hasn't been merged to master yet). Once this happens I'll put the layer on the yocto repository page. I support the idea of merging all these layers into one because there a lot of common packages. @ David: I don't know if you got the chance to look over the last patches that were merged these days to meta-xen. They make libvirt independent of the hypervisor technology. Thanks, Mihai -----Original Message----- From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of David Nyström Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:42 AM To: Bruce Ashfield Cc: Patches; discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [OE-core] meta-cloud layer Adding Ray Danks to CC. Ray, how do you want to go forward with the meta-xen layer ? From my perspective, having the actual hypervisor technology abstracted from the userspace virtualization stuff is preferable. So a user could pick-and-place hypervisor layer/s depending on needs. (And good for use-case benchmarks as well). libvirt package and others are smart enough to autodetect underlying hypervisor tech capabilities, and should work out-of-the-box from that aspect. As to where all this will finally end up, anything goes as far as I'm concerned. I'll continue working in meta-cloud for now, until consensus is reached on the final whereabouts for the virtualization specific recipes. If anyone want to join me on github, send me an email. Best Regards, David On 11/28/2012 06:25 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Richard Purdie < > richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:10 +0100, David Nyström wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup >>> running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" >>> from the meta-xen layer. >> >> Great news! >> >> It might be worth growing meta-xen into a meta-virtualisation layer >> since kvm, openstack and xen all seem to be sharing a lot of pieces. >> This depends on the maintainers but it would seem to be logical >> rather than many small interdependent layers. >> > > FWIW. I'd like to see this as well, and can contribute/help where possible. > I > was considering a meta-ovs (Open Virtualization Solutions), but if > there are already plans afoot for a meta-virtualization, then anything > I did could be pushed down keeping any other layers small. > > In particular I'm keen to drive some common kernel configuration, and > work on consolidating kernel features in trees versus having a whole > set of out of tree modules with better tie in's to userspace enabling > features dynamically. > > So I'll keep an eye out for things as well and help where possible. > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > >> >>> Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not >>> working properly. >>> >>> Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. >>> >>> https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git >>> >>> Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called >>> "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new >>> recipes should eventually go into oe-core ? >> >> The Yocto Project has been using the Yocto list for that and >> OpenEmbedded has openembedded-devel. Its not expected for everything >> to end up in OE-Core, quite the opposite. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-29 8:41 ` David Nyström 2012-11-29 10:05 ` Prica, Mihai @ 2012-11-29 13:44 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-29 13:54 ` Richard Purdie 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-29 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would be somewhat tedious in my opinion. The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also support the move to meta-virtualization. As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the puzzle for a cloud implementation! I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where abstraction is more warranted. Since you've already created a presence at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a starting point. Just my two cents. :) Ray On 11/29/2012 01:41 AM, David Nyström wrote: > Adding Ray Danks to CC. > > Ray, how do you want to go forward with the meta-xen layer ? > > From my perspective, having the actual hypervisor technology abstracted > from the userspace virtualization stuff is preferable. So a user could > pick-and-place hypervisor layer/s depending on needs. (And good for > use-case benchmarks as well). > > libvirt package and others are smart enough to autodetect underlying > hypervisor tech capabilities, and should work out-of-the-box from that > aspect. > > As to where all this will finally end up, anything goes as far as I'm > concerned. I'll continue working in meta-cloud for now, until > consensus is reached on the final whereabouts for the virtualization > specific recipes. > > If anyone want to join me on github, send me an email. > > Best Regards, > David > > > On 11/28/2012 06:25 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Richard Purdie < >> richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2012-11-28 at 17:10 +0100, David Nyström wrote: >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> I'm working on getting a minimal Yocto/oe-core based OpenStack setup >>>> running with the meta-cloud layer, with bits and pieces "borrowed" >>>> from >>>> the meta-xen layer. >>> >>> Great news! >>> >>> It might be worth growing meta-xen into a meta-virtualisation layer >>> since kvm, openstack and xen all seem to be sharing a lot of pieces. >>> This depends on the maintainers but it would seem to be logical rather >>> than many small interdependent layers. >>> >> >> FWIW. I'd like to see this as well, and can contribute/help where >> possible. >> I >> was considering a meta-ovs (Open Virtualization Solutions), but if >> there are >> already plans afoot for a meta-virtualization, then anything I did >> could be >> pushed down keeping any other layers small. >> >> In particular I'm keen to drive some common kernel configuration, and >> work >> on consolidating kernel features in trees versus having a whole set >> of out >> of >> tree modules with better tie in's to userspace enabling features >> dynamically. >> >> So I'll keep an eye out for things as well and help where possible. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >> >>> >>>> Still in its infancy, and lots of stuff is still missing and/or not >>>> working properly. >>>> >>>> Have a look if your interested, not much to see yet though. >>>> >>>> https://github.com/nysan/meta-cloud.git >>>> >>>> Any thoughts on floating layer ML:s, i.e. an ML for so called >>>> "out-of-tree" layers ? Or is the common thought that all new recipes >>>> should eventually go into oe-core ? >>> >>> The Yocto Project has been using the Yocto list for that and >>> OpenEmbedded has openembedded-devel. Its not expected for everything to >>> end up in OE-Core, quite the opposite. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >> >> >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-29 13:44 ` Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-29 13:54 ` Richard Purdie 2012-11-30 11:29 ` David Nyström 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2012-11-29 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Raymond Danks; +Cc: Patches, Bruce, oe-core layer On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: > Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen > layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent > was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the > xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would > be somewhat tedious in my opinion. > > The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to > support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, > and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen > should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also > support the move to meta-virtualization. > > As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am > knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently > researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled > across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, > XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated > with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the > puzzle for a cloud implementation! > > I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a > meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where > abstraction is more warranted. Since you've already created a presence > at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to > meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push > any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for > libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. > > Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, > those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a > starting point. > > Just my two cents. :) I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission process is in the README. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-29 13:54 ` Richard Purdie @ 2012-11-30 11:29 ` David Nyström 2012-11-30 17:14 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-30 17:15 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: David Nyström @ 2012-11-30 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: oe-core layer On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the >> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >> >> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also >> support the move to meta-virtualization. >> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate work. >> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, >> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >> Cool ! I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >> abstraction is more warranted. Agree. >> Since you've already created a presence >> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >> >> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, >> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >> starting point. >> >> Just my two cents. :) > > I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to > call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people > are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we > need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission > process is in the README. > Thanks, Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the meta-virtualization layer. If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 11:29 ` David Nyström @ 2012-11-30 17:14 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-30 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-30 17:15 ` Saul Wold 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-30 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström; +Cc: oe-core layer On 11/30/2012 04:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: > On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the >>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>> >>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I >>> also >>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>> > > meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't > duplicate work. Yes. Agreed. > >>> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of >>> this, >>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>> > > Cool ! > I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant > to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). > >>> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>> abstraction is more warranted. > > Agree. > >>> Since you've already created a presence >>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>> >>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any >>> case, >>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>> starting point. >>> >>> Just my two cents. :) >> >> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >> process is in the README. >> > > Thanks, > > Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority > code contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the > meta-virtualization layer. > If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. > Yes. Thanks Richard. I was looking at some of the Yocto projects and the meta-ti stood out as one that might be a model for this. Would it be possible to configure a mailing list for meta-virtualization as well? Once you've got the repo in place I'll push up what's in meta-xen. Maybe David can come behind with what's in meta-cloud. I also saw that Mihai mentioned having a KVM tree that might integrate. Once we've got this setup we should also rename the link on the OE layers index wiki. I'm happy with a co-maintainer type setup as well. In fact, I prefer that. I've done work with the xen part of this, but kvm and openstack are still somewhat foreign. At any rate, I'll pay closer attention to the lists as they pertain to this layer especially going forward. I think this will work well to combine our efforts here. Ray > >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 17:14 ` Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-30 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-11-30 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ray.danks; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4707 bytes --] On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Raymond Danks <ray.danks@se-eng.com>wrote: > On 11/30/2012 04:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: > >> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the >>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>> >>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also >>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>> >>>> >> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate >> work. >> > Yes. Agreed. > > >> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, >>>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>>> >>>> >> Cool ! >> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant to >> be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >> >> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>>> abstraction is more warranted. >>>> >>> >> Agree. >> >> Since you've already created a presence >>>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, >>>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>>> starting point. >>>> >>>> Just my two cents. :) >>>> >>> >>> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >>> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >>> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >>> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >>> process is in the README. >>> >>> >> Thanks, >> >> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code >> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the meta-virtualization >> layer. >> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >> >> Yes. Thanks Richard. I was looking at some of the Yocto projects and > the meta-ti stood out as one that might be a model for this. Would it be > possible to configure a mailing list for meta-virtualization as well? Once > you've got the repo in place I'll push up what's in meta-xen. Maybe David > can come behind with what's in meta-cloud. I also saw that Mihai mentioned > having a KVM tree that might integrate. Once we've got this setup we > should also rename the link on the OE layers index wiki. > > I'm happy with a co-maintainer type setup as well. In fact, I prefer > that. I've done work with the xen part of this, but kvm and openstack are > still somewhat foreign. > And I've got some cross platform experience with all three, plus kernel parts, so as required, I'm still offering up my help if no one objects. I'll send along my keys once a layer and home have been chosen. Cheers, Bruce > > At any rate, I'll pay closer attention to the lists as they pertain to > this layer especially going forward. I think this will work well to > combine our efforts here. > > Ray > > >> Cheers, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.**openembedded.org<Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** >>> openembedded-core<http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core> >>> >>> >> > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6938 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 11:29 ` David Nyström 2012-11-30 17:14 ` Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-30 17:15 ` Saul Wold 2012-11-30 17:26 ` Bruce Ashfield 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-11-30 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström, Michael Halstead, Raymond Danks; +Cc: oe-core layer On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: > On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the >>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>> >>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also >>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>> > > meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate > work. > If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write access to it. Sau! >>> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, >>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>> > > Cool ! > I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant > to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). > >>> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>> abstraction is more warranted. > > Agree. > >>> Since you've already created a presence >>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>> >>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, >>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>> starting point. >>> >>> Just my two cents. :) >> >> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >> process is in the README. >> > > Thanks, > > Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code > contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the > meta-virtualization layer. > If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. > > >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 17:15 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-11-30 17:26 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-30 18:03 ` Michael Halstead 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-11-30 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Saul Wold; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4510 bytes --] On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: > >> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, the >>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>> >>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I also >>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>> >>>> >> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate >> work. >> >> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create a repo, > please send him your keys so that you will have write access to it. > This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to resend or can a local copy happen ? Cheers, Bruce > > Sau! > > > As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of this, >>>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>>> >>>> >> Cool ! >> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant >> to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >> >> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>>> abstraction is more warranted. >>>> >>> >> Agree. >> >> Since you've already created a presence >>>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any case, >>>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>>> starting point. >>>> >>>> Just my two cents. :) >>>> >>> >>> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >>> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >>> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >>> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >>> process is in the README. >>> >>> >> Thanks, >> >> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code >> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the >> meta-virtualization layer. >> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >> >> >> Cheers, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.**openembedded.org<Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** >>> openembedded-core<http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core> >>> >>> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.**openembedded.org<Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**openembedded-core<http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core> >> >> >> > ______________________________**_________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.**openembedded.org<Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/**cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**openembedded-core<http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core> > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6747 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 17:26 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-11-30 18:03 ` Michael Halstead 2012-11-30 20:17 ` Raymond Danks 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Michael Halstead @ 2012-11-30 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6262 bytes --] On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com > <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: > > On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: > > On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: > > Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal > for the meta-xen > layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As > such, the intent > was to contain both hypervisor and user-space > applications. Indeed, the > xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor > abstraction would > be somewhat tedious in my opinion. > > The layer just received commits for expanding the > libvirt build to > support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged > between xen, qemu, > and kvm implementations are such that I would also > agree that meta-xen > should be expanded/renamed to encompass all > virtualization types; I also > support the move to meta-virtualization. > > > meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't > duplicate > work. > > If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create a > repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write access > to it. > > > This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to > resend or can > a local copy happen ? I already have keys for, David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 Either of you can currently add git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the new repository. I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. We also need a short description for the listing on git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " -- Michael Halstead Yocto Project / Sys Admin > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > > > Sau! > > > As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not > sure I am > knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm > currently > researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack > and have stumbled > across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look > promising. On top of this, > XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and > can be integrated > with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only > two pieces of the > puzzle for a cloud implementation! > > > Cool ! > I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was > not meant > to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). > > I think I would encourage you to also include > OpenStack in a > meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the > point where > abstraction is more warranted. > > > Agree. > > Since you've already created a presence > at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to > meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen > layer? I can push > any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a > central place for > libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel > modifications. > > Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization > project. In any case, > those on the To and CC list should receive access to > this layer as a > starting point. > > Just my two cents. :) > > > I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we > decide to > call it) on git.yoctoproject.org > <http://git.yoctoproject.org> if that would help people > and people > are interested. My only concern is in the area of > maintainership, we > need to clearly define who maintains what and what the > patch submission > process is in the README. > > > Thanks, > > Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the > majority code > contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the > meta-virtualization layer. > If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. > > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > > > -- > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await > thee at its end" [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12236 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --] [-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4516 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 18:03 ` Michael Halstead @ 2012-11-30 20:17 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-30 23:23 ` Michael Halstead 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-30 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Halstead; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6985 bytes --] On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: > On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >> >> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >> >> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal >> for the meta-xen >> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >> As such, the intent >> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >> applications. Indeed, the >> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor >> abstraction would >> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >> >> The layer just received commits for expanding the >> libvirt build to >> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged >> between xen, qemu, >> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >> agree that meta-xen >> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >> virtualization types; I also >> support the move to meta-virtualization. >> >> >> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >> don't duplicate >> work. >> >> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create >> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >> access to it. >> >> >> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >> resend or can >> a local copy happen ? > I already have keys for, > > David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 > Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 > > Either of you can currently add > git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and start > the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers and > patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the new > repository. > > I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. > > > We also need a short description for the listing on > git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better > than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and cloud support." Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that as well? Thanks again, Ray > > -- > Michael Halstead > Yocto Project / Sys Admin > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >> >> Sau! >> >> >> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not >> sure I am >> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm >> currently >> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack >> and have stumbled >> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look >> promising. On top of this, >> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and >> can be integrated >> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only >> two pieces of the >> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >> >> >> Cool ! >> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was >> not meant >> to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >> >> I think I would encourage you to also include >> OpenStack in a >> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the >> point where >> abstraction is more warranted. >> >> >> Agree. >> >> Since you've already created a presence >> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen >> layer? I can push >> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a >> central place for >> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel >> modifications. >> >> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization >> project. In any case, >> those on the To and CC list should receive access to >> this layer as a >> starting point. >> >> Just my two cents. :) >> >> >> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever >> we decide to >> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org >> <http://git.yoctoproject.org> if that would help people >> and people >> are interested. My only concern is in the area of >> maintainership, we >> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the >> patch submission >> process is in the README. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the >> majority code >> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the >> meta-virtualization layer. >> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> >> >> >> -- >> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await >> thee at its end" > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13865 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 20:17 ` Raymond Danks @ 2012-11-30 23:23 ` Michael Halstead 2012-12-01 17:30 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-12-01 20:43 ` David Nyström 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Michael Halstead @ 2012-11-30 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ray.danks; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7424 bytes --] On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: > On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>> >>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>> goal for the meta-xen >>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>> As such, the intent >>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>> applications. Indeed, the >>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>> hypervisor abstraction would >>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>> >>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>> libvirt build to >>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged >>> between xen, qemu, >>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>> agree that meta-xen >>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>> virtualization types; I also >>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>> >>> >>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>> don't duplicate >>> work. >>> >>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create >>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>> access to it. >>> >>> >>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>> resend or can >>> a local copy happen ? >> I already have keys for, >> >> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >> >> Either of you can currently add >> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >> new repository. >> >> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. > Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to > the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one > commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >> >> >> We also need a short description for the listing on >> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " > How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and > cloud support." > Sounds good to me. Thank you. > Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject > in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that > as well? > I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who shall I add to membership? -- Michael Halstead Yocto Project / Sys Admin > Thanks again, > Ray >> >> -- >> Michael Halstead >> Yocto Project / Sys Admin >> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> >>> Sau! >>> >>> >>> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not >>> sure I am >>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm >>> currently >>> researching a filesystem implementation for >>> OpenStack and have stumbled >>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look >>> promising. On top of this, >>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and >>> can be integrated >>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only >>> two pieces of the >>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>> >>> >>> Cool ! >>> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was >>> not meant >>> to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >>> >>> I think I would encourage you to also include >>> OpenStack in a >>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to >>> the point where >>> abstraction is more warranted. >>> >>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> Since you've already created a presence >>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen >>> layer? I can push >>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a >>> central place for >>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel >>> modifications. >>> >>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization >>> project. In any case, >>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to >>> this layer as a >>> starting point. >>> >>> Just my two cents. :) >>> >>> >>> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever >>> we decide to >>> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org >>> <http://git.yoctoproject.org> if that would help people >>> and people >>> are interested. My only concern is in the area of >>> maintainership, we >>> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the >>> patch submission >>> process is in the README. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the >>> majority code >>> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the >>> meta-virtualization layer. >>> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await >>> thee at its end" >> > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 15375 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --] [-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4516 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 23:23 ` Michael Halstead @ 2012-12-01 17:30 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-12-01 17:41 ` Philip Balister 2012-12-01 20:43 ` David Nyström 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-12-01 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Halstead; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6361 bytes --] On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Michael Halstead <michael@yoctoproject.org>wrote: > On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: > > On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: > > On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >> >>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, >>>>> the >>>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I >>>>> also >>>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>>> >>>>> >>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate >>> work. >>> >>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create a >> repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write access to it. >> > > This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to resend > or can > a local copy happen ? > > I already have keys for, > > David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 > Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 > > Either of you can currently add > git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and start > the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers and patch > submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the new repository. > > I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. > > Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to the > newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one commit to > tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. > > > > We also need a short description for the listing on git.yoctoproject.org. > I could be something similar to, but better than, "Layer enabling > virtualization support. " > > How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and cloud > support." > > Sounds good to me. Thank you. > > Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject in > the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that as well? > > I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who > shall I add to membership? > > At the risk of stating the obvious, I like the idea of a separate list, and would like to be added. But then again, i can always add myself later as well (assuming the same interface as the rest of the lists). Cheers, Bruce > > > -- > Michael Halstead > Yocto Project / Sys Admin > > > > Thanks again, > Ray > > > -- > Michael Halstead > Yocto Project / Sys Admin > > > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > >> >> Sau! >> >> >> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>>>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>>>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>>>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of >>>>> this, >>>>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>>>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>>>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>>>> >>>>> >>> Cool ! >>> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant >>> to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >>> >>> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>>>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>>>> abstraction is more warranted. >>>>> >>>> >>> Agree. >>> >>> Since you've already created a presence >>>>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>>>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>>>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>>>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any >>>>> case, >>>>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>>>> starting point. >>>>> >>>>> Just my two cents. :) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >>>> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >>>> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >>>> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >>>> process is in the README. >>>> >>>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code >>> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the >>> meta-virtualization layer. >>> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> > > > > -- > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee > at its end" > > > > > > -- "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end" [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14615 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-12-01 17:30 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-12-01 17:41 ` Philip Balister 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Philip Balister @ 2012-12-01 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: oe-core layer On 12/01/2012 09:30 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Michael Halstead > <michael@yoctoproject.org>wrote: > >> On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> >>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial goal for the meta-xen >>>>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. As such, the intent >>>>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space applications. Indeed, >>>>>> the >>>>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; hypervisor abstraction would >>>>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the libvirt build to >>>>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged between xen, qemu, >>>>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also agree that meta-xen >>>>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all virtualization types; I >>>>>> also >>>>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we don't duplicate >>>> work. >>>> >>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create a >>> repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write access to it. >>> >> >> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to resend >> or can >> a local copy happen ? >> >> I already have keys for, >> >> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >> >> Either of you can currently add >> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and start >> the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers and patch >> submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the new repository. >> >> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >> >> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to the >> newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one commit to >> tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >> >> >> >> We also need a short description for the listing on git.yoctoproject.org. >> I could be something similar to, but better than, "Layer enabling >> virtualization support. " >> >> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and cloud >> support." >> >> Sounds good to me. Thank you. >> >> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject in >> the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that as well? >> >> I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who >> shall I add to membership? >> >> > > At the risk of stating the obvious, I like the idea of a separate list, and > would like to be > added. But then again, i can always add myself later as well (assuming the > same > interface as the rest of the lists). I also like to track some lists via nntp from gmane. Philip > > Cheers, > > Bruce > > >> >> >> -- >> Michael Halstead >> Yocto Project / Sys Admin >> >> >> >> Thanks again, >> Ray >> >> >> -- >> Michael Halstead >> Yocto Project / Sys Admin >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bruce >> >> >>> >>> Sau! >>> >>> >>> As far as a meta-cloud layer is concerned, I'm not sure I am >>>>>> knowledgeable enough in this area to weigh in. I'm currently >>>>>> researching a filesystem implementation for OpenStack and have stumbled >>>>>> across Ceph/RBD and Gluster modules that look promising. On top of >>>>>> this, >>>>>> XCP is documented to include support for VastSky and can be integrated >>>>>> with DRBD. And, the storage and hypervisor are only two pieces of the >>>>>> puzzle for a cloud implementation! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> Cool ! >>>> I know, the meta-"cloud" name is quite/too ambitious, it was not meant >>>> to be a one week effort. But why aim low :). >>>> >>>> I think I would encourage you to also include OpenStack in a >>>>>> meta-virtualization layer until it has matured to the point where >>>>>> abstraction is more warranted. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> Agree. >>>> >>>> Since you've already created a presence >>>>>> at github, would it be possible to rename your layer to >>>>>> meta-virtualization and absorb the entire meta-xen layer? I can push >>>>>> any changes for Xen/XCP here, it sounds like it is a central place for >>>>>> libvirt and could also contain Bruce's kernel modifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alternatively, I can create a meta-virtualization project. In any >>>>>> case, >>>>>> those on the To and CC list should receive access to this layer as a >>>>>> starting point. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just my two cents. :) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to offer to host this combined layer (whatever we decide to >>>>> call it) on git.yoctoproject.org if that would help people and people >>>>> are interested. My only concern is in the area of maintainership, we >>>>> need to clearly define who maintains what and what the patch submission >>>>> process is in the README. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Sounds good to centralize everything, since Raymond is the majority code >>>> contributor, perhaps he, if willing, can maintain the >>>> meta-virtualization layer. >>>> If you want a co/sub-maintainer I'll be happy to help out. >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Richard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openembedded-core mailing list >>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee >> at its end" >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-11-30 23:23 ` Michael Halstead 2012-12-01 17:30 ` Bruce Ashfield @ 2012-12-01 20:43 ` David Nyström 2012-12-03 15:20 ` Prica, Mihai 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: David Nyström @ 2012-12-01 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Halstead; +Cc: oe-core layer On 12/01/2012 12:23 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: > On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>>> goal for the meta-xen >>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>>> As such, the intent >>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>>> applications. Indeed, the >>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>>> hypervisor abstraction would >>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>> >>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>>> libvirt build to >>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged >>>> between xen, qemu, >>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>>> agree that meta-xen >>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>>> virtualization types; I also >>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>> >>>> >>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>>> don't duplicate >>>> work. >>>> >>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create >>>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>>> access to it. >>>> >>>> >>>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>>> resend or can >>>> a local copy happen ? >>> I already have keys for, >>> >>> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >>> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >>> >>> Either of you can currently add >>> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >>> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >>> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >>> new repository. >>> >>> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to >> the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one >> commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >>> >>> >>> We also need a short description for the listing on >>> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >>> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " >> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and >> cloud support." >> > Sounds good to me. Thank you. >> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject >> in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that >> as well? >> > I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who > shall I add to membership? > I would like to be added, since it seems I can't add myself at https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo Best Regards, David ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-12-01 20:43 ` David Nyström @ 2012-12-03 15:20 ` Prica, Mihai 2012-12-03 16:00 ` Saul Wold 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Prica, Mihai @ 2012-12-03 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Nyström, Michael Halstead; +Cc: oe-core layer -----Original Message----- From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of David Nyström Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:44 PM To: Michael Halstead Cc: oe-core layer Subject: Re: [OE-core] meta-cloud layer On 12/01/2012 12:23 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: > On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>>> goal for the meta-xen >>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>>> As such, the intent >>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>>> applications. Indeed, the >>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>>> hypervisor abstraction would >>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>> >>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>>> libvirt build to >>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged >>>> between xen, qemu, >>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>>> agree that meta-xen >>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>>> virtualization types; I also >>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>> >>>> >>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>>> don't duplicate >>>> work. >>>> >>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create >>>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>>> access to it. >>>> >>>> >>>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>>> resend or can a local copy happen ? >>> I already have keys for, >>> >>> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >>> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >>> >>> Either of you can currently add >>> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >>> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >>> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >>> new repository. >>> >>> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to >> the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one >> commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >>> >>> >>> We also need a short description for the listing on >>> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >>> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " >> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and >> cloud support." >> > Sounds good to me. Thank you. >> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject >> in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that >> as well? >> > I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who > shall I add to membership? > > > I would like to be added, since it seems I can't add myself at > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo > > Best Regards, > David I would like to be added as well to the private list. Thanks, Mihai _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-12-03 15:20 ` Prica, Mihai @ 2012-12-03 16:00 ` Saul Wold 2012-12-03 16:04 ` Michael Halstead 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-12-03 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Prica, Mihai; +Cc: oe-core layer On 12/03/2012 07:20 AM, Prica, Mihai wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of David Nyström > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:44 PM > To: Michael Halstead > Cc: oe-core layer > Subject: Re: [OE-core] meta-cloud layer > > On 12/01/2012 12:23 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >> On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >>> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>>>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>>>> goal for the meta-xen >>>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>>>> As such, the intent >>>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>>>> applications. Indeed, the >>>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>>>> hypervisor abstraction would >>>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>>>> libvirt build to >>>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared packaged >>>>> between xen, qemu, >>>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>>>> agree that meta-xen >>>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>>>> virtualization types; I also >>>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>>>> don't duplicate >>>>> work. >>>>> >>>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead create >>>>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>>>> access to it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>>>> resend or can a local copy happen ? >>>> I already have keys for, >>>> >>>> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >>>> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >>>> >>>> Either of you can currently add >>>> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >>>> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >>>> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >>>> new repository. >>>> >>>> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >>> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to >>> the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one >>> commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >>>> >>>> >>>> We also need a short description for the listing on >>>> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >>>> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " >>> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and >>> cloud support." >>> >> Sounds good to me. Thank you. >>> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject >>> in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that >>> as well? >>> >> I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who >> shall I add to membership? >> >> >> I would like to be added, since it seems I can't add myself at >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo >> >> Best Regards, >> David > > I would like to be added as well to the private list. > Just to be clear to all this is not a private list, there was some issue I think with getting it initialized, it is visiable and available to all from the https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo URL, and it is getting added to the main list of Mailing lists today. Sorry for any confusion. Sau! > Thanks, > Mihai > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-12-03 16:00 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-12-03 16:04 ` Michael Halstead 2012-12-03 16:27 ` Raymond Danks 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Michael Halstead @ 2012-12-03 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Saul Wold; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5384 bytes --] On 12/03/2012 08:00 AM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 12/03/2012 07:20 AM, Prica, Mihai wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org >> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf >> Of David Nyström >> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:44 PM >> To: Michael Halstead >> Cc: oe-core layer >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] meta-cloud layer >> >> On 12/01/2012 12:23 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>> On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>>>> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>>>>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>>>>> goal for the meta-xen >>>>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>>>>> As such, the intent >>>>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>>>>> applications. Indeed, the >>>>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>>>>> hypervisor abstraction would >>>>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>>>>> libvirt build to >>>>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared >>>>>> packaged >>>>>> between xen, qemu, >>>>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>>>>> agree that meta-xen >>>>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>>>>> virtualization types; I also >>>>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>>>>> don't duplicate >>>>>> work. >>>>>> >>>>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead >>>>>> create >>>>>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>>>>> access to it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>>>>> resend or can a local copy happen ? >>>>> I already have keys for, >>>>> >>>>> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >>>>> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >>>>> >>>>> Either of you can currently add >>>>> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >>>>> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >>>>> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >>>>> new repository. >>>>> >>>>> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >>>> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to >>>> the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one >>>> commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We also need a short description for the listing on >>>>> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >>>>> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " >>>> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and >>>> cloud support." >>>> >>> Sounds good to me. Thank you. >>>> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject >>>> in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that >>>> as well? >>>> >>> I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who >>> shall I add to membership? >>> >>> >>> I would like to be added, since it seems I can't add myself at >>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> David >> >> I would like to be added as well to the private list. >> > Just to be clear to all this is not a private list, there was some > issue I think with getting it initialized, it is visiable and > available to all from the https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo URL, > and it is getting added to the main list of Mailing lists today. > > Sorry for any confusion. > > Sau! > This was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought this was a simple mail alias for the maintainers. A full list has been set up and can be seen at https://lists.yoctoproject.org/ or https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo. Anyone can subscribe. I'm also working on getting this list added to Gmane for fans for NNTP. -- Michael Halstead Yocto Project / Sys Admin > >> Thanks, >> Mihai >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> > [-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --] [-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4516 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: meta-cloud layer 2012-12-03 16:04 ` Michael Halstead @ 2012-12-03 16:27 ` Raymond Danks 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Raymond Danks @ 2012-12-03 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Halstead; +Cc: oe-core layer [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5289 bytes --] On 12/03/2012 09:04 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: > On 12/03/2012 08:00 AM, Saul Wold wrote: >> On 12/03/2012 07:20 AM, Prica, Mihai wrote: >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org >>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf >>> Of David Nyström >>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 10:44 PM >>> To: Michael Halstead >>> Cc: oe-core layer >>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] meta-cloud layer >>> >>> On 12/01/2012 12:23 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2012 12:17 PM, Raymond Danks wrote: >>>>> On 11/30/2012 11:03 AM, Michael Halstead wrote: >>>>>> On 11/30/2012 09:26 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com >>>>>>> <mailto:sgw@linux.intel.com>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/30/2012 03:29 AM, David Nyström wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11/29/2012 02:54 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 2012-11-29 at 06:44 -0700, Raymond Danks >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in here David. The initial >>>>>>> goal for the meta-xen >>>>>>> layer was in fact to encompass Xen Cloud Platform. >>>>>>> As such, the intent >>>>>>> was to contain both hypervisor and user-space >>>>>>> applications. Indeed, the >>>>>>> xen distribution itself includes xm/libxl; >>>>>>> hypervisor abstraction would >>>>>>> be somewhat tedious in my opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The layer just received commits for expanding the >>>>>>> libvirt build to >>>>>>> support qemu. The commonalities and shared >>>>>>> packaged >>>>>>> between xen, qemu, >>>>>>> and kvm implementations are such that I would also >>>>>>> agree that meta-xen >>>>>>> should be expanded/renamed to encompass all >>>>>>> virtualization types; I also >>>>>>> support the move to meta-virtualization. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> meta-virtualization sounds good, let co-op on this so we >>>>>>> don't duplicate >>>>>>> work. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If everyone is OK with this, I will have Michael Halstead >>>>>>> create >>>>>>> a repo, please send him your keys so that you will have write >>>>>>> access to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This works for me. If Michael already has our keys, do we need to >>>>>>> resend or can a local copy happen ? >>>>>> I already have keys for, >>>>>> >>>>>> David Nystrom df:2d:b1:59:f3:d7:73:fc:59:36:7b:cf:85:28:a7:50 >>>>>> Bruce Ashfield 4f:93:90:b2:c7:a1:45:21:f2:47:31:6f:60:f9:60:02 >>>>>> >>>>>> Either of you can currently add >>>>>> git@git.yoctoproject.org:meta-virtualization as a git remote and >>>>>> start the repository. Once we have initial code and the maintainers >>>>>> and patch submission guidelines in the readme I can publicly list the >>>>>> new repository. >>>>>> >>>>>> I require an ssh public key for Raymond Danks. >>>>> Thanks Michael. I got your response and was able to push meta-xen to >>>>> the newly created repository on meta-virtualization. I added one >>>>> commit to tweak the README and conf/layer.conf for the new name. >>>>>> >>>>>> We also need a short description for the listing on >>>>>> git.yoctoproject.org. I could be something similar to, but better >>>>>> than, "Layer enabling virtualization support. " >>>>> How about "Layer enabling hypervisor, virtualization tool stack, and >>>>> cloud support." >>>>> >>>> Sounds good to me. Thank you. >>>>> Also - I referenced the mail alias meta-virtualization at yoctoproject >>>>> in the README. When you publish this, can we use something like that >>>>> as well? >>>>> >>>> I can add a private list for meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org. Who >>>> shall I add to membership? >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to be added, since it seems I can't add myself at >>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> David >>> I would like to be added as well to the private list. >>> >> Just to be clear to all this is not a private list, there was some >> issue I think with getting it initialized, it is visiable and >> available to all from the https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo URL, >> and it is getting added to the main list of Mailing lists today. >> >> Sorry for any confusion. >> >> Sau! >> > This was a misunderstanding on my part. I thought this was a simple mail > alias for the maintainers. A full list has been set up and can be seen > at https://lists.yoctoproject.org/ or > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo. Anyone can subscribe. I'm also > working on getting this list added to Gmane for fans for NNTP. > Awesome. Thanks Michael. Thanks Sau! > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7338 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-03 16:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-11-28 16:10 meta-cloud layer David Nyström 2012-11-28 16:22 ` Richard Purdie 2012-11-28 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-29 8:41 ` David Nyström 2012-11-29 10:05 ` Prica, Mihai 2012-11-29 13:44 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-29 13:54 ` Richard Purdie 2012-11-30 11:29 ` David Nyström 2012-11-30 17:14 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-30 17:25 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-30 17:15 ` Saul Wold 2012-11-30 17:26 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-11-30 18:03 ` Michael Halstead 2012-11-30 20:17 ` Raymond Danks 2012-11-30 23:23 ` Michael Halstead 2012-12-01 17:30 ` Bruce Ashfield 2012-12-01 17:41 ` Philip Balister 2012-12-01 20:43 ` David Nyström 2012-12-03 15:20 ` Prica, Mihai 2012-12-03 16:00 ` Saul Wold 2012-12-03 16:04 ` Michael Halstead 2012-12-03 16:27 ` Raymond Danks
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox