[atomic-wg] Issue #295: Start using new mailing list/IRC channel around f26 release time

jwboyer added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > > To clarify, does atomic @lists.fedoraproject.org actually exist now, or > would that be a new list request? I can't find it on > lists.fedoraproject.org, so I'm assuming the latter. > > it exists now but I would prefer

[atomic-wg] Issue #295: Start using new mailing list/IRC channel around f26 release time

jwboyer added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` To clarify, does atomic @lists.fedoraproject.org actually exist now, or would that be a new list request? I can't find it on lists.fedoraproject.org, so I'm assuming the latter. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to

[atomic-wg] Issue #290: Make fedora-minimal base image generally available

jwboyer added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > buildah, now in alpha, really benefits from a minimal base image Is there a link to an article or something that explains why buildah benefits from a minimal base image? `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this

Re: Question on adding new contributors

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Dusty Mabe <du...@dustymabe.com> wrote: > > > On 06/05/2017 04:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Hi Atomic group, >> >> The Atomic PRD (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic/PRD) that was >> recently drafted says that othe

Re: Proposal: Release blocking for F27

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 03/23/2017 11:14 AM, Colin Walters wrote: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1435310 >> raised the issue that apparently, Atomic Host isn't "release blocking". >> I think we have plenty of resources to

Re: Ownership of the Cloud Base Image

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 02/08/2017 08:01 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> After some discussions with mattdm and sgallagh about the cloud base >> image and the server WG we have decided for now to leave the cloud >> base image out of the server

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:17:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > steps. But, it turned out that everyone in the room (and >> > teleconferenced in) felt pretty strongly that we actually

Re: Fedora Cloud Edition next steps (→ Container Cluster!)

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Previously (at last year's Flock and after), we've talked about > replacing the Fedora Cloud Edition with Fedora Atomic Edition. (See > previous discussion on this list if you're unfamiliar with this > decision

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. >> > >> > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. >> > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as

Re: [Marketing] Re: [MAGAZINE PROPOSAL] Fwd: [DRAFT] Why we're retiring 32-bit Images (was Re: Retiring 32-bit images)

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday, April 18, 2016 9:34:35 PM CDT Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> > On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: >> >> On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM,

Re: Fedora cloud image feedback

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 08:41:30AM +, P J P wrote: >> Today in another conversation[1], I received this feedback about >> Fedora cloud images. Not sure if there is bug open for this, >> if not, do I file one? >

Re: Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Micah Abbott wrote: > TL;DR - This email describes how to determine the changes between two > releases via a number of 'ostree' and 'rpm-ostree' commands. Kind of hacky, > but it works. First off, thanks! That was very informative and I

Re: Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Adam Miller <maxamill...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Adam Miller >> <maxamill...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >>>

Re: Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > A new update of Fedora Cloud Atomic Host has been released and can be > downloaded at: > > https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/atomic.html > > Respective signed CHECKSUM files can be found here: >

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 11/03/2015 11:24 AM, Adam Miller wrote: >> I've been a fan of testcloud for this use case because I'm of the >> opinion that vagrant is overkill when all I want to do is boot a cloud >> image and ssh in. > > I've lost

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:20:36AM +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> CoreOS has built cloud-config as a Go implementation of cloud-init to get >> >> around the python problem. >> > Did they tell anyone they were

Re: Alternatives to cloud-init (was Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship)

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/28/2015 08:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> The *could* be the same thing, >> except cloud-init is terrible and I hate it and if that was the single >> offering we had for some kind o

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > Hi all, > > During today's Cloud Working Group meeting we had a short but spirited > discussion on the roles of the Cloud and Server Working Group and the > editions we're producing. > > I wanted to open a discussion on

Re: [DISCUSS] Cloud and Server Workgroup relationship

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/28/2015 03:03 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Could you provide a bit more context without necessarily offering your >> suggestions? It's somewhat hard to discuss this without it going >> e

Re: Cloud deliverables for F23

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 10:10:45AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: >> Hi Working Group, >> >> currently we are missing list of release deliverables (blocking as >> well as non-blocking) for Fedora releases. Some time ago there

Atomic Host and the kernel

Hi All, I'm emailing my questions on the topic here as it seems to be the best Fedora focused place to discuss Atomic Host and kernel interaction. If that isn't the case, please point me to where you believe that is. I have two basic questions around the interaction of Atomic Host and the

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

On Aug 18, 2015 5:54 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away - but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing. If it won't be the focus of the cloud work group, who do you expect to monitor its creation and

Cloud image use cases

Hi All, I was hoping someone could clarify the use cases for the cloud image, particularly in light of the reductions being looked at (like removing python). I ask because I honestly don't know what purpose the cloud image is serving any longer. The atomic image is squarely targeted at being

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Dusty Mabe du...@dustymabe.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:31:27AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:10:58PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller H -- what about making linux-firmware

Re: Cloud image use cases

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With that being the case, I'm curious how

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 9:58 AM, Dusty Mabe du...@dustymabe.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:44:25AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM, Dusty Mabe du...@dustymabe.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:31:27AM -0400, Dusty Mabe wrote: On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:10

Re: Cloud image use cases

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small

Re: Cloud image use cases

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:06:04AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Well, and linux-firmware, which isn't needed at runtime but is pulled in for kernel upgrades, and which to my knowledge is not needed in any cloud

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:53:42PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: You can get around this with on-the-fly image generation as I previously mentioned, or by creating a small (and I mean small in number not size) set

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 02:10:05PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: But in order to be really useful unless they're all-in on Fedora, many people will want the python version for their infrastructure/environment

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:47:00AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: For a practical example: Ansible doesn't currently support Python 3. If we change the cloud image to python3 — as is the expected plan, right? Remains

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: I think that's why it hasn't been done yet. The plan would be for them to be largely auto-generated and auto-tested, unlike spins (which, as largely desktop/GUI focused outputs, are hard to test automatically).

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:01:29PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: That is an app store. You want the cloud image(s) to be app/stack oriented? How is that not going to run into literally the same problem you describe

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:31:10PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: I don't see how that is going to help with you need to use Docker. No wait, rocket. No, I mean this other thing. Wait, containers? Those are terrible

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com wrote: But in order to be really useful unless they're all-in on Fedora, many people will want the python version for their infrastructure/environment, not whichever python we happen to ship in a given release. That's always

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 1:05 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:00:34PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: But cloud isn't minimal. It's Cloud. It needs to be useful for Cloud-y things. Like management via Ansible, etc. If you're going for minimal, you guys

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 06:20:32PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: Below I have written few points which came up in different discussions. Please feel free to comment/add/delete in this thread. * Better automation or at

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 4, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: If you don't have python, you don't have yum/dnf which means updating your kernel in your cloud image at _runtime_ is a PITA. OSTree has built in support for updating

Re: Fedora 22 is out, Fedora 23 is coming :)

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:31:15PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: * https://github.com/vmware/tdnf this might help us to go another step closer to remove Python stack from the cloud image.* Having a better We need

Re: glibc fix to allow instlangs to really work -- too late for f22?

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: The glibc team has a fix for a longstanding issue, which is that instlangs hasn't worked in the installer. This means that in a minimal image of about 400MB, 100MB is translation information. (Of course we want

Re: Atomic 2 week releases

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 03/10/2015 02:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, I'm wondering if for F22 (or F23, if we feel like that ship is out in the harbor losing

Re: Atomic 2 week releases

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:37 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Adam Miller maxamill...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 03/10/2015 02:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, I'm wondering

Re: initramfs on F21 beta image is corrupt?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com wrote: I just grabbed the F21 beta cloud image from: http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/21-Beta/Cloud/Images/x86_64/Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141029-21_Beta.x86_64.qcow2 It looks like the

Re: initramfs on F21 beta image is corrupt?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Lars Kellogg-Stedman l...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:24:02PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: If it doesn't look like that, then something is indeed odd. The output of lsinitrd does, indeed, look more sane...but now I am confused by the fact

Re: Fedora Change for AtomicHost

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:33:49PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote: Initial cut: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost Some FESCo perspective: I know you're a contributor to anaconda, but it might be nice to

Re: 32 bit AMI registration boot problem: explaination and possible solutions

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 05:18:11PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: Based on a couple of conversations I found about the Xen hypervisor and this error message, I believe the issue may be PAE. Have to do some testing

Re: Proposal for every WG to send a short summary *to other WGs directly*

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Honza Horak hho...@redhat.com wrote: Hi working groups members, since we have learned on Flock that new Fedora working groups do not communicate with each other much (or enough), I'd like to propose the following: Every working group will time to time (e.g.

Re: Taking a break or whatever - action needed, I guess

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hey Sandro! Thanks for your help on everything, and for the heads-up. No apologies are necessary, though -- I know how it is when you're contributing your time to work on something. We'll find other people to work

Re: proposal: Fedora Cloud Experimental image/spin?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br wrote: On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: So, we've got the traditional Cloud Base image, and the focused Fedora Atomic image. (Plus of course the Big Data one, which will

Re: Draft Fedora 21 Test Plan

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 06:02:07PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: for Fedora 21 testing *overall* - i.e. it's the QA team's responsibility to make sure the WGs do the stuff assigned to them in the plan. If that

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:06 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 03:46:02PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: Yesterday, I updated to Josh's 2.5 kernel, then I removed kernel

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:25:48AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: Not sure if there's a good fix to this. We'd either limit people to only being able to get rid of kernel-drivers with some dancing around with

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: We initially planned to make the modular kernel packaging a self-contained change. But it now seems we also require changes to Anaconda and yum (and dnf?), so I think this change rather falls into the category of

kernel split up

OK, initial builds of the packaging split I talked about last week are now at: http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jwboyer/kernel-core/ Feel free to poke around with the build from today in some VMs you don't care about. I have installed the x86_64 kernel-core package on a local VM and

Re: kernel split up

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: OK, initial builds of the packaging split I talked about last week are now at: Three things have since been pointed out to me. 1) Apparently some people have no idea what this is about. Go read this thread: https

Re: Fedora Atomic and Docker Host Image [was Re: Docker Host Image: Requirements?]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:49:14AM +, Collins, Robert (Converged Cloud) wrote: +1 on the overall message there, but let me also note that Ubuntu has a far smaller base image which still includes Python. Seems

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar? firmwre. Firmware is owned by linux-firmware, not the kernel package. I didn't include it in my kernel numbers for that reason. He just has to

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 04:28:56PM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: What about Anaconda? I guess it does have its own mechanic to guarantee a kernel is installed, right? Probably hardcoded as well. Since we're going

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 08:23:15AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: I think Josh is mostly there. He has 58MB + 5M vmlinuz + similar? firmwre

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:16:00AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: That's the point, we want a reasonably small package while still providing the required functionality. Not sure how providing a fixed size number is helping

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:04:56AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:38:44AM +0900, Sandro red Mathys wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:37:42 +0100 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: in general

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Don Zickus dzic...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:55AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:02:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: If it's _necessary_, that's one thing. I've yet to really see any data backing up necessity

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:33:47AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: Right. When I said I had kernel-core and kernel-drivers, I wasn't being theoretical. I already did the work in the spec file to split it into kernel

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:14:54PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: That brings up a question though, how often would cloud expect to do a yum update of individual packages as opposed to just updating the entire image

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Sandro red Mathys r...@fedoraproject.org wrote: So, in our case hardware drivers are rather unnecessary and the kernel experts might know other ways to shrink the footprint for our limited use cases. The kernel we require supports all primary architectures (i686

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I'm not overly thrilled with having multi-tiered driver packages. That leads to major headaches when we start shuffling things around from one driver package to another. The current solution I have prototyped is a

Re: Modular Kernel Packaging for Cloud

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 10:08:04 -0500, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: So you agree multi-tiered subpackages is a bad idea, but then you propose a netfilter specific subpackage? ... Probably not. They'll

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:01:47 -0500 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I realize that XFS is a

Re: ostree and fedora cloud

On Feb 10, 2014 7:37 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: So at my Fedora.next talk at DevConf, I mentioned that OSTree might be an interesting thing for Fedora Cloud to look at. But I also mentioned that we haven't really talked about it here. So let's talk about it. I'm

Re: Cloud SIG grou Todo list

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Vaidas Jablonskis jablons...@gmail.com wrote: +1 for trello I would suggest Cantas in open-shift or something over trello. josh ___ cloud mailing list cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Google Compute Engine Fedora Images (status update)

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Michael Hall m...@mjhall.org wrote: Awesome work Vaidas! I am keen to test the KS file, but unfortunately am moving house tomorrow and will not be doing much Fedora for maybe two weeks. For what it's worth I have just joined Git and uploaded a first attempt

Re: Cloud image/ kernel/OVS followup

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Robyn Bergeron rberg...@redhat.com wrote: The third investigatory point - which I'm sure most of you guys know anyway - is that including it in the kernel is not really something that is significant in terms of size. But I know we are trying to get down to as

Re: F20 Kernel recompile for Google Cloud

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Michael Hall m...@mjhall.org wrote: Thanks Truong, I am using that page. What I would like to know is how much I can safely disable in the kernel. Does anyone have a list of what most VM images don't need? For example, it seems that most hardware support can

Re: Attending AWS re:Invent - what would you like to know?

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: I'm going to be going to AWS re:Invent this week with an eye to talking to people about how they're using images on AWS and how Fedora can improve there. (Among other things.) If you were in my shoes, any specific

Cloud product kernel requirements

Hi All, I realize the WG is just forming up and you have a lot of other items to cover for now, but I wanted to get this sent out and have people start thinking about it sooner rather than later. The kernel team has heard in the past that the Cloud group would like to see something of a more

Re: P2P Packaging/Koji Cloud

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Denis Arnaud denis.arnaud_fed...@m4x.org wrote: Hello, RedHat-hosted Koji servers offer an invaluable service by allowing all of us, package maintainers, to build all of our Fedora packages. I guess that that infrastructure is not cost-less for RedHat and and