Add Ubuntu 24.04 as mandatory image, drop mandatory for 22.04 #682
Conversation
martinmo
force-pushed
the
feat/add-ubuntu-24.04-mandatory-image
branch
from
29ac496
to
b13ec7c
Compare
martinmo
added
SCS is standardized
Tests/iaas/scs-0104-v1.1-images.yaml
Outdated
| name_scheme: "ubuntu-capi-image v[0-9]\\.[0-9]+(\\.[0-9]+)?" | ||
| source: https://swift.services.a.regiocloud.tech/swift/v1/AUTH_b182637428444b9aa302bb8d5a5a418c/openstack-k8s-capi-images/ubuntu-2204-kube | ||
| status: recommended | ||
| - name: "Ubuntu 20.04" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While touching this list, should we remove this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@berendt I tend to to agree. However: the status quo of the standard and check is as follows: without a status, the conformance check will not complain at all if this image is missing. However, it will complain if it is available but from the wrong source.
What we probably want, and what we discussed internally: there needs to be a way phase out old OS images, i.e., new status values in the YAML. @mbuechse proposed discouraged and forbidden (the counterparts for recommended and mandatory). It needs to be discussed, whether such an image should be removed completely, or visibility changed to community or something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be discussed as part #684
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Two questions here:
- does it hurt to specify the preferred source url for a distro that is EOL? Maybe not.
- shall we discourage CSPs from providing these EOL distros? Maybe yes.
So yeah, in the end, maybe keep them in the file, but go ahead with #684 and mark them "discouraged".
Tests/iaas/scs-0104-v1.1-images.yaml
Outdated
| - name: "Debian 10" | ||
| source: | ||
| - https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/buster/ | ||
| - https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/cloud/buster/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it can be problematic if an environment has Debian 10, but NOT 11 or 12, as seems to be the case with Syseleven, see #696. Then users have a hard time choosing a current version. They can always upload one, I guess, but that is an additional barrier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would expect Debian 12 to be mandatory at this point, same for 11 and 10 recommended.
The whole point of requiring a minimal set of public images is to ensure that customers do not have to upload their own stock images and remember to update them once per month ...
This is certainly a good answer to folks that want specific images. But mainstream images are better provided by the cloud operator, as this is more efficient for everyone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Then we shall do that for v5 of SCS-compatible IaaS
Signed-off-by: Martin Morgenstern <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]>
…ck-image-manager Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]>
mbuechse
force-pushed
the
feat/add-ubuntu-24.04-mandatory-image
branch
from
9449ad8
to
7d7fdd0
Compare
Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]>
as per SIG Std/Cert of 2024-08-22 Signed-off-by: Martin Morgenstern <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Matthias Büchse <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Ivan Vnučko <[email protected]>
No description provided.