Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

automatically "ostree-ize" existing containers #845

Open
cgwalters opened this issue Oct 24, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

automatically "ostree-ize" existing containers #845

cgwalters opened this issue Oct 24, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
area/client Related to the client/CLI area/install Issues related to `bootc install` enhancement New feature or request
Milestone

Comments

@cgwalters
Copy link
Collaborator

A toplevel goal of this project is to support upgrading existing ostree systems in place, so we need ostree support.

However, we also want to further hide ostree and push it into the background. There's multiple interlocking aspects to this.

The biggest one here is to avoid having to carry any "ostree stuff" in the base images by default.

This issue may mostly get fixed by ostreedev/ostree-rs-ext#674 but I'm leaving this open here to track other fixes that may be needed (e.g. #844 was required so far) and also to link to our roadmap.

@cgwalters cgwalters added area/client Related to the client/CLI area/install Issues related to `bootc install` enhancement New feature or request labels Oct 24, 2024
@cgwalters cgwalters added this to the 1.2 milestone Oct 24, 2024
@jmpolom
Copy link

jmpolom commented Nov 5, 2024

Is a conceivable solution here to support or develop a "backend" that does not depend on ostree? Look to elemental-toolkit and kairos for inspiration along these lines. What is ostree providing specifically?

@cgwalters
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Yes, #20 is related to that as is the ongoing composefs work.
But a toplevel goal of this project is seamless upgrades for existing ostree users.

@cgwalters
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Moved #887 here.

But yes what I'm thinking here is we drop the requirement for having sysroot and ostree -> sysroot/ostree and just auto-create them if missing (and error if they're not what we expect).

I think if we do those two things it'd really push ostree into a much less visible/required state.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area/client Related to the client/CLI area/install Issues related to `bootc install` enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants