Currently, our VM distribution image is not a fully-fledged distribution medium like our iso media. It is merely a "nice to have“.
This means, for example, that even a serious bug cannot become a "release blocker", as an iso file could. Fedora then launches a new release with a (on purpose) faulty Server VM image. This is already the case with release 40. Our VM image still contains the LVM error, which happens to be not immediately noticeable in a standard VM creation. And for the SBC image, the error will be corrected, although we do not currently know how.
This no longer fits into today's world, where virtual machines are a common working model. To rectify this, we need to achieve a corresponding qualification with FESCo.
We need to appoint someone to initiate and oversee this process.
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
Do we expect both the aarch64 raw and the x86_64 qcow2's or just the qcow2s?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
For example here are the Fedora Cloud Entries:
Cloud/aarch64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.aarch64.qcow2 Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.qcow2
Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.raw.xz
On Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:58:36 AM CDT blackwell@disroot.org wrote:
Hi Peter,
Here is the pagure issue I filed for this effort.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12163
-- _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/server@lists.fedoraproject.or g Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi Jason,
We discussed this at the meeting last week. I think we should elevate auf generic VM (the qcow2) image. And in my opinion we should do this for the ARM image, too.
But I think, we need a change proposal for each. The deadline for change proposal (Self Contained Changes) is July 16, as far as I know. How can we put this forward? What are we missing? What do we have to discuss / to resolve?
Best Peter
Am 13.06.2024 um 23:09 schrieb blackwell@disroot.org:
Do we expect both the aarch64 raw and the x86_64 qcow2's or just the qcow2s?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
For example here are the Fedora Cloud Entries:
Cloud/aarch64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.aarch64.qcow2
Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.qcow2
Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.raw.xz
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
blackwell＠disroot.org -
Peter Boy