On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 9:06 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2019-07-29 at 14:58 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:16 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > > OK, so, to move forward with this (and looping in cloud list): does
> > > someone want to propose a set (ideally smal
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-1ami-0d8e872ddc3206741 hvm
> gp2
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-2ami-08a47fe608e852f01 hvm
> gp2
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-south-1ami-0a0a5815e614466e4 hvm
> gp2
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_6
On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:40 PM Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-1ami-0d8e872ddc3206741 hvm
> gp2
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-northeast-2ami-08a47fe608e852f01 hvm
> gp2
> Fedora-Cloud-Base-31-1.9.x86_64 ap-south-1ami-0a0a5815e6
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:06 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:16:11PM +0100, Alessio Ciregia wrote:
> > > What's your use case here?
> > I was using Scaleway cloud service.
> > They offer Fedora images (the most recent is F28).
> [...]
> > As far as I can understand, they on
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:34 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 01:39:51AM +0100, Alessio Ciregia wrote:
> > Does Fedora cloud images support EFI boot?
> > Or better, there are images built to boot on EFI platforms?
>
> What's your use case here?
From my perspective I need UEFI
> Does Fedora cloud images support EFI boot?
> Or better, there are images built to boot on EFI platforms?
> As far as I can see Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-1.2.x86_64.raw.xz doesn't
> contain an EFI System but only an ext4 partition.
> Please consider that I am really noob with containers, images and
> c
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Joe Doss wrote:
> Hello!
>
> My name is Joe Doss and I want to help the Fedora Cloud SIG bring more
> frequent tested releases of Fedora Cloud it's user base. The goal of this
> project is to provide more frequent updates of Fedora Cloud to users on a
> set cadenc
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hi folks! Time for an update on the Fedora 27 Beta status.
>
> tl;dr action summary
>
>
> Accepted blockers
> -
>
> 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489164
> ACTION: QA to test and karma u
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 07/19/2017 08:49 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>> You worded it differently to that, it was a known problem, they were
>>>> having issues rebuilding due to the breakage in s390x, so it was
>>>&
>> You worded it differently to that, it was a known problem, they were
>> having issues rebuilding due to the breakage in s390x, so it was
>> already in progress.
>
> Can you help explain to me what I did wrong?
>
> AFAIK I found a problem and opened a bug against the correct component.
> I had no
> On 07/19/2017 04:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>> Bug is already filed against the correct component. This is just an FYI.
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472573
>>
>>
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> Bug is already filed against the correct component. This is just an FYI.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472573
You've got the wrong end of the stick, nothing provides
libxenctrl.so.4.8 because xen was moved to 4.9 and hence qe
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 02:09 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:14 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 match
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> To follow up, I think the "not release blocking sidecar" model didn't
> really work for Fedora 25, because we had last minute bugs there,
> and at least the Fedora websites team refused to link to Fedora 24
> content. (I can't find the disc
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 09:28 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:05:41AM +0530, Kushal Das wrote:
>> > > Finally managed to isolate the issue. If we boot the image with only one
>> > > CPU, the error comes up. If we
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> I think RC1.3 is what we are going with on Tuesday. Please take some time to
> test out
> the RC1.3 images so we can find/document any issues that we need to. You can
> find them on this page:
Think? Not required, 1.3 is the gold release. It'
> Adding rel-eng. They might be able to help us out more on this topic.
Could you maybe add a little bit more information? Like what tree is
expected to be there etc? Presumably this is the two week release?
Peter
> On 08/23/2016 10:09 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> The atomic ISO images are using the
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 05/04/2016 05:03 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2016 07:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>>> If we don't do this it wi
> On 05/03/2016 07:34 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>> If we don't do this it will try to use grub2 but will fail
>>> because we removed the packages from the package set.
>>
>> And does extlinux work i
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> If we don't do this it will try to use grub2 but will fail
> because we removed the packages from the package set.
And does extlinux work in all the Vagrant use cases (I've never used
it)? My understanding of using extlinux was because it was s
On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> It appears our F24 atomic images are actually building against rawhide. If
> you boot
> the latest build [1] then you will see `Fedora 25` and if you look at the
> kickstart
> that was used [2] it is specifying the rawhide tree. This is odd t
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:38:07PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> I'm not sure how the cloud SIG tests docker deliverables but now might
>> be a good time to move to F-24 on the host.
>
> Looks like there's
>> > So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for
>> > F-24.
>> >
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909
>> >
>> > The bug has been open since end of March and is on x86 and it appears
>> > F-24 docker binaries are broken so F-24 (and likely other) image
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Kushal Das wrote:
> On 21/04/16, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for F-24.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909
>>
>> The bug has been open s
So heads up because I'm not sure we want docker broken again at GA for F-24.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1322909
The bug has been open since end of March and is on x86 and it appears
F-24 docker binaries are broken so F-24 (and likely other) images
don't work on F-24.
I'm not sur
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:43 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> if a dracut i686 build fails the dracut build fails and nothing changes, the
>> compose is not blocked. your view here is not quite the reality of the
>> world.
>> moving i686 t
>>> >> >> 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 well?
>>> >>
>>> >> Pinging on this - I thought we'd reached a decision and wanted to
>
>> > So the 'canonical' list of release blocking images:
>> >
>> >
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora24
>> >
>> >
>> > has a 'yes' for the Cloud x86_64 network install image.
>> >
>> > This seems suspicious to me. Who does network installs of the Clou
On 1 Apr 2016 23:39, "Adam Williamson" wrote:
>
> So the 'canonical' list of release blocking images:
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora24
>
> has a 'yes' for the Cloud x86_64 network install image.
>
> This seems suspicious to me. Who does network
> I would like to build an small, and cheap cloud solution that maybe
> can be our next solution for media distribution. As a POC, I would
Define "media distribution", writing usb sticks, just a web service, a
web service with a AP for people to connect to, something completely
different.
> like
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
> Both networks and NM might be needed in the future. We should look into how
> we can build images that support both or look to build alternate images.
>
> NM stack is useful for WiFi and cellular enabled images in IoT gateway
> devices. I do
>> >>But it is not used as the default networking configuration stack by any
>> >>existing Fedora deliverable of which I'm aware.
>> >>
>> >Correct in that point.
>> >
>> >>> We are
>> >>>talking about enabling it as default networking stack.
>>
>> This comes at a cost. It sounds more like 'gut fe
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:31:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > The situation is not at all the same; there is no clear expectation
>> > that networkd will replace NetworkManager, indeed AFAIK it's been
>> > explicitly stated that it won't, because it's not desirable for it to
>> > cover a
>> On Thursday, October 29, 2015 09:30:29 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Joe Brockmeier 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
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>>>
>>> docker 1.7 is what is in the stable f23 repo. with that we can't run a
>>> container with root bind mounted into it:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> -bash-4.3# docker run -it --rm -v /:/host busybox
>>> Error response from daemon: Relabeling of / is n
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Joe Brockmeier 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 of C&S WG I would cry. I hate it
>> because it is ridicul
>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:30 AM, "Josh Boyer" wrote:
>>> thinking... :)
>>>
>>> > Also, one of the CentOS GSoC projects was "Flamingo" "a lightweight
>>> > contextualization tool that aims to handle initialization of cloud
>>> > instances." [1] Maybe this is something we could look at for F24? CC'ing
>
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> docker 1.7 is what is in the stable f23 repo. with that we can't run a
> container with root bind mounted into it:
>
> ```
> -bash-4.3# docker run -it --rm -v /:/host busybox
> Error response from daemon: Relabeling of / is not allowed
> -bash-
> Hey all,
>
> Have we considered running fstrim against our cloud image filesystems
> before we package it up? I wrote a small script to do it (inside a
> container) at [1]. Looks like we can save ~28M:
It would need to be incorporated into the image build process because
it would affect checksum
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:54 AM, Michael Adam wrote:
> Thanks for the infos, guys! Looking...
>
> Is the CreateImage task triggered by some "koji image-build" command?
It's run by rel-eng, it's an admin only koji command, it also depends
on a number of other RCM processes like package signing, so
> On Sat, May 9, 2015, at 12:22 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> During the Test day (and before), several people noted this bug:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219871
>>
>> It now has a patch. I tested it with a local tree compose. It's nominated
>> now for Blocker/FE.
>
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:01:15AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> This change:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicHost
>> is presently blocked on:
>> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6119
>
> Is the blocker a disagreement
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Matthew Miller
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 Fedora to be internat
> ARM/KERNEL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183807
> "network spoke listed as not connected despite having assigned IP and
> hostname" - anaconda team have the impression that this is an ARM-
> specific kernel issue to do with renaming of ethernet devices on ARM;
> could do with inpu
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> Do we still need dhclient in our cloud images? I am looking at the
>>> candidate for F22 [1] and am having issues with my network coming up
>&g
> Do we still need dhclient in our cloud images? I am looking at the
> candidate for F22 [1] and am having issues with my network coming up
> on boot in an openstack environment. I suspect the fact that dhclient
> isn't in the image is to blame. It is in the F21 image. Was it
> intentionally remove
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
> On 02/16/2015 05:14 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> oz/imagefactory is how we produce the x86 cloud images and that's how
>> we'll be producing the other images in the F-22 cycle shortly.
>
>
> And i
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hi,
> are there non-intel cloud images available?
> I am mainly interested in PPC64 qcow images of Fedora.
We will be producing official qemu/kvm cloud images for non x86 as
part of F-22 cycle shortly.
> What is standard way of generating
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:36:04PM -0800, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> I'm starting to build Docker images on the Fedora base and I'm a
>> little concerned about the size of the images. For example, the Debian
>> base is 85.1 MB, the Ubu
> On 1/12/15 12:59 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> Fedora 21 is now out on Digital Ocean.. before we promote it to the
>> rest of the community I'd like to give you all an opportunity to test
>> a bit. roshi and I have already been giving it some love but it's
>> possible there are things that we missed.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Ravindra,
>
> At the moment, we do not have a formal process for this. The problem is
> further compounded by the fact that there is only one tree. Meaning that
> open-vm-tools would end up even on other deployment targets such as bare
>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 07:07:46AM -0500, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>> > > The security team didn't ask us to, as they did with heartbleed. I
>> > > expect it's because a yum update _without_ a reboot is sufficient in
>> > > this case, but maybe it's worth doing anyway
>> > +1
>> > Do we need to
On 5 Apr 2014 00:12, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> As an FYI, you could filter on:
>
> X-Trac-Project: cloud
Can that be set to something a little less generic please?
> too.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave.
>
> On 04/04/2014 06:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 09:31:12AM -0500, Troy Dawson
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Nux! wrote:
> On 03.12.2013 20:21, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to Fedora Infrastructure and Rel-Eng, we've got this:
>>
>>
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=all&view=tree&method=appliance&order=-id
>>
>> It's not the prettiest list, but once w
>> I know ubuntu is working on supporting ARM in openstack, I really think
>> we should as well. We should go big or go home. all of this change is
>> about making Fedora bigger and better. This is a avenue we should
>> pursue. while ppc is a secondary arch we need to also consider it.
>> there is
>> Agree - lots of situations where 32-bit is preferable, and in many
>> cases still the defacto arch.
>
> It's getting harder and harder to find 32 bit x86 hardware. There's exactly
> one use case for 32 bit in the cloud setting (IMO), which dgilmore and I
> briefly spoke about after the meeting
> Well SPICE is providing the link between the guest OS and the client
> machine for display interaction purposes. It has the ability to tunnel
> access to limited devices, in particular smartcards and USB devices
> attached to the client machine.
>
> PCI passthrough though is a different scenario
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Isaku Yamahata"
>> To: "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)"
>> Cc: "Fedora Cloud SIG" , "Robyn Bergeron"
>>
>> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 7:35:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: Ryu in the context of Fedora
>>
>> On Mon,
On my install of RHEL 6.3 I have CONFIG_BRIDGE=m and it appears to
work just fine.
Although RHEL discussions are completely off topic on a Fedora mailing
list. You should open a support case if you're having issues with
RHEL.
Peter
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> A quick
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 08:16:39PM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:25:07AM +0100, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>>> >> I have a need for the growroot featur
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Chris Horn wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if anyone knows who builds the Fedora AMI images on Amazon
> AWS. With the new Sydney Data Centre just being opened, I am keen to use
> Fedora there. I tried copying an existing image from another region, but
> ran int
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 11:41 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37
>
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I spent some time today trying to get ceph updated, and I pushed 0.37
> to rawhide[0].
>
> I would like to solicit thoughts on pushing this to F16.
> While this fixes 5 bugs in Fedora's bug tracker (and to be fair, 2 of
> them are
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> Quick question, I seem to remember there was a review request for
> python-cloudservers that was semi-abandoned, did I miss when it got
> packaged? It certainly is not in fedora 15 last time I checked.
Only packaged for F-16 and later
http
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:52, David Nalley wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731712
>>>
>>> The HekaFS maintainers were looking for a appropriate group
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> All,
> A few months ago we transferred the deltacloud API and core over to the
> apache foundation. Along with that we have also transferred the name
> "deltacloud" to apache (at least in spirit, I don't know what the legal
> situatio
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Chris Lalancette wrote:
> All,
> A few months ago we transferred the deltacloud API and core over to the
> apache foundation. Along with that we have also transferred the name
> "deltacloud" to apache (at least in spirit, I don't know what the legal
> situatio
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Silas Sewell wrote:
> Robyn,
>
> Yeah, sorry, I started a new job in late November and I've been working on a
> startup on the side, so I've lagged at little behind on my Fedora duties.
>
> I just got back from an OpenStack meetup and I'm reinvigorated and ready to
Hi All,
For those that are interested in playing with the Amazon cloud
(presumably with the new Fedora 14 ami ;-) ) Amazon is introducing an
AWS Free Usage Tier from Nov 1. Details here
http://aws.amazon.com/free/
Cheers,
Peter
___
cloud mailing list
c
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> There has been a lack of participation at our weekly meeting the past
> couple of weeks. I am wondering if Thursdays at 17:00EST is still a good
> time for everyone, or if we would get better participation at some other
> time. Would ano
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote:
>
> So we didn't really get quorum for a "real" meeting, but had an informal
> chat between dhuff, jforbes, and myself on #fedora-cloud.
>
> The upshot: the image problems we experienced with both boxgrinder and
> appliance-tools was *not*
71 matches
Mail list logo