#53: anaconda doesn't allow installation of current fedora-cloud-base.ks
---------------------+---------------------
Reporter: walters | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Keywords: |
---------------------+---------------------
Comment (by walters):
<walters> dgilmore, did you see the conclusion of yesterday's thread? is
setting a root pw in kickstart then locking good enough?
<dgilmore> walters: its really not
<walters> dgilmore, ok, we need to figure this out; i'm interested as I
need to be producing cloud images via anaconda as well
<walters> should take this to a bug or something
<dlehman> pardon me for being behind, but what's the problem?
<dlehman> you want root locked but anaconda doesn't allow that?
<dgilmore> dlehman: anaconda doesnt allow it without creatinga user
<walters> dlehman, i think the typing to catch you up is best done in a
bug
<dlehman> fair enough
<dgilmore> dlehman: need to be able to say the root account can be locked
if a package that will configure the system on first boot is installed
<dlehman> dgilmore: and the rationale is that we can't know for sure if
there will be compulsory user-account creation, so we can't lock root,
right?
<dgilmore> walters: but yeah a bug is probably best
<walters> https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ ?
<dgilmore> dlehman: well we can deal with it all in %post, but that is
easy to get wrong
<walters> i can wordsmith this
<dlehman> the only way anaconda could let this slide, I think, is if those
initial-setup packages provide something that says "I take full
responsibility for compulsory user account configuration"
<dlehman> then we can just reassign the bugs to those packages when they
inevitably come
<dgilmore> dlehman: right
<dlehman> so I think those various packages should have Provides: user-
account-setup
<walters> https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/53
<dgilmore> dlehman: i am okay with that
<dgilmore> initial-setup cloud-init etc can all provide that
<dlehman> and that means if they get installed it's their responsibility
to see to it that the accounts are created
<dlehman> it doesn't matter what else is installed, doesn't matter what
the user does, &c &c
<davidshea> we'd need a way to ensure that the service or whatever is
actually enabled on boot. that's all over the place right now
<walters> are you saying anaconda would come with code to check the rpm
transaction for something with the requisite provides?
<dlehman> it certainly sounds better than maintaining a list of packages
that may or may not handle it
<dlehman> I'm not volunteering, but if you want something better than what
we have now this seems like the way to go.
<dlehman> we can log prominently "WARNING: not enforcing user account
creation because package foo will handle it on the reboot"
<walters> though come to think of it, this isn't going to work for me
<walters> at least not easily
<walters> since min-metadata-service will likely be in the default tree,
just not enabled
<walters> as davidshea says
<walters> maybe in the future i'd have a variant tree for cloud, also with
stuff like the physical kernel drivers stripped out
* walters keeps coming back to the idea of a kickstart verb for this
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/53#comment:1>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
_______________________________________________
cloud mailing list
cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
