[cloud] #33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages
#33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages +-- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: --- | Keywords: +-- See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 (the first part of which I am repeating here): Background: 1. Right now, license files are required to be marked as %doc files. 2. There has long been a nodocs parameter to RPM which skips all doc files. 3. In addition to the desired space-savings, this installs packages without their possibly-mandatory license files This interaction hasn't been problematic before, because generally using nodocs is an endpoint choice with no distribution after that. But now, we are looking at building some official cloud and container images with nodocs, so it suddenly becomes important. As a bonus, it's my understanding that this tag can automatically handle hardlinking identical license files. Specifically, I propose: 1. We change the guidelines 2. We start doing it for new packages 3. We file a F21 system-wide change for a proven packager to change all the packages that land in the cloud image for F21 (roughly, @core + dependencies plus a few extras) 4. We file a system-wide change for F22 to update all other packages which are part of the base design 5. Other packages updated on a as-time-permits/best-effort basis -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/33 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image
#19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image ---+--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: red Type: task | Status: accepted Priority: blocker| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Docker Host Image | Resolution: Keywords: | ---+--- Comment (by red): While I agree we can make this one very special purpose and radical, I'm just not sure ostree is there yet. I know, we want to adopt it early on and I love to ride the leading edge but I currently think we lack the capacity and it's not crucial to the image / mission. We do have a lot on our plates and activity in the WG / SIG is faltering. So my opinion tends slightly towards keep things close to how they were in F20 and focus on the new products and low hanging fruits like smaller footprint and systemd-networkd. That obviously includes sticking with yum/dnf and python for now. Also, getting rid of cloud-init (or rather, all its dependencies etc.) would be nice but min-metadata-service isn't ready (and I'm not fully convinced radically minimal is great here). Unfortunately, I didn't have time to pay a closer look to coreos' solution either but I figure it isn't in Fedora yet anyway, so getting it in might take too long. So since we didn't have a meeting in a while and I'd rather not formulate a change proposal with lots of undecided things/options, I hope more people (voting members and others) can weigh in here or on the ml. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/19#comment:7 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #34: External need: batched updates
#34: External need: batched updates + Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Flock 2014 Component: --- | Keywords: + '''Summary:''' We want to produce updated images on a monthly cadence. It would be nice if we could produce those from QA'd bunches of packages. '''Importance:''' moderate (it will be hard to implement image refresh without this, but we could do it) '''Timeframe:''' F21 release + 1 month / Obviously better if we get things lined up earlier '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Primarily QA, but Rel Eng and Infrastructure too. This is pretty big. ''' Cloud SIG owner:''' TBD (this probably needs someone actively contributing to initial and ongoing work) See the related Change proposal (A)Periodic Updates to the Images http://flock2013.sched.org/event/8c4f702e42814598e0e4e31b188a0ae6 What's this ticket about? We need an owner for this — someone to drive it forward. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/34 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages
#33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Cloud Base Image | Resolution: Keywords:| --+--- Changes (by mattdm): * component: --- = Cloud Base Image -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/33#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #34: External need: batched updates
#34: External need: batched updates --+- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Flock 2014 Component: Software Updates | Resolution: Keywords:| --+- Changes (by mattdm): * component: --- = Software Updates -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/34#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #30: Test ticket to make sure address changes actually work right
#30: Test ticket to make sure address changes actually work right --+- Reporter: rbergero | Owner: Type: task | Status: closed Priority: normal| Milestone: Future Component: --- | Resolution: worksforme Keywords:| --+- Changes (by mattdm): * status: new = closed * resolution: = worksforme -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/30#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website
#36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website +--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: jzb Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Final) Component: Website Wiki | Keywords: +--- '''Summary:''' Since we are now one of the three top level artifacts Fedora produces, we want to emphasize our unique niche. Updated website with new flashier branding, plus tools for selecting different images for different use cases '''Importance:''' vital (it's basically part of the whole exercise) '''Timeframe:''' F21 release / arguably, having the web site up ''is'' the release. And it'd be nice to have earlier, like at the alpha and beta '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Websites '''Cloud SIG owner:''' Joe Brockmeier https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites/ticket/248 -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/36 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website
#36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website + Reporter: mattdm | Owner: jzb Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Final) Component: Website Wiki | Resolution: Keywords: | + Comment (by mattdm): Joe, if you want to track things in this ticket, it's here to use; otherwise it's okay to close it as redundant with the one in the websites team tracker. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/36#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #37: External Need: software collections
#37: External Need: software collections -+- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: mattdm Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Component: Collaboration | Deadline) Communication | Keywords: -+- External Need: Software Collections for Cloud Users Summary: Provides selection of language stacks of particular versions to users. '''Importance:''' vital (provides a meaningful reason to use Fedora cloud image, and helps insulate against rapid change) '''Timeframe:''' F21 release / This is a requirement of users in production. '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Environments and Stacks '''Cloud SIG owner:''' mattdm -- more help wanted :) Draft feature proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist#External_Need:_Software_Collections_for_Cloud_Users -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/37 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #37: External Need: software collections
#37: External Need: software collections -+- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: mattdm Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Component: Collaboration | Deadline) Communication | Resolution: Keywords: | -+- Old description: External Need: Software Collections for Cloud Users Summary: Provides selection of language stacks of particular versions to users. '''Importance:''' vital (provides a meaningful reason to use Fedora cloud image, and helps insulate against rapid change) '''Timeframe:''' F21 release / This is a requirement of users in production. '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Environments and Stacks '''Cloud SIG owner:''' mattdm -- more help wanted :) Draft feature proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist#External_Need:_Software_Collections_for_Cloud_Users New description: External Need: Software Collections for Cloud Users Summary: Provides selection of language stacks of particular versions to users. '''Importance:''' vital (provides a meaningful reason to use Fedora cloud image, and helps insulate against rapid change) '''Timeframe:''' F21 release / This is a requirement of users in production. '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Environments and Stacks '''Cloud SIG owner:''' mattdm -- more help wanted :) Draft feature proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/Changes_Drafts/SCL -- Comment (by mattdm): This one is Mostly Done but we could add more to Marcela's proposal. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/37#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #38: Automatic Smoketests on Image Build
#38: Automatic Smoketests on Image Build --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Alpha) Component: Testing QA | Keywords: --+--- '''Summary:''' When a new image is built in Koji, automatically boot it and run a basic matrix of tests. '''Importance:''' moderate (worst case, we can keep doing this by hand) '''Timeframe:''' F21 alpha / Want to reduce manual test workload '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' QA and the Taskotran project '''Cloud SIG owner:''' Sandro Mathys https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Taskotron -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/38 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #39: External Need: Scratch Builds on Change
#39: External Need: Scratch Builds on Change + Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Type: task| Status: new Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Branch) Component: --- | Keywords: + '''Summary:''' Whenever the kickstart changes, _or_ an RPM which is on the image hits the tree, a new scratch image is automatically built. '''Importance:''' nice to have (makes development much easier, and makes it quick to spot and fix problems before they affect anyone) '''Timeframe:''' whenever we can get it / this adds value whenever it happens '''Fedora Sub-Project/SIG:''' Release Engineering, possibly Infrastructure for resources '''Cloud SIG owner''': TBD We need an owner for this -- someone to drive it. And someone to help release engineering and infrastructure with the actual implementation work (not necessarily the same person, but also not necessarily different) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/39 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website
#36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website + Reporter: mattdm | Owner: jzb Type: task| Status: assigned Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Final) Component: Website Wiki | Resolution: Keywords: | + Changes (by jzb): * status: new = assigned -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/36#comment:2 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website
#36: Coordinate F21 / fedora next website + Reporter: mattdm | Owner: jzb Type: task| Status: assigned Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Final) Component: Website Wiki | Resolution: Keywords: | + Comment (by jzb): I'll try to keep this updated so we can more easily track things, even if it is slightly redundant. Also added myself to CC on the other one. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/36#comment:3 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #40: rel-eng/image upload changes for f21
#40: rel-eng/image upload changes for f21 -+- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major| Milestone: Fedora 21 Component: Infrastructure Release | (Alpha) Engineering| Keywords: -+- Some small updates to the cloud image upload process: * https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5880 * https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5881 -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/40 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #41: Write Initial QA Documents
#41: Write Initial QA Documents --+ Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Branch) Component: Testing QA | Keywords: --+ * '''What:''' Work out and write down structured test plans and test cases and, if additional are necessary, release criteria / requirements. * '''Where:''' Fedora Wiki * '''Why:''' So testers know how to test, and QA overlords and rel-eng know when the images are actually ready for release. Or maybe rather, when they're not. * '''When:''' Before the very first alpha release candidate (RC) of Fedora 21 is due. * '''Who:''' Someone in cloud working group in collaboration with QA. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/41 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #42: policies for batched updates
#42: policies for batched updates --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Final) Component: Software Updates | Keywords: --+--- See ticket #18 We want to putting out updated images periodically (or aperiodically as needed). What are the rules? What are the procedures? Where are they documented? -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/42 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #41: Write Initial QA Documents
#41: Write Initial QA Documents --+- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Branch) Component: Testing QA | Resolution: Keywords:| --+- Changes (by jzb): * cc: jzb@… (added) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/41#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
[cloud] #43: procedures and process for getting updated images onto mirrors
#43: procedures and process for getting updated images onto mirrors --+-- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: blocker | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Beta) Component: Software Updates | Keywords: --+-- Right now, cloud images only get mirrored at GA release time. We need to figure out how to ship updates. -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/43 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages
#33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Cloud Base Image | Resolution: Keywords:| --+--- Comment (by mrunge): IMHO it makes sense to have this distribution wide; it's not specific to cloud at all. Nevertheless, I really like the idea. This is a process, not necessarily required to be completed at a specific point of time. Why don't we propose a badge for this and let users submit patches to specs? -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/33#comment:2 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #29: Coordinate Features that aren't filed
#29: Coordinate Features that aren't filed --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: blocker | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Planning | Resolution: Keywords: meeting | --+--- Description changed by mattdm: Old description: Here's the list: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/query?summary=^Filestatus=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedmilestone=Fedora+21+%28Feature+Deadline%29order=prioritycol=idcol=summarycol=statuscol=typecol=prioritycol=milestonecol=component These tickets are for making sure we get the changes filed. Actual tracking of the progress will be using the main feature process (no intention of adding duplication!), although we can of course also file new tickets here for tracking individual bits of work. New description: Here's the list: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/query?status=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedsummary=^Filemilestone=Fedora+21+%28Feature+Deadline%29order=prioritycol=idcol=summarycol=milestonecol=statuscol=ownercol=component These tickets are for making sure we get the changes filed. Actual tracking of the progress will be using the main feature process (no intention of adding duplication!), although we can of course also file new tickets here for tracking individual bits of work. -- -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/29#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #21: File F21 change: Install without i10n / l18n support (w/optional install)
#21: File F21 change: Install without i10n / l18n support (w/optional install) --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: mattdm Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Cloud Base Image | Resolution: Keywords:| --+--- Changes (by mattdm): * status: new = assigned * owner: = mattdm -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/21#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #22: File F21 change: Ability to install without documentation (w/optional install later)
#22: File F21 change: Ability to install without documentation (w/optional install later) +--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: mattdm Type: task| Status: assigned Priority: normal | Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Docker (Other) | Resolution: Keywords: | +--- Changes (by mattdm): * owner: = mattdm * status: new = assigned Old description: '''Summary:''' In many cases, users will not want documentation on cloud images. We should be able to provide support to create/deliver cloud images without documentation but still have it available for installation if desired. '''NOTE:''' we need to decide on an image-by-image basis whether we will include the docs by default. Previously there was strong SIG support for leaving man pages in the image for administrator convenience. We should affirm that decision or, if we want to change it, do so intentionally. It's likely that the docker host image _won't_ contain docs but the cloud base host image will. Docker _container_ images more certainly won't. '''Importance:''' moderate '''Timeframe:''' F21 alpha / should be at least mostly implemented by alpha or will not be ready for this release. Scope. self-contained Cloud SIG owner. mattdm https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Optional_documentation_cloud_image New description: '''Summary:''' In many cases, users will not want documentation on cloud images. We should be able to provide support to create/deliver cloud images without documentation but still have it available for installation if desired. '''NOTE:''' we need to decide on an image-by-image basis whether we will include the docs by default. Previously there was strong SIG support for leaving man pages in the image for administrator convenience. We should affirm that decision or, if we want to change it, do so intentionally. It's likely that the docker host image _won't_ contain docs but the cloud base host image will. Docker _container_ images more certainly won't. '''Importance:''' moderate '''Timeframe:''' F21 alpha / should be at least mostly implemented by alpha or will not be ready for this release. Scope. self-contained Cloud SIG owner. mattdm https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Optional_documentation_in_cloud_image -- -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/22#comment:1 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #23: File F21 change: Re-factor cloud-init
#23: File F21 change: Re-factor cloud-init --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: Type: task | Status: new Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Cloud Base Image | Resolution: Keywords: meeting | --+--- Description changed by mattdm: Old description: '''Summary:''' Cloud Init was initially designed for a different distribution and is only loosely tailored for our needs. As it stands, it pulls in a rather large set of packages not used for other things. It is also written in Python, itself a large subsystem which it would eventually be nice to leave out of the base. Effort is moderate, with some low-hanging fruit which may be addressed easily. '''Importance:''' vital long term, but just moderate for F21 (We really need this, but if we don't get work it now, it's in acceptable shape for this release.) '''Timeframe:''' F21 alpha, or F22 / if we don't make alpha with changes, this can go in next release. '''Scope:''' Self-contained '''Cloud SIG owner:''' TBD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/(A)Periodic_Updates_to_Images New description: '''Summary:''' Cloud Init was initially designed for a different distribution and is only loosely tailored for our needs. As it stands, it pulls in a rather large set of packages not used for other things. It is also written in Python, itself a large subsystem which it would eventually be nice to leave out of the base. Effort is moderate, with some low- hanging fruit which may be addressed easily. '''Importance:''' vital long term, but just moderate for F21 (We really need this, but if we don't get work it now, it's in acceptable shape for this release.) '''Timeframe:''' F21 alpha, or F22 / if we don't make alpha with changes, this can go in next release. '''Scope:''' Self-contained '''Cloud SIG owner:''' TBD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Refactor-cloud-init -- -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/23#comment:3 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages
#33: File F21 change: use %license for cloud image packages --+--- Reporter: mattdm| Owner: mattdm Type: task | Status: assigned Priority: normal| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Cloud Base Image | Resolution: Keywords:| --+--- Description changed by mattdm: Old description: See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 (the first part of which I am repeating here): Background: 1. Right now, license files are required to be marked as %doc files. 2. There has long been a nodocs parameter to RPM which skips all doc files. 3. In addition to the desired space-savings, this installs packages without their possibly-mandatory license files This interaction hasn't been problematic before, because generally using nodocs is an endpoint choice with no distribution after that. But now, we are looking at building some official cloud and container images with nodocs, so it suddenly becomes important. As a bonus, it's my understanding that this tag can automatically handle hardlinking identical license files. Specifically, I propose: 1. We change the guidelines 2. We start doing it for new packages 3. We file a F21 system-wide change for a proven packager to change all the packages that land in the cloud image for F21 (roughly, @core + dependencies plus a few extras) 4. We file a system-wide change for F22 to update all other packages which are part of the base design 5. Other packages updated on a as-time-permits/best-effort basis New description: See https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 (the first part of which I am repeating here): Background: 1. Right now, license files are required to be marked as %doc files. 2. There has long been a nodocs parameter to RPM which skips all doc files. 3. In addition to the desired space-savings, this installs packages without their possibly-mandatory license files This interaction hasn't been problematic before, because generally using nodocs is an endpoint choice with no distribution after that. But now, we are looking at building some official cloud and container images with nodocs, so it suddenly becomes important. As a bonus, it's my understanding that this tag can automatically handle hardlinking identical license files. Specifically, I propose: 1. We change the guidelines 2. We start doing it for new packages 3. We file a F21 system-wide change for a proven packager to change all the packages that land in the cloud image for F21 (roughly, @core + dependencies plus a few extras) 4. We file a system-wide change for F22 to update all other packages which are part of the base design 5. Other packages updated on a as-time-permits/best-effort basis https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Use_license_macro_in_RPMs_for_packages_in_Cloud_Image -- -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/33#comment:5 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
help needed (soooo much help needed)
Please take a look at https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/query?status=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedsummary=^Filemilestone=Fedora+21+%28Feature+Deadline%29order=prioritycol=idcol=summarycol=milestonecol=statuscol=ownercol=component These are the about-a-dozen changes we decided we are going to file for F21. We need to actually file them by Tuesday. A couple of these have been spoken for, but most of them not. It would be incredibly excellent if people could help out here. You don't necessarily need to do all of the work, or in fact (in some cases at least) any of it, as long as you can talk to people and coordinate effort. These are all things we've already agreed we want to work on so there should be no actual controversy. And, even if you don't want that level of commitment, it actually helps to just start filling out the empty templates (linked in the bugs above). I am super-busy today, and probably tomorrow, and my weekend is spoken for by Northeast Linux Fest and hopefully some family time on Sunday. So, I'm planning on devoting Monday to this, but I'd also not like to leave it all til then, so -- whatever you can contribute to between now and then = awewsome. Thanks everyone! -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image
#19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image ---+--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: red Type: task | Status: accepted Priority: blocker| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Docker Host Image | Resolution: Keywords: | ---+--- Comment (by walters): Can you elaborate a bit on what you feel the biggest problems are for the rpm-ostree side? -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/19#comment:8 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image
#19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image ---+--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: red Type: task | Status: accepted Priority: blocker| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Docker Host Image | Resolution: Keywords: | ---+--- Changes (by walters): * cc: walters@… (added) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/19#comment:9 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: help needed (soooo much help needed)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 02:37:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/query?status=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedsummary=^Filemilestone=Fedora+21+%28Feature+Deadline%29order=prioritycol=idcol=summarycol=milestonecol=statuscol=ownercol=component [...] And, even if you don't want that level of commitment, it actually helps to just start filling out the empty templates (linked in the bugs above). Also, each page says that you are not to edit that template and you should copy it. Don't be confused -- I *did* copy them, but didn't make that edit at all, so they all start that way. First thing to fix, I guess. :) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: help needed (soooo much help needed)
Hi list, Matt, I'm looking at https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/23; What is the desired status of the refactoring? Have some changes already been agreed upon? Would it be possible to replace cloud-init completely? (For instance, https://github.com/cernvm/amiconfig looks quite minimalistic...) Cheers, milan 2014-04-03 20:37 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/query?status=acceptedstatus=assignedstatus=newstatus=reopenedsummary= ^Filemilestone=Fedora+21+%28Feature+Deadline%29order=prioritycol=idcol=summarycol=milestonecol=statuscol=ownercol=component ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: help needed (soooo much help needed)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 05:43:40PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Also, talk to Garrett (gholms), the current maintainer and coordinate with him. Because I was just talking to him about this on IRC, I should add. :) -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org Tepid change for the somewhat better! ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: [cloud] #19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image
#19: File F21 change: Docker Host Image ---+--- Reporter: mattdm | Owner: red Type: task | Status: accepted Priority: blocker| Milestone: Fedora 21 (Feature Deadline) Component: Docker Host Image | Resolution: Keywords: | ---+--- Comment (by red): Replying to [comment:8 walters]: Can you elaborate a bit on what you feel the biggest problems are for the rpm-ostree side? I don't think there's an actual show stopper except for lack of resources on the Cloud SIG side to implement the usage of ostree, but to answer your question: The biggest is probably the lack of experience, guidelines and processes around ostree in the Fedora community. That goes from establishing and maintaining trees to diving into it real deep for QA purposes. Other issues, that I know you're working on and that are probably within reach anyway: - It's not in Anaconda yet (but an early patchset has been submitted for feedback) - It's not working with extlinux yet (probably Fedora specific and easy to fix, if not fixed already) - A proper way to get rid of the 'physical' OS after moving to ostree (not necessarily applicable to our use case once Anaconda support has landed) -- Ticket URL: https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/19#comment:10 cloud https://fedorahosted.org/cloud Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Automatic Smoketests for the Cloud Images: What to Test?
I said I would help with this but someone else took the lead. What's the 411 haha??? On Apr 4, 2014 12:34 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov vi...@redhat.com wrote: Sandro \red\ Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org writes: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov vi...@redhat.com wrote: So we have the RedHatQE tests, Taskotron and CentOS's CI. Can anyone of the people involved (at the Red Hat side, I guess) well me why we have 3 systems for 1 task? (my personal opinion) I think we rather have plenty of tasks, not one. Afaict (after 5 min. of reading Taskotron's development plan https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/taskotron_development_plan) Taskotron is designed to replace AutoQA in the first place. RHEL's Cloud Image Validation was developed several years ago when the following task was on the table: we have many AWS regions, many images, different architectures, we need to try different hardware types and AWS-specific features (e.g. attach EBS on the fly or test AWS-specific content delivery) and finally we need to aggregate the result. Existing test infrastructure was built around Beaker which is not that well suited for the job and creating a separate tool was considered a reasonable trade-off. Well, one task as in do cloud image QA. Thanks, for sharing that insights, really helpful to help my understanding. So, do you currently test EC2 only? (Not saying that's necessarily bad / too little). Now it is EC2-only but Google's ComputeEngine was on the horizon. Now, we do have the RHQE stuff in place and it's already used for testing Fedora images...that's good. Is that fully automated? Or to what extend? You run the tool with the data (AMI IDs, region, arch) and get the result in a meanwhile. It can be fully-automated once we have this data announced via fedmsg or in any other automated way (now I just read mailing list and if there are any images announced by Dennis I run the tool). When I took ownership of this external need (for the Fedora cloud product) I was under the impression we only just (are going to) have Taskotron and everyone knows it's THE way to go. I personally love collaboration. It would be awesome if we could avoid spreading resources on '3 systems for 1 task'. I definitely want to know more about Taskotron and its movement towards cloud image testing. That's why I was a bit confused to find there's actually 3 systems. Collaboration is certainly great, but that's not how it's done so let's try to improve on this. So, would you recommend to keep using your tools or rather go with Taskotron? Or do we do some things in one and others in the other? Or do we try to fully implement your tests in Taskotron and drop doing the tests with your tools? Well, it depends on what's our future plan. IMHO once we have images announced via fedmsg we can have all basic things covered by the existing tool (and I'm definitely in for integration and support process for the tool) and it won't take us long to set everything up. With regards to Taskotron I want to know more on how this 'cloud integration' is planned as (if I'm not mistaken) there's no code written yet. If merging here seems reasonable then I'm in. I'll try reaching out to Tim others on fedora-qa-devel list. So, what's the status here? Tim's responses to this thread show no cloud integration code has been written yet and he's open to have valid integrated in Taskotron, particularly if helping hands do most of the work so he can keep focusing on other open tasks. Could you work on that, Vitaly? Also, Karanbir, what's your (i.e. CentOS's) story? You say you already have a CI system running but shared little other information. What CI system? Did you already implement image tests? What kind of collaboration would you suggest here? ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Automatic Smoketests for the Cloud Images: What to Test?
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Tim Ski marshy...@gmail.com wrote: I said I would help with this but someone else took the lead. What's the 411 haha??? Where did you say so? I haven't seen any such message and neither did the cloud list's archive. Anyway, what exactly would you like to help with? On Apr 4, 2014 12:34 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov vi...@redhat.com wrote: Sandro \red\ Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org writes: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Vitaly Kuznetsov vi...@redhat.com wrote: So we have the RedHatQE tests, Taskotron and CentOS's CI. Can anyone of the people involved (at the Red Hat side, I guess) well me why we have 3 systems for 1 task? (my personal opinion) I think we rather have plenty of tasks, not one. Afaict (after 5 min. of reading Taskotron's development plan https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tflink/taskotron_development_plan) Taskotron is designed to replace AutoQA in the first place. RHEL's Cloud Image Validation was developed several years ago when the following task was on the table: we have many AWS regions, many images, different architectures, we need to try different hardware types and AWS-specific features (e.g. attach EBS on the fly or test AWS-specific content delivery) and finally we need to aggregate the result. Existing test infrastructure was built around Beaker which is not that well suited for the job and creating a separate tool was considered a reasonable trade-off. Well, one task as in do cloud image QA. Thanks, for sharing that insights, really helpful to help my understanding. So, do you currently test EC2 only? (Not saying that's necessarily bad / too little). Now it is EC2-only but Google's ComputeEngine was on the horizon. Now, we do have the RHQE stuff in place and it's already used for testing Fedora images...that's good. Is that fully automated? Or to what extend? You run the tool with the data (AMI IDs, region, arch) and get the result in a meanwhile. It can be fully-automated once we have this data announced via fedmsg or in any other automated way (now I just read mailing list and if there are any images announced by Dennis I run the tool). When I took ownership of this external need (for the Fedora cloud product) I was under the impression we only just (are going to) have Taskotron and everyone knows it's THE way to go. I personally love collaboration. It would be awesome if we could avoid spreading resources on '3 systems for 1 task'. I definitely want to know more about Taskotron and its movement towards cloud image testing. That's why I was a bit confused to find there's actually 3 systems. Collaboration is certainly great, but that's not how it's done so let's try to improve on this. So, would you recommend to keep using your tools or rather go with Taskotron? Or do we do some things in one and others in the other? Or do we try to fully implement your tests in Taskotron and drop doing the tests with your tools? Well, it depends on what's our future plan. IMHO once we have images announced via fedmsg we can have all basic things covered by the existing tool (and I'm definitely in for integration and support process for the tool) and it won't take us long to set everything up. With regards to Taskotron I want to know more on how this 'cloud integration' is planned as (if I'm not mistaken) there's no code written yet. If merging here seems reasonable then I'm in. I'll try reaching out to Tim others on fedora-qa-devel list. So, what's the status here? Tim's responses to this thread show no cloud integration code has been written yet and he's open to have valid integrated in Taskotron, particularly if helping hands do most of the work so he can keep focusing on other open tasks. Could you work on that, Vitaly? Also, Karanbir, what's your (i.e. CentOS's) story? You say you already have a CI system running but shared little other information. What CI system? Did you already implement image tests? What kind of collaboration would you suggest here? ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
