On Friday, January 29, 2016 02:25:49 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 03:03:33PM +0100, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
On Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:51:31 PM CET Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 04:33:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks! I thought this might be about the appropriate time to throw this out there.
There hasn't been a big news press on this, but some of you may know that releng is fairly close to switching over to Pungi 4 for composes. For those of you who don't know:
releng is fairly close to switching over to Pungi 4 for composes.
[...]
Any chance you can publish metadata for these releases? ie. this 2
year old request: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5805
We're in the awkward situation now where OpenSUSE and Ubuntu publish machine-readable metadata, but Fedora does not (or if it now does, please point me to it so we can start using it).
Many people would test the cloud images and test their software on
cloud images if they could do: $ virt-builder fedora-rawhide $ virt-builder fedora-nightly-YYYYMMDD
or whatever to get them.
I think you might be looking for something like this? https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/latest-Fedora-/compose/ metadata/
See the files in the directory for details, be aware the rpm one is huge though :-)
Possibly.
Really we're looking for cloud images though (ie. *.qcow2), not install ISOs or trees. I thought Pungi did both?
There are a few missing fields we require too:
size of the disk image (especially when the image xz-compressed, we need the uncompressed size in order to plan how to resize it)
format of the disk image
name of the root filesystem (so we can resize the image intelligently)
cryptographically-secure checksum of the image
libosinfo database key (so we know what emulated devices to present)
And the metadata should be GPG signed.
I've got an example here:
http://libguestfs.org/download/builder/index.asc
I'm not hung up on the specific format -- for Ubuntu they use a thing called "SimpleStreams" which we implemented support for -- but it needs to contain the same or a subset of that metadata.
Rich.
We have none of that info and its not yet on our radar. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/PriorityPipeline is the list of things we have coming up. I think there are some not documented as well as they should be.
Dennis
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:07:14AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[...]
We have none of that info and its not yet on our radar. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/PriorityPipeline is the list of things we have coming up. I think there are some not documented as well as they should be.
I think this request just kind of fell through and didn't get included in the new prioritization process. Let's get it added in as something for _sometime_ in the future, even if it doesn't bump current priorities.
Already added to our next grooming meeting.
On January 29, 2016 7:56:05 PM GMT+01:00, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:07:14AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
[...]
We have none of that info and its not yet on our radar. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/PriorityPipeline is the list of things we have coming up. I think there are some not documented as well as they should be.
I think this request just kind of fell through and didn't get included in the new prioritization process. Let's get it added in as something for _sometime_ in the future, even if it doesn't bump current priorities.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org