On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:36:25 -0400
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 26 August 2016 at 09:51, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 08/25/2016 01:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>> We've talked about this for a while, but let's make it formal. The
>> plan is to transition from Cloud as a Fedora Edition to Something
>> Container Clustery (see
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/ProjectFAO).
>>
>> But, we still need cloud as a _deploy target_. The
>> FAO-container-thing will continue to have cloud image deploy
>> targets (as well as bare metal). I think it makes sense to _also_
>> have Fedora Server as a cloud deploy target.
>>
>> This could possibly be both a Fedora Server Minimal Cloud Image and
>> Fedora Server Batteries Included Image — but that'd be up to
>> Server WG, I think.
>
>
> I've been socializing this a bit lately (at Flock, on
> #fedora-devel, etc.) and I think it makes a lot of sense to unify
> the cloud image into Fedora Server. I'm not sure we necessarily
> want to try to produce two different images here, though. I think
> we probably want a single cloud image that is just Fedora Server
> (as it would be installed by Anaconda) plus whatever "cloudy bits"
> are needed to get it up and running.
>
> The Server and Cloud Editions previously didn't differ in too many
> ways except for the inclusion of rolekit and Cockpit in the Server.
> With our plans to remove rolekit in favor of a config-management
> system like Ansible, I think that really only leaves Cockpit (and
> its dependencies) as a possible point of contention. Cockpit's
> modularity does mean that we can minimize its footprint if we opt
> to skip things like the NetworkManager and storaged support from
> the Cloud image.
>
> We can debate this later, but for now I'd be in favor of just
> keeping all of Cockpit there and available, if only because it
> helps us strongly encourage the use of the modern APIs that it uses
> under the hood (such as NetworkManager and storaged).
>
I expect there will need to be 2 images.. mainly because people always
ask for a 'minimal' image with nothing but a ssh, shell and dnf in it.
(actually they say they want even less than that... but rarely show up
to do the work on getting that working.
With a minimal image we could also make it easy to just install cockpit
from the repos, but if it doesn't really add that much space I don't
see why we couldn't just add it in.
Of course while we are at it, if we use cockpits NetworkManager setup,
we would need to switch to that from the current 'network' and if we
are going to be using ansible to do all kinds of things, we may want to
include python2.
kevin