-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 59
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
Tracker for bootc integration #1446
Comments
tagging with |
We discussed this in the community meeting today.
|
OK, I pushed cgwalters/fedora-coreos-config@cb4157e I can't do a PR for creating a new branch, but does that commit look good? |
(Tweaked now to actually set things up so that any disk images built are container-native by default!) |
|
#1446 (comment) |
Looks sane to me otherwise! |
Ah, thanks. To be clear, are you saying these two things should go on testing-devel now? |
This is a new stream we're starting up. See: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1446
With the new experimental stream, we want to have more freedom in what files go in there without having to also pollute `testing-devel`. Add support for a `.coreos.skip-files` file which will tell config-bot to not clobber a specific set of files on that ref. This augments the global-level `skip-files` list. Related: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1446
I meant that we could keep it in the |
With the new experimental stream, we want to have more freedom in what files go in there without having to also pollute `testing-devel`. Add support for a `.coreos.skip-files` file which will tell config-bot to not clobber a specific set of files on that ref. This augments the global-level `skip-files` list. Related: coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1446
Coming back to this now...so I'm good to push this tip commit to a new |
I've rebased the experimental branch on the latest testing-devel. Still thinking about how builds should work. And we need to enable automatic updates; this would be most natural with coreos/rpm-ostree#4392 but the whole thing would be even more clear if we did it via bootc. |
Tip commit cgwalters/fedora-coreos-config@e077af2 LGTM. |
Though.. One thing we should consider, since we're using a copr repo as an input, is that we probably shouldn't do any signing (at least not with the Fedora Release engineering keys) for this. |
Yeah; actually though related to signing since the goal here is to be container native we should stop doing GPG and switch to sigstore. This relates to coreos/rpm-ostree#4272 Anyways, thanks for the review! I've pushed the branch, should be live now. That said I keep going back and forth here a bit. What's a bit tempting here actually is to publish bootc as a crate, and just vendor it in rpm-ostree. Then enabling it could just be done via e.g. |
This happened in coreos/rpm-ostree#4506 |
We d This reverts commit cad1c93. As mentioned in coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1446 (comment) we don't really need it anymore.
This reverts commit cad1c93. As mentioned in coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker#1446 (comment) we don't really need it anymore.
dropping it in: coreos/fedora-coreos-releng-automation#182 |
Describe the enhancement
This is a tracker issue for integration with https://github.com/containers/bootc/
There's two mechanical parts to this:
Pre-built (container) images:
Here we add bootc into a quay.io/fedora/fedora-coreos:continuous stream (current builds are in a COPR); or actually, I'd say we only build containers for this "stream". (It'd be nice if they were multi-arch, and we did kola testing using it as a target, but I don't think we need to upload disk and cloud images to start).
Or we could just package in Fedora right now and ship in
next
or whatever, though that has a high overhead.Supporting
bootc install
The rationale for this is outlined in #1151
This depends on coreos/fedora-coreos-config#2141 at least.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: