EC2 / F17 Alpha: BROKEN

[Robyn Bergeron]

Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to either:

* Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are 
made/booting/working
OR
* No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha 
would be different from Other Alphas)

I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is 
no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very 
immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in 
slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was 
announced to be shippable.

Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) yet?

I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test 
compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a 
go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D

-Robyn

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 02/27/2012 09:48 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>  Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to 
>  either:
>
>  * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are 
>  made/booting/working
>  OR
>  * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha 
>  would be different from Other Alphas)
>
>  I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is 
>  no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very 
>  immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in 
>  slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and 
>  was announced to be shippable. 
(and actually, this last line isn't an option
anyway, though i should 
say i'm not particularly interested in slipping all of updates 
indefinitely for some undetermined length of time)
>  Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) 
>  yet?
>
>  I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test 
>  compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a 
>  go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
>
>  -Robyn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 27 February 2012 09:48, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to
> either:
>
>  * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are
>  made/booting/working
>  OR
>  * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha would
>  be different from Other Alphas)
>
>  I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is no
>  criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very immediate)
>  thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in slipping all of
>  alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was announced to be
>  shippable.
>
>  Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) yet?
>
>  I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test compose/upload of
>  EC2 images so that we know this before we have a go/no-go meeting, at the
>  bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D 
Would it make sense to start working with FESCO and QA on "reference"
platforms. These would be items that we definitively test against to
make sure they work on (and vice versa we can exclude platforms we
can't test/work on). The reason I am asking is that looking at the ARM
situation, it would be useful to narrow down testing to a subset of
boxes versus the N+1 versions of ARM out there and for cloud it might
make sense for our starting points to do the same.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me."  —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 02/27/2012 10:02 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>  On 27 February 2012 09:48, Robyn Bergeron<rbergero(a)redhat.com> 
> wrote:
> > Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to either:
> >  
> > * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are
> > made/booting/working
> > OR
> > * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha would
> > be different from Other Alphas)
> >  
> > I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply
> because there is no
> > criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very immediate)
> > thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in slipping all of
> > alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was announced to be
> > shippable.
> >  
> > Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools
> brokenness) yet?
> >  
> > I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a
> test compose/upload of
> > EC2 images so that we know this before we have a go/no-go meeting, at the
> > bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
>  Would it make sense to start working with FESCO and QA on "reference"
>  platforms. These would be items that we definitively test against to
>  make sure they work on (and vice versa we can exclude platforms we
>  can't test/work on). The reason I am asking is that looking at the ARM
>  situation, it would be useful to narrow down testing to a subset of
>  boxes versus the N+1 versions of ARM out there and for cloud it might
>  make sense for our starting points to do the same. 
Yup, we just discussed it in the
QA meeting; there apparently is an open 
ticket that is going to get back to being loved on.  If I can dig it up 
I'll post it so you have the information as well for ARM-y purposes.
>

[Dennis Gilmore]

El Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:48:14 -0700
Robyn Bergeron <rbergero(a)redhat.com&gt; escribió:
>  Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to
>  either:
>  
>  * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are 
>  made/booting/working
>  OR
>  * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha 
>  would be different from Other Alphas)
>  
>  I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there
>  is no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very 
>  immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in 
>  slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and
>  was announced to be shippable.
>  
>  Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools
>  brokenness) yet?
>  
>  I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test 
>  compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a 
>  go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
>   
The issues are this,

since f16 and f17 defaults to grub2 and ec2 needs a grub1 config file.
nothing is actually making the grub1 config file. probably what we
really need is to install grub2 so the image could be consumed outside
of ec2 but get a grub1 config file written out for ec2's use.  What i
think would be best long term is for ec2 to not use pvgrub. but i dont
think that will be a possibility.

adding the kickstart options that Dan posted last week resulted in
grub2 being installed but no grub1 config and it broke the upload
scripts. 

Dennis

[Justin Forbes]

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 09:48 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>  Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to
> either:
>  
>  * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are 
>  made/booting/working
>  OR
>  * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha 
>  would be different from Other Alphas)
>  
>  I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is 
>  no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very 
>  immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in 
>  slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was 
>  announced to be shippable.
>  
>  Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) yet?
>  
>  I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test 
>  compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a 
>  go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
>   
I would agree with option 2, no alpha. However I would like to see some
test images available as soon as we can get this fixed so that we are
not in this position for beta.

Justin

[Robyn Bergeron]

On 02/27/2012 11:09 AM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>  On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 09:48 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> > Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to either:
> >
> > * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are
> > made/booting/working
> > OR
> > * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha
> > would be different from Other Alphas)
> >
> > I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is
> > no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very
> > immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in
> > slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was
> > announced to be shippable.
> >
> > Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) yet?
> >
> > I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test
> > compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a
> > go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
> >
>  I would agree with option 2, no alpha. However I would like to see some
>  test images available as soon as we can get this fixed so that we are
>  not in this position for beta. 
ditto here.
>  Justin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud

[Max Spevack]

Full agreement.  Do not slip the Alpha for EC2 images, but indicate that 
they are a definite blocker for Beta.

--Max

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Robyn Bergeron wrote:

>  On 02/27/2012 11:09 AM, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 09:48 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> >> Apparently appliance-tools is not working properly.  This leads to either:
> >> 
> >> * Cannot start doing updates for F17 until EC2 images are
> >> made/booting/working
> >> OR
> >> * No EC2 for F17 Alpha (because updates will be in, and EC2 F17 alpha
> >> would be different from Other Alphas)
> >> 
> >> I'm recommending going with the latter option, simply because there is
> >> no criteria at all right now for making EC2 a blocker. Your (very
> >> immediate) thoughts are welcomed. I'm not particularly interested in
> >> slipping all of alpha after it met all of the shipping criteria and was
> >> announced to be shippable.
> >> 
> >> Dennis, do you have a bug number for this (appliance-tools brokenness) 
> >> yet?
> >> 
> >> I'm open to future recommendations, including doing a test
> >> compose/upload of EC2 images so that we know this before we have a
> >> go/no-go meeting, at the bare minimum. Please feel free to pipe in. :D
> >> 
> > I would agree with option 2, no alpha. However I would like to see some
> > test images available as soon as we can get this fixed so that we are
> > not in this position for beta.
>  ditto here.
> > Justin
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cloud mailing list
> > cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  cloud mailing list
>  cloud(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
>

[Tim Flink]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:40:35 -0800 (PST)
Max Spevack <mspevack(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  Full agreement.  Do not slip the Alpha for EC2 images, but indicate
>  that they are a definite blocker for Beta. 
I don't think that slipping F17 alpha was ever in question here -
just resuming bodhi update pushes post alpha freeze.

As currently written, EC2 and other Xen-based cloud provider issues
could block final release but not alpha or beta. The related criterion
is #10 of the final release criteria [1].

Tim


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Final_Release_Criteria