#137: Regression: fedora:22 tag points to Fedora 20 docker image
---------------------+--------------------
Reporter: adelton | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Keywords:
---------------------+--------------------
{{{
# docker run -ti fedora:22 cat /etc/redhat-release
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)
# docker images fedora
REPOSITORY TAG IMAGE ID CREATED
VIRTUAL SIZE
docker.io/fedora 22 0d071bb732e1 4 weeks ago
290.6 MB
}}}
Things were sane yesterday when fedora:22 was pointing to ded7cd95e059.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/137>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
#127: Working with the Server WG
-------------------------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: roshi | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: Collaboration & Communication | Keywords: meeting
-------------------------------------------+---------------------
It was brought up in today's Server WG meeting [0] that they wanted to do
some coordination with Workstation and Cloud. Ideas for WS are already
there, but some thought should be put into how Server and Cloud can make
things easier for both to work together when they're deployed. This ticket
is a call to arms for some brain storming on this topic.
[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-
meeting-1/2015-10-13/serversig.2015-10-13-15.00.log.html
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/127>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
#94: Producing Updated Cloud/Atomic Images
------------------------------+---------------------
Reporter: dustymabe | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: Cloud Base Image | Keywords: meeting
------------------------------+---------------------
We need to finalize our policy around producing updated images and then
start doing it.
Right now we have loosely decided to release new images once a month or
whenever security updates require it.
Additionally, as part of this we should also decide on a policy that
determines when we stop updating images for a particular release. I
imagine that we don't want to be producing updated images for Fedora X, Y,
and Z all at the same time. Ideally we would only be producing updated
images for the current/latest major version.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/94>
cloud <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Fedora Cloud Workgroup on 2015-11-11 from 17:00:00 to 18:00:00 UTC
At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Standing meeting for the Fedora Cloud Workgroup
Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/1999/
I've spent the last 3+ years asking people what they would like from a
guest operating system in the cloud. Sometimes framed as "Why did you
choose Fedora?", sometimes as "Why didn't you choose Fedora?", and
sometimes basically the generic question.
I'd say that overall, the reason people say that they chose what they
did was either familiarity, or that they found documentation — or
another person — doing a similar thing, and they just followed whatever
OS that had.
When I ask what they *want*, though, there's a somewhat different
story. It's pretty universal, though: a small, simple base without much
risk, and a library of components to go on top of that.
Fedora Cloud Base is a decent job of being a small base, although we
still have a lot of dependency bloat and updates churn. But the library
of stuff — languages, services — is difficult. We've got a great set of
packages, but they're largely irrelevant, because the versions are
usually changing too quickly. Mostly, you've got to bring your own
stacks.
I'd hoped that we could answer this by slimming down the base and then
offering a wide selection of SCLs on top. But, I don't think that's
really panning out. The base is way less minimal than I'd like, and I
don't know a good way to manage the updates situation. And SCLs are
both still somewhat stuck *and* unlikely to explode (in the good sense)
if they get unstuck.
For people who chose Fedora Cloud already — familiarity, or they found
someone else familiar — we're probably okay. No one has anything
negative to say about the work we've done — in fact, people who have
chosen it generally say good things. I think it's very useful to keep
producing Fedora Cloud Base for that group. But... it's a small club.
So, enter Atomic Host plus containers. This is, basically, exactly what
people have been asking for. The ostree tech brings some order to the
base, making updates more reliable and testable. And containers bring
us the library of components — at the very least making it easier to
bring your own, and ideally providing a new, better way for us to offer
different versions, possibly with a different lifecycle.
That's why I'd like to move the Cloud Base image to a dedicated
cloud.fedoraproject.org page along the lines of
http://arm.fedoraproject.org, and replace Cloud with Atomic Host as a
top level on <https://arm.fedoraproject.org/>, and to rename Cloud WG
to Atomic WG (but still keeping the Cloud SIG to work on the Base
image).
This is all just my 2¢, but I hope you'll consider them 2¢ with a lot
of prior listening. If you have a counter story which will help us
significantly grow adoption of Cloud Base *instead*, I'd love to hear
it.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
Sending this to marketing and the cloud list..
I have written a post promoting our vagrant images (now indexed in
atlas). Can I get some feedback on this and possibly out to the magazine?
https://gist.github.com/dustymabe/f4db1ef857260d216ab2
Dusty
Hey all,
Just a quick note to say I will be hard offline from 6 November to 15
November. Not sure how decent the Internet connectivity will be where
I'm at, but I don't really plan on looking at email very often in any
event.
Best,
jzb
--
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/
Is there a reason the ostree remote for f23 (
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/atomic/23/) hasn't been
updated since "Wed 28 Oct 2015 10:50:12 AM UTC" ?
-bash-4.3# rpm-ostree upgrade
Updating from: fedora-atomic:fedora-atomic/f23/x86_64/docker-host
22 metadata, 29 content objects fetched; 91065 KiB transferred in 58 seconds
error: Upgrade target revision
'c61f7516909a643cc6328976b17182240b9b0d7f1d1efaa1b659d99a94b8c388' with
timestamp 'Wed 28 Oct 2015 10:50:12 AM UTC' is chronologically older
than current revision
'f85f5e7bfc105d6466f53ca1c2e04fa5d5724442bc544b950cf71588d860a041' with
timestamp 'Thu 29 Oct 2015 03:54:57 AM UTC'; use --allow-downgrade to permit