| ... | ... | @@ -32,3 +32,60 @@ about how we want to present the provider-specific details in a way |
|
|
|
that'll be most familiar to somebody working with that provider's
|
|
|
|
services on a daily basis. That will likely differ somewhat based on the
|
|
|
|
cloud provider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. In your "provider details", I can see name, zone, version, etc., though
|
|
|
|
what's really missing is the image ID and the API URL. I guess an
|
|
|
|
example output of your table would be:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Name Zone Version Code Name Arch Release
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
debian-stretch-9.9.0 Eu1 9.9.0 Stretch amd64 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
2. What will you put under "Release" that's not covered in "Code Name" and
|
|
|
|
"Version"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To me, it's missing these fields (just an example):
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Provider name: Infomaniak Network SA
|
|
|
|
Provider Home page: http://www.infomaniak.com
|
|
|
|
API URL: https://eu1.cloud.infomaniak.ch
|
|
|
|
Image ID: de5a9652-8af5-410d-adf7-055e5a45a85e
|
|
|
|
Format: qcow2
|
|
|
|
Image type: Base image (more on this below...)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. I don't really like the fact that you are against "cloud providers'
|
|
|
|
logo" because you believe it does promotion. Indeed, we're already
|
|
|
|
providing images for GCE, Google and AWS, which will have a huge
|
|
|
|
exposure (because they have their respective sections). I don't think it
|
|
|
|
is nice to provider non-free providers a better exposure than their
|
|
|
|
free-software based counterpart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Also, you have to make sure that providers have automation to update the
|
|
|
|
finder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Another thing: we may soon provide specialized image, containing some
|
|
|
|
kind of application. Let me explain. In Buster, we have Octavia. This is
|
|
|
|
a "load balancer as a service". I managed to make a debian based image
|
|
|
|
for this, containing the Octavia agent, and some other tweakings, so
|
|
|
|
that the image can be used directly by Octavia. I'd love to make this an
|
|
|
|
official Debian image soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just an example, but I'm convinced their will be others, for
|
|
|
|
example for OpenStack Trove (DB as a Service) and maybe more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In such case, we may want to make it explicite which type of image we're
|
|
|
|
talking about. For example "Base image" or "Octavia HAProxy Amphora".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The prototype code for Octavia's image is here:
|
|
|
|
https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/tree/debian/stein/contrib/octavia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. I don't think there's ever going to be anyone providing i386
|
|
|
|
images... :) |
