On Wednesday 05 July 2006 14:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:09 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> > I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
> > real plans. Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
> > filesystems for UML would be n
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:59 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't"fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
> category, app-virtualization. That wou
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:09 -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> I'm open to arguments in favor of such a project, tho, if people have
> real plans. Certainly, an easier way to generate and maintain root
> filesystems for UML would be nice.
As far as VMware is concerned, I see no point in this herd.
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:59:12 -0600
Nick Devito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't"fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a
> new category, app-vir
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 07:59:12 -0600
Nick Devito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't"fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a
> new category, app-vir
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 07:59 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
> doesn't"fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
> vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
> category, app-virtualization. That wou
Yeah, to me, having those in the emulation category just
doesn't"fit" there, but, that's just me. Maybe we could take xen,
vmware, qemu, and related packages out of app-emulation, and make a new
category, app-virtualization. That would seem to fit a bit better then
emulation.
On Tue, 2006-07-
On 03/07/06, Benedikt Böhm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> more fitting to group those packages together.
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 20:15 -0600, Nick Devito wrote:
> Generating root filesystems for UML and Xen are basically the same
> process. I've heard of domi, but, bleh, I never could get it to work. I
> usually just make my images in chroot, and that usually works well. But,
> since the images are *bas
Generating root filesystems for UML and Xen are basically the same
process. I've heard of domi, but, bleh, I never could get it to work. I
usually just make my images in chroot, and that usually works well. But,
since the images are *basically* the same, that means it would be
possible to use the j
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 22:28 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages t
That's what I was trying to say is that bochs/qemu/vmware are emulation
since they emulate x86 hardware, though I would see some good by
including Xen and User-mode Linux with the VPS Project, since that seems
fitting. Oh yeah, don't forget vmware-server, that's supposely supposed
to be used in vir
On Monday 03 July 2006 22:28, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> > Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> > virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> > more fitting to group those packages togeth
On Monday 03 July 2006 21:56, Nick Devito wrote:
> Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
> virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
> more fitting to group those packages together.
not really, bochs, qemu and vmware is emulation, merel
Okay, in that case, extend the vserver herd to include a larger range of
virtualization stuff, including Xen, Bochs, and so on. It just seems
more fitting to group those packages together.
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 21:48 +0200, Benedikt Böhm wrote:
> On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> >
On Monday 03 July 2006 19:49, Nick Devito wrote:
> Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
> and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing complexity
> of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm suggesting
> that a Virtualization herd
Looking at the number of virtualization-related packages (xen, openvz,
and related packages) that are in portage, and the increasing complexity
of these packages (which means more problems, as usual), I'm suggesting
that a Virtualization herd be formed to handle these packages. I was
also going to
17 matches
Mail list logo
