Fedora Cloud Edition images will be built with Kiwi, which will replace the unmaintained ImageFactory tooling that is currently being used to build the cloud base images.
We can already build Fedora Cloud Edition images outside of Koji using composite Kiwi definitions. However the integration with Koji must be enabled to fulfuill our goal of building official images within the Fedora infrastructure and fully replace the current usage of ImageFactory.
This transition is consistent with the direction of the Cloud Product Requirements Description (PRD). Kiwi provides the Cloud Working Group with a tool that preserve previous choices to build images using composable configurations and to provide a reproducible process for building images related to the cloud edition, including Fedora Cloud Base images for Vagrant, Azure, AWS, GCP, and generic images. This also opens up the ability to run container builds and WSL2 builds using the the composable image definitions to maintain a base image and then update the specifics needed for each specialized image using a smaller configuration file.
Owners, do not implement this work until the FESCo vote has explicitly ended. The Fedora Program Manager will create a tracking bug in Bugzilla for this Change, which is your indication to proceed. See the FESCo ticket policy and the Changes policy for more information.
REMINDER: This ticket is for FESCo members to vote on the proposal. Further discussion should happen in the devel list thread linked above.
+1
pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions is owned by @ngompa and @davdunc. Will it be used as the canonical location of the Fedora image descriptions? What is the plan for the ownership of the repo, i.e. how can other Fedora maintainers update the definitions if both of you are unavailable?
+1 pagure.io/fedora-kiwi-descriptions is owned by @ngompa and @davdunc. Will it be used as the canonical location of the Fedora image descriptions? What is the plan for the ownership of the repo, i.e. how can other Fedora maintainers update the definitions if both of you are unavailable?
Yes, it will be the canonical location. I intend to add releng as a admin group to it as soon as this is approved by FESCo, as well as @adamwill explicitly. That way, there will be redundancy in the event @davdunc or myself are not available.
I appreciate the detail in the change proposal around some alternatives and why they were not chosen for this change. 👏
I'm hesitant to vote on this yet. It came in right as people went off on holidays and I haven't seen any sign that releng is supportive of this change. The closest thing I can find is a (resigned) comment from @kevin on a releng ticket.
I'm going to put a procedural -1 on this, just to make sure the relevant groups have time to review it properly. I do agree with @mhayden that the Change is well-written and provides good detail, but I want to be absolutely certain that releng agrees and has the cycles to help it land.
Metadata Update from @sgallagh: - Issue tagged with: meeting
+1 if releng agrees
From reading the comments its unclear whether this proposal can be marked as 'approved' at this stage. Please let me know what the decision is if/when one has been/will be reached.
Thanks!
It's tagged with meeting, so it should be discussed on Monday.
meeting
As an update, in the discussion thread we talked about moving more to kiwi so we could retire ImageFactory (so at least not a gain in stacks). Everyone so far seems ok with that idea. If the change owners can adjust the scope and such, and we can get sign off from others ( @cverna @adamwill @jnsamyak @humaton ) I'd be ok with that plan.
So that would be moving Base container, Base minimal container and toolbox over to kiwi as well and dropping any ImageFactory use (I still need to confirm there's nothing else made from it that I forgot about).
ok, there are more, will discuss some more...
The current agreement at this point is to do the following:
Step 1 is this Change, and steps 2-4 will take place right after F40 is done. @davdunc and I can look into making a separate F41 Change for that after F40 work is done.
With this plan, I think @kevin's concerns should be assuaged?
+1 from me
I'd prefer this be split into two changes. The f40 work and then the separate f41 work.
That is the intent. I'm just outlining the whole scope over two releases.
Voted on during 1-15-2023 meeting: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org//meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-01-15/fesco.2024-01-15-19.30.html
APPROVED (+7, 1, -0)
Metadata Update from @tstellar: - Issue untagged with: meeting
Metadata Update from @ngompa: - Issue close_status updated to: Accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.