openstack team mailing list archive

[Thierry Carrez <thierry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Soren Hansen <soren@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:soren@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
>     2011/6/7 Andy Smith <andyster@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:andyster@xxxxxxxxx>>:
>     > At the moment the two closest things to being "official"
>     installations for
>     > us (me? are the chef recipes and the nova.sh script (the nova.sh
>     script
>     > obviously being only targeted at testing and dev though), those
>     are what we
>     > use to verify that the system is functional and I think we'd like
>     to use
>     > chef or puppet for baremetal deployments as well.
>     > TL;DR: Can we focus on the chef recipes instead of on .debs?
> 
>     I must have missed a memo at some point. Really.
> 
> 
> No memo, just what we've been using for lack (or ignorance) of an
> alternative that allows us to adequately deploy and configure a system
> quickly, and they are what we run our own continuous builds and
> smoketests against for existing deployments.

I think the confusion here is the same as in the above thread: Andy
thought that Monty would generate additional .debs to handle deployment
of complex infrastructures, therefore he says that such orchestration
should rely on what we currently have instead, which is Chef recipes or
nova.sh-style all-in-ones.

All those rely, as the basic building block, on the "official" packages
in PPAs, so it's not "Chef and nova.sh are the official way to install
OpenStack", but rather "Chef and nova.sh are the existing ways to
orchestrate the use of multiple packages across deployment nodes".

I think we all agree that you two should agree that you've agreed to
agree on agreeing. Or not.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack