[atomic-wg] Issue #200 `Planning for interim container releases: To rebuild
or not rebuild?`
by Adam Miller
maxamillion reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
The upstream OSBS development group has had to push out the deadlines for the automated rebuild work and Factory 2.0 isn't ready yet (it wasn't planned to be, but it is noted for posterity) which means that Fedora needs to make a decision on how we will handle container image updates. We're targeting releases every two weeks but in order to get rpm content updates automatically included and parent image update inheritance taken into consideration we will need to write some automation tooling to accomplish that until both OSBS layered rebuilds are done and Factory 2.0 rpm-content triggered rebuild work is completed.
The question to the group is: do we want to force a rebuild of all content before each container image release (likely the day before) in the mean time?
The reason we can't realistically detect when/if content changes that would require a rebuild is because the Factory 2.0 work that is still ongoing is what will create the content database(PDC/resultsdb) to track the relationship between a set of rpms and a container image.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/200
7 years, 2 months
[atomic-wg] Issue #170 `Finish new Fedora Atomic PRD`
by Mike Ruckman
roshi added a new comment to an issue you are following:
``
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Roshi/QA/Atomic_PRD
Some notes to discuss for the meeting:
- Update Feature about Fedora Collection of packages to speak to Fedora curated containers
- Review the Requirements section, I don't think we need (or at least need to edit):
-- #1 Reducing Image footprint: This should be moved over to something under Cloud SIG since the Atomic WG no longer works on the cloud image.
-- #4 Software Stacks: This will now be delivered via Fedora curated containers, so this needs to be updated to reflect that.
-- #5 Integration with Server Roles: I don't foresee any reason to keep this as a goal for the Atomic image.
-- #6 Tools for Image Creation: We could update this to be Tools for Container creation for when we support other container backends. Or we can get rid of the whole thing since it doesn't really apply to Atomic, AIUI.
- We should change mentions of the Cloud SIG to be the Atomic WG. Should the mailing list at the end of the document be atomic-devel@ or stick with cloud@ ?
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/170
7 years, 2 months
[atomic-wg] Issue #226 `Use ostree content by default for ISOs even for
kickstarts`
by Colin Walters
walters reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following:
``
We should to set up the ISO (may need anaconda changes) so that what's in `interactive-defaults.ks` takes effect for kickstart installs as well. This would avoid kickstart users having to follow any internal layout changes (such as how we're going to move the content from /run/install` in F26).
A major thing this would fix is that our cloud/vagrant image builds could stop replicating the partitioning defaults and `ostreesetup`. (Maybe, releng may still want to build cloud images with an old ISO but new content).
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/226
7 years, 2 months