Google Compute Engine Fedora Images (status update)
by Vaidas Jablonskis
Hi People,
I am pretty new to contributing to Fedora, especially the cloud group.
I have mentioned a few times on IRC (nickname: zooz) that I have started
working on GCE cloud image.
So I thought I will give you an update on my progress so other people can
jump in or help me to figure out the process.
So far so good, GCE image does not seem to look much different that already
existing OpenStack/EC2 images.
- kickstart files for appliance-creator:
https://github.com/vaijab/fedora-gce-image
- gcimagebundle spec/srpm/copr: https://github.com/vaijab/gcimagebundle-rpm
- google-compute-daemon spec/srpm/copr:
https://github.com/vaijab/google-compute-daemon-rpm
I understand that you guys might not want to use google provided daemons
for managing ssh keys, users and forwarded IP addresses, but I thought I
will package it up just in case.
Current blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055181 but
they accepted my patch and it's been submitted to updates-testing, so it
should be fine soon.
So with what I currently have, I am able to build an image without any
issues which runs on GCE perfectly.
If anyone could have a quick poke at my RPM spec files and let me know if
there are any major issues with them before I submit them for a review for
the first time :-) Also if anyone wants to sponsor my fedora packager
membership I'd really appreciate that.
So what are the next steps? How do we actually start a process of getting
appliance KS files upstream?
Any pointers and feedback is welcome. If anyone wants to jump in and help -
please do so!
Thanks,
Vaidas
--
Vaidas Jablonskis
9 years, 7 months
changes list for fesco (Cloud WG members -- action needed!)
by Matthew Miller
Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting
from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look
at <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist>.
The next steps are:
1. Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be
nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be.
2. Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here
if it looks like something is missing.
3. There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have
it about right.
4. Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling
fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just
do it.
5. I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we
don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider
it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here.
Thanks everyone!
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
9 years, 7 months
Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Matthew Miller
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to
> your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation
> groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main
> partitions, we could *probably* also compromise on using ext4 for just
> /boot.
Right now, the cloud images are unpartitioned. In some cloud providers
(e.g., the 800lb gorilla of Amazon EC2) we in fact use the kernel that
assumes the image is just one partition, not a disk image. We could change
that (and I kind of want to anyway, for consistency), but it would be...
change. Having a separate /boot is also problematic (read: wasteful) for
ultra-small images, and adds complexity a lot of users are going to frown
at. So..... if by "/boot" you mean "the partition that /boot happens to be
on, even if it is /", then I think we're good. Otherwise we will have to
figure something else out.
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
9 years, 7 months
Fwd: PRDs/Tech Specs to formal Change Proposals and Change submission deadline
by Joe Brockmeier
FYI
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PRDs/Tech Specs to formal Change Proposals and Change
submission deadline
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:32:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To: devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, Discussions about development for
the Fedora desktop <desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, Fedora
Environment and Stacks Working Group mailing list
<env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Hi,
at yesterday's FESCo meeting, it was agreed on setting deadlines
for Change submission for Fedora 21 [1] and to process PRDs into
Change proposals.
"AGREED: Fedora Changes Process submission deadline for system-wide
changes is April 7th. Deadline for true standalone changes will be
sometime later than that. Changes to how fedora is produced for
fedora.next are still due on March 3rd. (+7,0,0) (nirik, 18:29:42)"
Current deadlines:
* March 3rd: Technical Specifications for products & and changes needed
for products and deliverables --- very soon!
* April 7th: System Wide Changes submission deadline
Working Groups teams, please, try to "transform" required changes for
your products from PRDs/Technical Specifications into standalone
Change proposals (between March 3rd and April 7th). It will help
us to scope the release. Also all changes would be trackable the
standard way we do it and it's going to help transparency (as
Change announcements are being to be part of the process).
Self Contained Changes submission deadline will be set later,
after the System Wide deadline. If you expect your proposed Self
Contained Change will be on the edge and could be escalated to the
System Wide, please try to submit it as early as possible too.
As some Fedora.next details will be clarified later in the process,
System Wide Changes submitted after the deadline will be approved
case by case, even after submission deadline.
For the details about the Change process, see my previous email
to the devel announce list [2].
Thank you for your help with Change process and let me know in
case of any questions.
Jaroslav
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1178
[2]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2014-February/00...
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
--
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
9 years, 7 months
Minutes from today's (26 February 2014) Cloud WG Meeting
by Joe Brockmeier
==========================================
#fedora-meeting-1: cloud WG weekly meeting
==========================================
Meeting started by jzb at 17:01:42 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-26/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Status on Cloud To-Do list (jzb, 17:04:59)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_ToDo (jzb, 17:05:12)
* ACTION: mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up. (jzb,
17:06:26)
* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist (mattdm, 17:07:32)
* ACTION: jzb send call for activity day Friday. (jzb, 17:10:19)
* Technical Specification Sample:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification
(jzb, 17:11:56)
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_ToDo#technical_specifications
(mattdm, 17:12:53)
* New Business (jzb, 17:15:54)
* ACTION: mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google
people (mattdm, 17:17:08)
* mattdm also working on hp cloud and amazon marketplace internally
(mattdm, 17:17:41)
Meeting ended at 17:19:22 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up.
* jzb send call for activity day Friday.
* mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google people
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* jzb
* jzb send call for activity day Friday.
* mattdm
* mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up.
* mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google people
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mattdm (37)
* jzb (35)
* zodbot (5)
* geppetto (1)
* samkottler (0)
* rbergeron (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
9 years, 7 months
Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Josh Boyer
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/26/2014 11:42 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:00PM +0000, Colin Walters wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing,
>>>>> even if that thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade
>>>>> through tons of bug reports for btrfs just because it has a
>>>>> lot of hype.
>>>> Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can
>>>> ship *all* of the filesystems! It'll be fun!
>>>
>>> Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is
>>> that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into
>>> lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's
>>> xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem.
>>> I don't really love any of those options.
>>
>> I'm always dubious of 'there shall be only one' decrees - be it
>> installers or desktop environments or file systems.
>>
>
>
> I have no problems (personally) about allowing the different products
> to select different default filesystems. The reason people choose
> different filesystems is to serve different workloads, so I think this
> is just an extension of that.
>
>
>> Also, as has already been pointed out: there are Fedora systems
>> out there using ext4, xfs, btrfs and probably a few other file
>> systems today. If we now suddenly change track and consider btrfs
>> not 'safe enough', wasn't it pretty irresponsible of us to let
>> people use it for their installations ?
>>
>
>
> I think we're saying "it's not stable enough for the *default*".
> That's a different statement from "it's not stable enough for use".
>
>
>> For the workstation, I think the options are
>>
>> - switch to btrfs soon to give it the exposure it needs to get
>> ready (while being careful to limit the supported features, as suse
>> does)
>>
>
> I'm slightly in favor of this for the Workstation, personally. Without
> wide adoption, btrfs will never get any better.
No, that isn't true. Without wide adoption you may not have any
impetus for btrfs to get better. However, it getting better is
dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing. I'm not
sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of
my hesitation. Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with
the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion,
particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find.
josh
9 years, 7 months
Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Matthew Miller
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:30:47AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is
> > that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into
> > lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's
> > xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem. I
> > don't really love any of those options.
> Could you go into more detail about those various issues?
>
> My off-the-cuff guess is that you don't currently plan to use GRUB2
> because it's heavyweight for your use-case? So you'd either need to
> shrink it down or else find a way to allow syslinux to work (either by
> supporting XFS in it or using a /boot with ext4)?
That's pretty much it. :)
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
9 years, 7 months