On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 11:54:05AM -0500, Adam Young wrote:
On 03/06/2012 12:30 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>El Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:08:22 -0600
>Dennis Gilmore<ausil(a)fedoraproject.org> escribió:
>>El Mon, 05 Mar 2012 14:03:43 -0500
>>Adam Young<ayoung(a)redhat.com> escribió:
>>>Dennis,
>>>
>>>Wanted to float this by you first before opening it to a wider
>>>audience.
>>>
>>>For fedora's VM image, we can add an additional RPM that drops a
>>>firstboot module in with priority -1 (If that is in fact allowed,
>>>other wise priority 0, and reschedules language to 1) that will
>>>run cloud-init and, upon success, disable all other firstboot
>>>modules. If it fails, firstboot runs as per normal.
>>>
>>>What do you think?
>>>
>>>Adam
>>I really don't think it will work, AFAIK cloud-init if it fails will
>>keep trying until it succeeds because the data it needs may not be
>>available initially. We are really too late for F17. putting in a
>>framework to deal with it properly will take some work. I think that
>>maybe a good solution would be to deal with it via a boot time flag.
>>the question then becomes how exactly would it work?
>>
>>Id think something like this. we add the boot flag to the grub1
>>config which is used by ec2. grub2 being unaffected. we would
>>then need teach cloud-init which we would need to set with
>>dependencies higher to run before firstboot would see the flag and
>>disable firstboot. now im not 100% sure that we can actually do that.
>>then anyone that deploys the images to an ec2 like environment like
>>eucalyptus would need to make sure they set the flag in their grub2
>>config for deployment.
>>
>>of course a lot of this is all speculation on how it all works. I
>>think for F17 we should make 2 sets of base virt guest images. one
>>that has cloud-init and one that has firstboot. then the user can
>>choose which to grab.
>>
>>Dennis
>
Agreed that cloud-init and Firstboot won't work together.
Another thought is that we could modify the live CD image such that
it can better be used as a Virtual Machine. What we have is fairly
close to that solution already, so what it would need is:
1. An easy way to generate a Persistant store for the /var/ /home
and /tmp directories
2. An easy way to resize the ISO image to something large enough to
install/update RPMS
This is obviously a pretty big stretch, and I wouldn't expect it
could be a F17 task. It might be the wrong approach, but it would
be worth at least talking through it.
The EC2 images are pretty much "minimal" installs, right? I think
that they should continue to be separate from the Fedora appliance
for virtualization anyway. The appliance should be comparable to the
Live CD: Gnome Desktop and all.
I rather disagree here - the appliance images should be JEOS images,
exactly like the EC2. For desktop users, the existing Live CD is
already a good solution.
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|