On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Sandro red Mathys <red@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > Short answer: Yes, I think so. Longer answer: It varies a bit. Most of the > core design has been implemented for ~1.5 years, and I and others have done > many upgrades using it. The rpm-ostree layer being in a functional state is > much newer, and things like the SELinux integration are quite new. Wait, that sounds way too stable. We need to find a more unstable approach! ;) Well, Docker is only just gaining SELinux integration, so you're even a step ahead. :) > One last question: even with ostree, we'd still create the image using > ImageFactory/Anaconda, right? > > > So rpm-ostree also contains code to make .qcow disks. It's not as flexible > as Anaconda, e.g. the partition layout, bootloader, etc. is hardcoded: > > https://github.com/cgwalters/rpm-ostree/blob/master/src/autobuilder/js/libqa.js#L119 Well, I was more thinking of having these two options: - Create image using ImageFactory (and initialize ostree in %post) - Copy the already built base image and initialize the ostree within (for which there should be several possibilities) But good to know you can create qcow2 disks directly. But hardcoded stuff doesn't work for our needs. Even if the code would match our exact needs, they are just as much in flux as everything in the cloud ecosystem is. > Right now, Anaconda has no idea about OSTree. But this is a very high > priority for me. Kindly let us know once it's there and usable. I don't expect it all too soon, though. Anaconda is a rather complicated matter. -- Sandro _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
