Re: [Xen-devel] Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen

On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:06 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 14:58 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:16 PM Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > OK, so, to move forward with this (and looping in cloud list): does > > > someone want to propose a set (ideally

Re: Fedora 31 final AMIs

> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-1ami-0d8e872ddc3206741 hvm > gp2 > Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-2ami-08a47fe608e852f01 hvm > gp2 > Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-south-1ami-0a0a5815e614466e4 hvm > gp2 >

Re: Fedora 31 final AMIs

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:40 PM Dusty Mabe wrote: > > Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-1ami-0d8e872ddc3206741 hvm > gp2 > Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-2ami-08a47fe608e852f01 hvm > gp2 > Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-south-1

Re: cloud images and EFI

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:06 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:16:11PM +0100, Alessio Ciregia wrote: > > > What's your use case here? > > I was using Scaleway cloud service. > > They offer Fedora images (the most recent is F28). > [...] > > As far as I can understand, they

Re: cloud images and EFI

> Does Fedora cloud images support EFI boot? > Or better, there are images built to boot on EFI platforms? > As far as I can see Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-1.2.x86_64.raw.xz doesn't > contain an EFI System but only an ext4 partition. > Please consider that I am really noob with containers, images and >

Re: More frequent Fedora Cloud updates

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Joe Doss wrote: > Hello! > > My name is Joe Doss and I want to help the Fedora Cloud SIG bring more > frequent tested releases of Fedora Cloud it's user base. The goal of this > project is to provide more frequent updates of Fedora Cloud to users on a > set

Re: Fedora 27 Beta blocker status mail #1

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! Time for an update on the Fedora 27 Beta status. > > tl;dr action summary > > > Accepted blockers > - > > 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489164 >

Re: FYI: rawhide ostrees not building because of dep issues

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: > > > On 07/19/2017 08:49 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>>> You worded it differently to that, it was a known problem, they were >>>> having issues rebuilding due to the breakage in s3

Re: FYI: rawhide ostrees not building because of dep issues

>> You worded it differently to that, it was a known problem, they were >> having issues rebuilding due to the breakage in s390x, so it was >> already in progress. > > Can you help explain to me what I did wrong? > > AFAIK I found a problem and opened a bug against the correct component. > I had

Re: FYI: rawhide ostrees not building because of dep issues

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > Bug is already filed against the correct component. This is just an FYI. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472573 You've got the wrong end of the stick, nothing provides libxenctrl.so.4.8 because xen was

Re: Proposal: Release blocking for F27

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Adam Miller wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Colin Walters wrote: >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435310 >> > raised the issue that apparently, Atomic Host isn't "release blocking". >> > I think we have plenty

Re: Proposal: Release blocking for F27

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > To follow up, I think the "not release blocking sidecar" model didn't > really work for Fedora 25, because we had last minute bugs there, > and at least the Fedora websites team refused to link to Fedora 24 > content.

Re: About the recent failures of Atomic images on Autocloud

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 09:28 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:05:41AM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: >> > > Finally managed to isolate the issue. If we boot the image with only one >> > >

Re: Testing the RC1.3 images

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > I think RC1.3 is what we are going with on Tuesday. Please take some time to > test out > the RC1.3 images so we can find/document any issues that we need to. You can > find them on this page: Think? Not required, 1.3 is

Re: Atomic ISO images still using wrong tree

> Adding rel-eng. They might be able to help us out more on this topic. Could you maybe add a little bit more information? Like what tree is expected to be there etc? Presumably this is the two week release? Peter > On 08/23/2016 10:09 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> The atomic ISO images are using

Re: [PATCH] cloud-base-vagrant: use extlinux to match cloud-base

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: > > > On 05/04/2016 05:03 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> On 05/03/2016 07:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: &g

Re: [PATCH] cloud-base-vagrant: use extlinux to match cloud-base

> On 05/03/2016 07:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: >>> If we don't do this it will try to use grub2 but will fail >>> because we removed the packages from the package set. >> >>

Re: [PATCH] cloud-base-vagrant: use extlinux to match cloud-base

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > If we don't do this it will try to use grub2 but will fail > because we removed the packages from the package set. And does extlinux work in all the Vagrant use cases (I've never used it)? My understanding of using

Re: Fedora 24 Atomic Images are being built against rawhide

On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > It appears our F24 atomic images are actually building against rawhide. If > you boot > the latest build [1] then you will see `Fedora 25` and if you look at the > kickstart > that was used [2] it is specifying the

Re: ATTN: Beta Blocker - docker is broken running F-24 on F-24

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:38:07PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> I'm not sure how the cloud SIG tests docker deliverables but now might >> be a good time to move to F-24 on the host. &

Re: ATTN: Beta Blocker - docker is broken running F-24 on F-24

>> > So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for >> > F-24. >> > >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909 >> > >> > The bug has been open since end of March and is on x86 and it appears >> > F-24 docker binaries are broken so F-24 (and likely other)

Re: ATTN: Beta Blocker - docker is broken running F-24 on F-24

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kushal Das <m...@kushaldas.in> wrote: > On 21/04/16, Peter Robinson wrote: >> So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for F-24. >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909 >> >> T

ATTN: Beta Blocker - docker is broken running F-24 on F-24

So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for F-24. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909 The bug has been open since end of March and is on x86 and it appears F-24 docker binaries are broken so F-24 (and likely other) images don't work on F-24. I'm not

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

>>> >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. >>> >> > >>> >> > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. >>> >> > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as well? >>> >> >>> >> Pinging on this - I thought we'd reached a decision and wanted to

Re: Is the Cloud network installer really a 'release blocking image'?

>> > So the 'canonical' list of release blocking images: >> > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora24 >> > >> > >> > has a 'yes' for the Cloud x86_64 network install image. >> > >> > This seems suspicious to me. Who does network installs of the

Re: Is the Cloud network installer really a 'release blocking image'?

On 1 Apr 2016 23:39, "Adam Williamson" wrote: > > So the 'canonical' list of release blocking images: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora24 > > has a 'yes' for the Cloud x86_64 network install image. > > This seems

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora Cloud box idea

> I would like to build an small, and cheap cloud solution that maybe > can be our next solution for media distribution. As a POC, I would Define "media distribution", writing usb sticks, just a web service, a web service with a AP for people to connect to, something completely different. > like

Re: Putting Networkd on cloud Atomic and base image for F24

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Subhendu Ghosh wrote: > Both networks and NM might be needed in the future. We should look into how > we can build images that support both or look to build alternate images. > > NM stack is useful for WiFi and cellular enabled images in IoT

Re: Putting Networkd on cloud Atomic and base image for F24

>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:31:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > The situation is not at all the same; there is no clear expectation >> > that networkd will replace NetworkManager, indeed AFAIK it's been >> > explicitly stated that it won't, because it's not desirable for it to >> > cover

Re: Putting Networkd on cloud Atomic and base image for F24

>> >>But it is not used as the default networking configuration stack by any >> >>existing Fedora deliverable of which I'm aware. >> >> >> >Correct in that point. >> > >> >>> We are >> >>>talking about enabling it as default networking stack. >> >> This comes at a cost. It sounds more like 'gut

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:30:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >> > > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > >> The *could* be the same thing, >> > >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The *could* be the same thing, >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single >> offering we had for some kind of C WG I would cry. I hate it >>

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:30 AM, "Josh Boyer" wrote: >>> thinking... :) >>> >>> > Also, one of the CentOS GSoC projects was "Flamingo" "a lightweight >>> > contextualization tool that aims to handle initialization of cloud >>> > instances." [1] Maybe this is something we

Re: Can't run a container with root bind mounted in F23 docker 1.7

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > docker 1.7 is what is in the stable f23 repo. with that we can't run a > container with root bind mounted into it: > > ``` > -bash-4.3# docker run -it --rm -v /:/host busybox > Error response from daemon: Relabeling of /

Re: Can't run a container with root bind mounted in F23 docker 1.7

>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> docker 1.7 is what is in the stable f23 repo. with that we can't run a >>> container with root bind mounted into it: >>> >>> ``` >>> -bash-4.3# docker run -it --rm -v /:/host busybox >>> Error response from

Re: using fstrim to save some space in cloud images

Hey all, Have we considered running fstrim against our cloud image filesystems before we package it up? I wrote a small script to do it (inside a container) at [1]. Looks like we can save ~28M: It would need to be incorporated into the image build process because it would affect checksums

Re: Test day bug: Atomic and nfs-utils

On Sat, May 9, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Colin Walters wrote: Hi, During the Test day (and before), several people noted this bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219871 It now has a patch. I tested it with a local tree compose. It's nominated now for Blocker/FE. So I was

Re: Note: Atomic Host integration for F22 at risk

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:01:15AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: This change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost is presently blocked on: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6119 Is the blocker

Re: glibc fix to allow instlangs to really work -- too late for f22?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The glibc team has a fix for a longstanding issue, which is that instlangs hasn't worked in the installer. This means that in a minimal image of about 400MB, 100MB is translation information. (Of course we want

Re: Fedora 22 Alpha blocker status #1

ARM/KERNEL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183807 network spoke listed as not connected despite having assigned IP and hostname - anaconda team have the impression that this is an ARM- specific kernel issue to do with renaming of ethernet devices on ARM; could do with input from

Re: F22 candidate: dhclient not in cloud image

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Garrett Holmstrom gho...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Do we still need dhclient in our cloud images? I am looking at the candidate for F22 [1] and am having issues with my network coming up

Re: F22 candidate: dhclient not in cloud image

Do we still need dhclient in our cloud images? I am looking at the candidate for F22 [1] and am having issues with my network coming up on boot in an openstack environment. I suspect the fact that dhclient isn't in the image is to blame. It is in the F21 image. Was it intentionally removed?

Re: Images for non intel architectures

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Miroslav Suchy msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 02/16/2015 05:14 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: oz/imagefactory is how we produce the x86 cloud images and that's how we'll be producing the other images in the F-22 cycle shortly. And is somewhere stored official

Re: Images for non intel architectures

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, are there non-intel cloud images available? I am mainly interested in PPC64 qcow images of Fedora. We will be producing official qemu/kvm cloud images for non x86 as part of F-22 cycle shortly. What is standard way

Re: Size of base Fedora 32 Docker image

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:36:04PM -0800, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: I'm starting to build Docker images on the Fedora base and I'm a little concerned about the size of the images. For example, the Debian base

Re: Fedora 21 on Digital Ocean Testing

On 1/12/15 12:59 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: Fedora 21 is now out on Digital Ocean.. before we promote it to the rest of the community I'd like to give you all an opportunity to test a bit. roshi and I have already been giving it some love but it's possible there are things that we missed. Hey

Re: Adding open-vm-tools package to Fedora Atomic

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: Hi Ravindra, At the moment, we do not have a formal process for this. The problem is further compounded by the fact that there is only one tree. Meaning that open-vm-tools would end up even on other deployment targets

Re: Shellshocked cloud images

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 07:07:46AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote: The security team didn't ask us to, as they did with heartbleed. I expect it's because a yum update _without_ a reboot is sufficient in this case, but maybe it's worth doing anyway +1 Do we need to file a ticket with

Re: Please FIX the TO address from the Cloud Tracker

On 5 Apr 2014 00:12, Dave Neary dne...@redhat.com wrote: As an FYI, you could filter on: X-Trac-Project: cloud Can that be set to something a little less generic please? too. Cheers, Dave. On 04/04/2014 06:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:31:12AM -0500, Troy

Re: Cloud product kernel requirements

Well SPICE is providing the link between the guest OS and the client machine for display interaction purposes. It has the ability to tunnel access to limited devices, in particular smartcards and USB devices attached to the client machine. PCI passthrough though is a different scenario - it

Re: ZOMG WHAT ARE WE BUILDING?!

I know ubuntu is working on supporting ARM in openstack, I really think we should as well. We should go big or go home. all of this change is about making Fedora bigger and better. This is a avenue we should pursue. while ppc is a secondary arch we need to also consider it. there is a lot of

Re: Ryu in the context of Fedora

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Robyn Bergeron rberg...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Isaku Yamahata yamah...@valinux.co.jp To: Kyle Mestery (kmestery) kmest...@cisco.com Cc: Fedora Cloud SIG cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org, Robyn Bergeron rberg...@redhat.com Sent:

Re: openstack brctl addbr not supported on RHEL 6.3

On my install of RHEL 6.3 I have CONFIG_BRIDGE=m and it appears to work just fine. Although RHEL discussions are completely off topic on a Fedora mailing list. You should open a support case if you're having issues with RHEL. Peter On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Pádraig Brady

Re: Grow the root partition on boot

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Juerg Haefliger jue...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:16:39PM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote: I have a

Re: AWS EC2 Sydney Data Center Fedora 17 AMI

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Chris Horn host...@cristabel.com.au wrote: Hi, Just wondering if anyone knows who builds the Fedora AMI images on Amazon AWS. With the new Sydney Data Centre just being opened, I am keen to use Fedora there. I tried copying an existing image from another

Re: Meeting times...

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Justin M. Forbes jfor...@redhat.com wrote: There has been a lack of participation at our weekly meeting the past couple of weeks.  I am wondering if Thursdays at 17:00EST is still a good time for everyone, or if we would get better participation at some other