On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:50:33AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > > On 12/2/20 10:57 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > > Currently in use Fedora 31 has been moved out of the standard download > > > locations that are supported by the functionality provided by > > > avocado.utils.vmimage. So right now, the boot_linux.py tests will get > > > canceled by not being able to find those specific images. > > > > > > Ideally, this would be bumped to version 33. But, I've found issues > > > with the aarch64 images, with various systemd services failing to > > > start. So to keep all archs consistent, I've settled on 32. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py | 12 ++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py > > > b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py > > > index 1da4a53d6a..0824de008e 100644 > > > --- a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py > > > +++ b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py > > > @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ class BootLinuxBase(Test): > > > vmimage.QEMU_IMG = qemu_img > > > > > > self.log.info('Downloading/preparing boot image') > > > - # Fedora 31 only provides ppc64le images > > > + # Fedora 32 only provides ppc64le images > > > image_arch = self.arch > > > if image_arch == 'ppc64': > > > image_arch = 'ppc64le' > > > try: > > > boot = vmimage.get( > > > - 'fedora', arch=image_arch, version='31', > > > + 'fedora', arch=image_arch, version='32', > > > > I already expressed my view on this (latest QEMU should be > > able to use at least f31 - which was tested - and eventually > > f33 - which is coverage extension). I'm not going to vouch > > this change. If other maintainers are happy with it, I don't > > mind this gets merged. > > > > BTW I don't see why this is urgent for 5.2. > > > > Phil. > > > > Hi Phil, > > Are you implying that, in your opinion, QEMU (say 5.2) should somehow > provide compatibility with Fedora 31 because it was used during the > entire cycle? I sympathize with that, but, QEMU is not really > advertising compatibility support with specific Linux Distros, is it? > > And, assuming that the issues I found on the Fedora 33 aarch64 image > can not be worked around, would you suggest not moving to 32? I mean, > I don't see a reason why QEMU shouldn't be able to use at least Fedora > 32, which is a currently *active* version (different from 31).
I think the problem with the Fedora acceptance is that we'll be constantly chasing a moving target. Every URL we pick will go away 6-12 months later. IOW, while the acceptance test pass today, in 6 months time they'll be failing. IOW, switching to F32 doesn't solve the root cause, it just pushs the problem down the road for 6 months until F32 is EOL and hits the same URL change problem. One way to avoid this is to *not* actually test a current Fedora. Instead intentionally point at an EOL Fedora release whose URL has already moved to the archive site which is long term stable. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|