cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] include vhd-util in system vm template?
Date Thu, 16 May 2013 02:00:57 GMT
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:47 AM
>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] include vhd-util in system vm template?
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:00:57AM -0700, Edison Su wrote:
>> > Regarding to bug: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-
>> 2481, there is no vhd-util installed in system vm template, thus certain
>> storage related operations failed.
>> > As discussed before, vhd-util binary is licensed under BSD and
>> GPL(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-30), it should be
>> ok to included in system vm template, right?
>>
>> Edison - The issue isn't if we can include it in a built system VM really.  We are
>> building those from a number of GPL projects (obviously including the OS
>> itself).
>>
>> The issue with the legal stuff is how we tie to that software and if we intend
>> to distribute it from ASF infra.  As long as we don't store the utility in our
>> version control, and do not actually ship it from ASF hardware, we can
>> consider it OK IMO.  The inclusion of that utility will need to be part of the
>> system VM build config, which we do store in the repo obviously.
> I agree. We will not store that utility in ASF cloudstack git repository. And vhd-utility
is same as any other GPL binary we already installed in system vm template.
>
> For example, in the system vm build script(tools/appliance/definitions/systemvmtemplate/postinstall.sh):
>
> There is one line code like:
> wget http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/h/haproxy/haproxy_1.4.8-1_i386.deb
>
> then why we can't do the following:
>
> wget http://some-place/vhd-util -O /bin/
>
>

This doesn't seem to pollute our releases, so I don't see a difference
between haproxy and vhd-util, or a problem in general.

--David

Mime
View raw message