Re: [cloud] #44: hey we should have a vagrant base box

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



#44: hey we should have a vagrant base box
--------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  mattdm  |       Owner:
     Type:  task    |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal  |   Milestone:  Future
Component:  ---     |  Resolution:
 Keywords:          |
--------------------+---------------------

Comment (by purpleidea):

 Replying to [comment:5 walters]:
 > A few issues with that script:
 >
 > * Disabling SELinux is obviously not something we can ship with
 Agreed. I actually forgot about this... I think it was something that was
 needed by vagrant boxes at some point. Easy to change this. (one-liner).

 > * virt-builder is a useful tool, but rwmjones's website is not
 maintained by releng.  It's not going to work to bounce content to his
 site and then have releng download it again
 I agree! I do think it makes sense to build upon existing tools where
 appropriate. This way we have fewer different initial ways to build a base
 image. For the releng requirements, I'm pretty sure rwmjones tools can
 point at a different repo, and even work fully "offline". You typically
 need to set the /etc/virt-builder/repos.d/<something>.conf file to
 whatever you want. rwmjones is probably a great resource for info on how
 to build his template .xz files.

 >
 > Now there are two approaches.
 >
 > 1) Anaconda + kickstart
 >    I think this is probably the way to go, particularly as it would
 allow us to include Vagrant-specific content.
 > 2) Mutate an existing qcow2 (e.g. the cloud image)
 >    For the latter, see: https://github.com/cgwalters/rpm-ostree-
 autocompose/commit/55af81ff04afb24429616ccb2c67b408e3a7e364 for an
 approach which injects a systemd unit file, rather than attempting to
 change the target from the outside.  The advantage of this is that way we
 pick up the SELinux policy from the target.

 I actually prefer my makefile/virt-builder approach, but I obviously am
 fine with other people working on different methods.

 I figured I'd step up to help with this, since it was apparently a "very
 long-standing request". I'm happy to continue to generate these Fedora
 vagrant boxes, and I think it makes sense to use this, even "officially"
 since it works _now_, and nobody for a while seemed to be doing this.

 I should mention, working on this isn't really my "prime directive", so
 more than I anything I was trying to be helpful so that I have beverage or
 bug karma with mattdm :P

 Cheers

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/44#comment:8>
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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux