November 2017 - Atomic Working Group (ARCHIVED)

[atomic-wg] Issue #388: Add Fedora AMIs to govcloud region.
by David Duncan 08 Feb '18

08 Feb '18

davdunc reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` There are currently no Fedora images in the AWS govcloud region. To publish images in the govcloud, we must follow the ITAR guidelines. The AWS GovCloud (United States) region supports United States International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliance. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controls the export of defense-related articles and states that no non-US person can have physical or logical access to the articles stored in the ITAR environment. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/388

2 2

[atomic-wg] Issue #351: atomic working group talks/sessions for devconf.cz
by Dusty Mabe 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

dustymabe reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` Let's strategize on what sessions we want to submit for devconf this year. Please update the description with a bulleted list of sessions we'd like to submit as well as the status for each session. For example: - Atomic Host 101 Hands On Lab - Not Yet Submitted - Dusty Mabe Please add a comment anytime you update the description with a changelog of what you changed in the description. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/351

6 11

[atomic-wg] Issue #382: growpart seems to fail on aarch64 atomic host cloud image
by Dusty Mabe 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

dustymabe reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` I'm not sure why but would like others to confirm/deny that it happens for them with [the image from the first f27 release](https://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/atomic/stable/Fedora-Atomic-…. ``` [root@cloudhost ~]# rpm-ostree status State: idle Deployments: ● fedora-atomic:fedora/27/aarch64/atomic-host Version: 27.1 (2017-11-10 12:02:44) Commit: da1bd08012699a0aacaa11481d3ed617477858aab0f2ea7300168ce106202255 GPGSignature: Valid signature by 860E19B0AFA800A1751881A6F55E7430F5282EE4 [root@cloudhost ~]# lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 40G 0 disk ├─sda1 8:1 0 200M 0 part /boot/efi ├─sda2 8:2 0 1G 0 part /boot └─sda3 8:3 0 4.8G 0 part └─atomicos-root 253:0 0 4.8G 0 lvm /sysroot sdb 8:16 0 368K 0 disk sdc 8:32 0 10G 0 disk [root@cloudhost ~]# growpart /dev/sda 3 GPT PMBR size mismatch (12582911 != 83886079) will be corrected by w(rite). attempt to resize /dev/sda failed. sfdisk output below: | GPT PMBR size mismatch (12582911 != 83886079) will be corrected by w(rite). | Backup files: | PMBR (offset 0, size 512): /tmp/growpart.gpxB0y/backup-sda-0x00000000.bak | GPT Header (offset 512, size 512): /tmp/growpart.gpxB0y/backup-sda-0x00000200.bak | GPT Entries (offset 1024, size 16384): /tmp/growpart.gpxB0y/backup-sda-0x00000400.bak | | Disk /dev/sda: 40 GiB, 42949672960 bytes, 83886080 sectors | Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes | Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes | I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes | Disklabel type: gpt | Disk identifier: 5B1DEB7C-8134-464C-8767-0883E53D8B64 | | Old situation: | | Device Start End Sectors Size Type | /dev/sda1 2048 411647 409600 200M EFI System | /dev/sda2 411648 2508799 2097152 1G Linux filesystem | /dev/sda3 2508800 12580863 10072064 4.8G Linux LVM | | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Script header accepted. | >>> Created a new GPT disklabel (GUID: 5B1DEB7C-8134-464C-8767-0883E53D8B64). | /dev/sda1: Created a new partition 1 of type 'EFI System' and of size 200 MiB. | Partition #1 contains a vfat signature. | /dev/sda2: Created a new partition 2 of type 'Linux filesystem' and of size 1 GiB. | Partition #2 contains a ext4 signature. | /dev/sda3: The last usable GPT sector is 12582878, but 83886079 is requested. | Failed to add #3 partition: Invalid argument | Leaving. | FAILED: failed to resize ***** WARNING: Resize failed, attempting to revert ****** 512+0 records in 512+0 records out 512 bytes copied, 0.0930597 s, 5.5 kB/s ***** Appears to have gone OK **** ``` `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/382

2 8

[atomic-wg] Issue #349: evaluate atomic-ci repo
by Dennis Gilmore 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

ausil reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` @releng had setup a atomic-ci tree based on the rawhide buildroot to enable a place for quick availability to test rawhide builds. per https://pagure.io/releng/pull-request/7094 it had been broken for the last 3 months. I would like for it to be evaluated and either be something cared about and used, setting up automated testing, or something we nuke from orbit due to no longer needing to be used. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/349

4 6

[atomic-wg] Issue #372: proposal to include firewalld in atomic host
by Dusty Mabe 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

dustymabe reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` I started [a thread](https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2017-April/msg00022.html) some time ago on including firewalld in atomic host. I don't believe we received any major objections there so I'm going to propose we move forward with including it in the host. Some highlights from the mail thread: - good for new users since docker adds iptables rules dynamically it's really hard to properly get an iptables config that accurately reflects the rules you want to add without including the dynamic rules docker adds. Also if you do get a config that works and apply it while the system is running then you lost the dynamic rules docker added. - good for openshift origin / kubernetes From @jdetiber : *The iptables-based management that is done in openshift-ansible has always been a hack that was only meant to be a stopgap until firewalld was fully supported up and down the entire stack. There are way too many edge cases that could cause issues with the create/save/restore process. We tried to limit those by using a dedicated chain for openshift-ansible rules, but having another process modify rules without using '-w' or other modifications to the firewall could inadvertently be persisted with the iptables-save.* - make sure we avoid the default zones/policies from firewalld from ben breard on list: if we include it we would want to *clean up the absurd default zones & policies and have something relevant for AH out of the box* `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/372

12 29

[atomic-wg] Issue #345: 20171003 ISO does not boot on minnowboard
by Josh Berkus 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` 1. wrote Fedora-Atomic-ostree-x86_64-26-20171003.0.iso to usb key (used in prior tests) 2. ran kickstart install of Atomic using my standard f26 kickstart 3. install ran 4. On rebook, system goes through bootup messages and dmesg for around 20 seconds, then without warning reboots. This cycle continues as long as I let it (I counted 5 cycles, then turned it off). 5. Tested with a new USB key and a different minnowboard. Same result. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/345

4 16

[atomic-wg] Issue #385: Installer doesn't match Fedora Website
by Andreas Nilsson 22 Jan '18

22 Jan '18

andreasn reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` The website says "Fedora Atomic", but the uses branding that says "Fedora Cloud" <!!image> `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/385

3 10

[atomic-wg] Issue #358: Article For F27: Cockpit on F27
by Josh Berkus 18 Jan '18

18 Jan '18

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` Article Title: Managing Fedora 27 Atomic with Cockpit Deadline: December 1 Publication: Project Atomic Blog OR Fedora Community Blog Priority: Nice To Have Would be great to have a blog post, with pictures/videos, showing how to manage some of Atomic's particular capabilities (containers, ostree layers, etc.) with the latest Cockpit. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/358

3 5

[atomic-wg] Issue #363: Overhaul list of members, Quorum Rules
by Josh Berkus 16 Jan '18

16 Jan '18

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` The current list of members, carried over from the Cloud SIG, is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Atomic_WG#Working_Group_Members_and_Points_o… Things we need to change: 1. Who should we remove? Are jsmith and nzwulfin active anymore? 2. Who needs to be added? Jlebon? ashcrow? QUORUM ISSUE: We currently list meeting quorum as 51% of all members. With our open membership, though, that means that we need at least 11 people at a Fedora Atomic meeting to make decisions. We need to either lower that threshold (I suggest six) or we need to restrict membership in the WG. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/363

10 29

[atomic-wg] Issue #360: Decide strategy for including container runtimes in Atomic Host
by Josh Berkus 10 Jan '18

10 Jan '18

jberkus reported a new issue against the project: `atomic-wg` that you are following: `` Currently, we ship docker in the base image for Fedora Atomic Host. With the release of CRI-O, as well as the issues around docker versions, one possible solution is to ship only runc with the base Atomic Host, and make container runtimes installable as system containers. If we don't move docker to a system container, there's a strong argument to also ship CRI-O as part of the base image. Arguments in favor of System Containers for CRs: * minimizes the base system image * helps deal with docker/containerd versioning issues * doesn't require users to ship container runtimes they don't want * consistent with our general modularity approach * puts CRI-O/docker on a separate upgrade cycle, which can help around kube/openshift updates * allows community to add other runtimes if they want (e.g. Rkt) Arguments against using System Containers for CRs: * extra step (or two) for new user startup * total disk size for atomic + cri-o + docker will actually be larger * not sure if all things docker work as a system container * puts docker/CRI-O on a separate upgrade cycle, which could break around kernel updates Discuss! `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/360

6 10

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Atomic Working Group (ARCHIVED) November 2017