On 12/3/20 6:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > 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?
What I don't understand is why you remove F31 and not simply add a F32 test. Why should I stop testing F31 if I have it cached? >> >> 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. I agree with Daniel, 'acceptance' test must not fail. Having an archived image allow us to not rely on external disappearing storage. > > Regards, > Daniel >