On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 8:31 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:23:24AM +0100, Sergio Lopez wrote:
> So, for the reasons stated above, I'd would like to reopen this
> question to see if together we can find a compromise that would work
> for all of us.
This all sounds good to me. What are we blocked on?
Right now we're blocked on having an agreement with the kernel team in
order to proceed with a kernel that is different from the one shipped
and used by Fedora.
Once we have this approval, I guess the next step would be updating
the current documents on what can (or cannot) be shipped, and what's
the approach to follow in such cases, and then, finally, we can
proceed with packaging libkrunfw.
AFAIU, the approval must come from the Fedora kernel team. If this ML
is not exactly the best way, could someone redirect us to the best way
to approach the team and recommend the next steps from here?
One note, Dan Walsh's email seems to be blocked waiting for the
moderator to approve it, as it didn't show up here.
In any case, Dan mentioned, and I'm quoting here as is:
I would like to also recommend that this be reconsidered. We would like
to make libkrun a first class citizen as a crun based OCI Runtime. We
see benefits for it in both on Linux (Fedora) platforms as it provides a
easy to use KVM Container, which works easier with the host then Kata.
Secondarily with MAC systems, since it provides a light weight way of
running containers on a MAC.
In my option, having Fedora's name associated with this innovative
technology would be beneficial to Fedora project.