[ovirt-users] Ubuntu/Debian support?

[Yedidyah Bar David]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim at redhat.com>
> To: "Yedidyah Bar David" <didi at redhat.com>
> Cc: users at ovirt.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:58:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Ubuntu/Debian support?
> 
> On 11/18/2014 03:54 AM, Yedidyah Bar David wrote:
> > Define "issue". iow, define what our goal is. If it's "make it possible
> > to easily run ovirt on debian", that's one thing, perhaps easily achieved
> > by your points 4-5 below. If it's "have ovirt packaged inside the Debian
> > archive" that's a considerably different issue.
> > I think we should aim for the latter, the former is a start.
> 
> I'm fine with "for" not "inside" - that's the current status for fedora
> and we are not there yet even for centos.

IIRC 3.1 was (is?) in the archive. The fact that recent versions aren't, is
a different issue. oVirt is at least currently developing quite fast, and
the release processes of distributions mean that users that use only stuff
from the official archive will get older versions, which I think for oVirt
wasn't very acceptable until recently, perhaps still is - I do not think
anyone (here or elsewhere) would like to support 3.1, as recent versions
are so much better.

Even if we do not aim for inclusion in the official archive any time soon,
we can still try to make our packages as nice as possible for that - including
e.g. carefully checking the Debian policy documents and adhering to them,
try to consult experienced Debian packagers for whatever pitfalls we should
try to avoid, etc. All of this is not as important if you merely want to make
using ovirt on Debian possible or easy.

> 
> >
> > 8. Do we have here existing users that are interested in
> > this? If it worked equally well, would you (re?)install on Debian?
> >
> > Because if the answer is 'No', we might be discussing this on the
> > wrong list, and better approach Debian lists/forums/etc.
> 
> that's one of the reasons i qualified this as a "quick non-scientific
> poll"...
> 

Not sure this question makes it any more scientific :-)
-- 
Didi