On 6/28/23 17:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2023-06-28 at 13:01 +0200, Ondřej Budai wrote:
I already answered you here:
https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/384#comment-862709
TL;DR: Let's figure this out when we are migrating other artifacts. For
now, the blueprint will be empty/minimal.
Thanks a lot for engaging with the feedback. However, I'm not convinced
by that answer, and I would prefer to follow up here; I suspect
feedback to an issue in the workstation tracker might well not be
captured in the Change process.
I think the points discussed in the ticket (layering/inheritance, and
package removals) are critical and they need an answer to be figured
out *before* we start switching Fedora live images to be built with a
different tool. I don't see how it can be good for Fedora if we have
*some* live images built with livemedia-creator and *some* live images
built with Image Builder - but if we start converting images without
figuring out what to do about layering and package exclusions, that's
exactly what we risk.
We do really kinda need inheritance to maintain the live image
definitions sensibly. (Also, a related point Neal didn't mention: we
share some elements of configuration between the live images and the
aarch64 disk images, since both are defined by kickstarts in the
fedora-kickstarts repo.) And we really need package exclusions to keep
some images to a sensible size.
We don't necessarily need these things to be completely implemented in
order to switch Workstation over, I don't think, but I think we should
at least have a *plan* for them. And ideally a timeframe.
Hey Adam,
I've made a beginning with starting to track work ongoing on building
Fedora within the projects that make up image builder. It's far from
complete (I'm still backfilling with previous relevant issues and
creating new issues) but it will give a bit better insight into options
being considered and work being done to improve support for Fedora:
https://github.com/orgs/osbuild/projects/3
I'm still working on making the plan more concrete but I think it's
definitely feasible to, as a followup (likely for Fedora 40) allow
blueprints to define excludes.
Still working on things related to inheritance, there's two ways of
going about it. One is a direct support for including blueprint
snippet(s) in other blueprints (this would be non-standard for the
current TOML format that the languages are in). The other is more a
mitigation and it would be to make it so that all current kickstarts can
be defined without inheritance and then to later work that into a form
where inheritance is brought back in.
Also, for understanding I've been diving through the kickstart
repositories to define a common base set and interdependencies. I've
graphed out the kickstart files and their relationships here:
https://supakeen.fedorapeople.org/kickstart-graph.png it seems to have
found some includes to kickstarts which no longer exist in the repositories!
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
