#44: hey we should have a vagrant base box
Reporter: mattdm | Owner:
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Future
Component: --- | Resolution:
Comment (by walters):
Replying to [comment:8 purpleidea]:
Easy to change this. (one-liner).
I'm not so sure it's that easy. The problem I hit with using libguestfs
for this sort of stuff is that you really need to be sure the SELinux
label of critical files like /etc/passwd is set. It's hard to do that
from the outside - doing it *inside* the system on boot means we use the
I actually prefer my makefile/virt-builder approach, but I obviously
fine with other people working on different methods.
herring I think. The issue I see is more the second part - the semantics
around how we change the contents of the target system.
I figured I'd step up to help with this, since it was apparently
Definitely! Do you have some bandwidth to work on this/continue the
There are a few aspects to this:
1) Content definition - what packages are installed?
2) Partition layout
3) System default configuration (vagrant user, vagrant ssh keys, sudo)
To me, Anaconda+kickstart files are the thing to use for #1 and #2. In
other words we're just talking about another Fedora Cloud type image,
except with Vagrant as the "hypervisor".
For #3, kickstart files are probably also the way to go. My script was
just a hack because I didn't have ostree support in Anaconda, but now I
There's a general question here about anaconda versus virt-builder; when
should you "rebuild" versus "post-customize". To me the answer comes
to the package set. If for example we wanted different packages in the
Vagrant image, then it would need to be an Anaconda rebuild.
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/44#comment:10>
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System