This should provide an overview of the issue/functionality/change proposed here. Focus here on what will actually be DONE, summarising that so that other people don't have to read the whole spec. See also CategorySpec for examples.

Release Note

This section should include a paragraph describing the end-user impact of this change. It is meant to be included in the release notes of the first release in which it is implemented. (Not all of these will actually be included in the release notes, at the release manager's discretion; but writing them is a useful exercise.)

It is mandatory.


This should cover the _why_: why is this change being proposed, what justifies it, where we see this justified.

User stories



You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.


This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.



  • data migration, if any
  • redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
  • how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

It's important that we are able to test new features, and demonstrate them to users. Use this section to describe a short plan that anybody can follow that demonstrates the feature is working. This can then be used during testing, and to show off after release. Please add an entry to for tracking test coverage.

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.

Goal of this session: agree on a common vision for Ubuntu appliances

  • What is an Ubuntu appliance?
    • An Ubuntu appliance pre-packages an application and OS in such a way that it is ready to run immediately
    • The first and only way that the administrator interacts with an Ubuntu appliance should be via a web browser or other appropriate application-level client
    • The OS should be "invisible"
    • Simple experience.
  • Run primarily in the cloud, could run elsewhere
  • What would make Ubuntu appliances great?
    • Ubuntu appliances should run and work well under UEC
    • Ubuntu appliances should use only system components from Ubuntu repositories
  • What are the challenges?
    • first run experience, requires postinstall configuration, prompts, etc
    • use of web app for configuration, perhaps compromises some security
    • persistent storage
    • configuration management system

== ==

Goal: Reduce complexity for system administrators in deploying and maintaining applications

  • Enable end users to deploy applications in self-service fashion
  • Push architectural decisions upstream (toward application developers, away from system administrators)
  • Make the operating system maintenance-free (sealed package)
  • Explicitly define the service architecture as part of the appliance
    • Storage, network, applications, connections among these
    • Not only in the mind of the system administrator
    • Not in outdated documentation
    • Can be examined and acted upon by software (e.g. introspection)
    • Can be modified by software (e.g. change MediaWiki to use Amazon RDS instead of local mysql)

Goal: Reduce complexity for developers and ISVs

  • Enable software demos with a very low barrier to entry
  • Simplify support through standardized configuration
  • Create new ways for users to obtain (and potentially buy) applications

use cases

  • create a custom appliances and ship it to satellite offices
  • move to a new cloud provider without losing data (even if the first one has gone away)
  • moving to a new version of a cloud provider / API, and carrying appliances forward

Implementation Options

  • OVF as a format
    • already a "standard"
    • solves some of the configuration issues, already
    • provides basic bootstrap configuration framework (key/value pairs)
    • provides ability to compose appliances (lay two services in the same VM)
    • handles network configuration between multiple VMs
  • Publishing
    • Unique image per appliance
    • Tasksel/meta-package add-on to a base image to appliancize it


VirtualAppliancesV2Spec (last edited 2009-11-23 10:27:39 by 95)