devel April 2023

devel@lists.centos.org

15 participants
15 discussions

[REPORT] Quarterly Report - CentOS Automotive SIG
by Jeffrey Osier-Mixon 17 Aug '23

17 Aug '23

January 2023 Quarterly report submitted by: Jefro Osier-Mixon, Red Hat - chair _____________________________________ Membership update This SIG does not have a formal membership process. The mailing list currently has 106 subscribers representing at least 32 organizations, though not all subscribers use corporate emails and some are participating as individuals. _____________________________________ Releases in the most recent quarter (or most recent release, if none in that quarter) The Automotive SIG produces three types of artifacts: - AutoSD, a streaming distribution of CentOS designed for in-vehicle automotive use cases. - An Automotive SIG RPM repository that allows the community to expand the content of AutoSD or experiment with some of its parts. - Sample images, built using OSBuild, which provide examples of how to assemble production images based on AutoSD, customized for some hardware, including container images, based on CoreOS/ostree technologies. AutoSD, or Automotive Stream Distribution, is a streaming distribution for automotive in-vehicle software development based on CentOS Stream. It is transparently the upstream project for Red Hat's eventual in-vehicle OS product. AutoSD has been downloaded and used by many organizations who have commented or asked for help, so we know it is getting some traction though of course we don't have exact metrics on usage. In Q4 2022, we released a version of AutoSD compatible with the emerging SOAFEE specification. SOAFEE (https://soafee.io) is an initiative driven by Arm for the purpose of developing a reference specification for Arm-based software-defined vehicles (SDVs) consisting of an operating system, container orchestration strategy, and application layer. In addition, we introduced a very lightweight container runtime based on podman and systemd that does not include Kubernetes, as the latter represented a significant performance hit on all relevant hardware. We presented at the Arm Developer Summit in November on these topics. In the coming quarter, we plan to tighten up documentation, begin a process for accepting and supporting hardware enablement contributions, and continue to develop AutoSD toward the SOAFEE specification while also contributing to that specification within the SOAFEE community. _____________________________________ Health report and general activity narrative The SIG typically has 1 public meeting per month with 25-40 attendees, with visible participation from 7-10 separate organizations. We have largely given up on a separate office hours meeting due to attendance. This SIG is intended to be a community effort with contributions and shared benefits from all participants. All formal meetings are recorded and posted on this page: https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/Automotive/Meetings Several Red Hat employees made the initial contributions to the project as well as the infrastructure required to build and test it. We occupy a gitlab repository in the CentOS namespace building software regularly using CI, with build instructions provided on the documentation page at https://sigs.centos.org/automotive/ . Sample images are present and downloadable along with customization and build instructions. _____________________________________ Issues for the board to address, if any None, keep up the excellent work :) Jeffrey "Jefro" Osier-Mixon | jefro(a)redhat.com Red Hat Office of the CTO | Sr. Principal Community Architect, Automotive

1 1

Adding bootc images - part of Cloud SIG or separate?
by Colin Walters 29 Jun '23

29 Jun '23

Hello, I'm a developer on Fedora/RHEL and OpenShift. Lately we've been landing a lot of "bootable container" changes in OpenShift core, and there's a lot more to come. However, as we've been doing about this...I've been saying to people that I wish I had a time machine to go back and do bootable containers from the start. There's a lot of things we're doing today that I think we should stop doing, e.g.: - Switching to kernel-rt by fiddling with each node; we should be simply pulling a pre-built bootable container image with that kernel (more on this below) - Getting away from injecting so much persistent state by default (both via Ignition and outside of it) And crucially, I think we should be developing tools and techniques that apply *outside* of Kubernetes/OpenShift and also work well with it. To be direct, I'd like to eventually productize some of what's happening here in RHEL, not in OpenShift. As part of this (potential) re-architecture of how we think of systems management, I created the https://github.com/containers/bootc project. To be direct: If successful, I think bootc will be the successor to (rpm-)ostree. It's also intended to much more closely align with the github.com/containers organization. A simple way to think of this is: One can (build and) run *application* containers with podman; and these containers can also be run in e.g. Kubernetes/OpenShift. One can build *bootable* containers using any tooling (including podman build), but *running* them is via bootc on the end machine. bootc understands kernels etc. But there's a lot to figure out here - and I want to have a space to figure out this stuff and experiment with it outside of a direct-to-product path. I think a CentOS SIG makes sense for this. So what I'd like to do is either: - Add a new effort to the Cloud SIG, which currently (IMO a bit confusingly) hosts OpenStack/RDO and OpenShift/OKD things which would be a 3rd thing. The bootc work would then be the "base OS" split for OKD/SCOS. But of course, nothing stops one from building bootable host images that are instead designed to be RDO/OpenStack hosts. - Or, create a new SIG Personally, I lean towards the latter because honestly I find the naming "Cloud" to be misleading - bootc is also intended to be useful for standalone, non-cloud-infrastructure settings (such as desktops and IoT). Specifically, I'd like to transfer the existing code that lives in https://github.com/cgwalters/bootc-demo-base-images (specifically https://github.com/cgwalters/bootc-demo-base-images/blob/main/c9s.yaml ) into something CentOS-affiliated and explicitly maintained by a team. (Though I'm not super excited to move it to pagure like at least some other SIG content, but let's not get distracted by git hosting too much here). Another way to say it is that I'd love to ship quay.io/centos/centos-boot:stream9 (notice the -boot). Or failing that, it'd be quay.io/centos-boot/centos-boot:stream9 or so. There's a *lot* to discuss in terms of what actually goes in these base images, and also ensuring it's equally ergonomic for users to build their own base images. So really it's very likely there wouldn't be just *one* base image. In fact, I recently introduced a -rt variant with the RT kernel: https://github.com/cgwalters/bootc-demo-base-images/commit/68afb072a5a1396c… - and this was specifically motivated by issues we hit in OCP. But again, I want to have a space where we try to do more of a "clean(er) slate" approach for a while, with notes "not for production use" - for a while. Everything done here though *is* made with that as an explicit goal though (e.g. it's a toplevel design goal too that existing ostree-based systems can be seamlessly switched to be container-based without reprovisioning). At the same time, bootc already introduces some quite new things that need design iteration; for example: https://github.com/containers/bootc#using-bootc-install - we ship tooling such that a container can install itself (without going through a raw disk image as is used by both OCP and Edge deployments today). And at the same time, I'd like to aim to get the Anaconda changes to install these bootable containers in https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4561 OK this is already too long, so I'm just going to click send =) Thoughts?

7 10

Discussion: Open technical questions concerning SIG content for RHEL releases
by Peter Georg 09 Jun '23

09 Jun '23

Dear all, There has been an inquiry to the CentOS Board to clarify how long SIGs can expect to be able to build against RHEL build targets [1]. This is necessary to allow SIGs themselves to communicate expected lifecycle of their content to users. The outcome of this, in summary, is that SIGs should be able to build against RHEL until it reaches EOL (end of Maintenance Phase) + 30 days (no access to ELS content). This policy follows the one used by EPEL. Note: It is (obviously) still up to every single SIG to decide if and for how long they want to support a particular RHEL (or CentOS Stream) release. This inquiry also included respectively raised some technical questions. These technical questions are not to be decided by the CentOS Board. In [2] it has been recommended to discuss these on centos-devel. So let's do that. I want to start with two open questions which I do know of. In case there are other open question concerning this matter please raise them here. First open question is where to push content produced by SIGs for RHEL8 to. To better understand the issue, let me summarize the current situation, for which we first need to define the used format for tags in CBS: <sig><el>-<project>-<version>-{candidate,testing,release} where <el> can currently be 7,8,8s,9,9s Packages tagged for -testing are pushed to: https://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ Packages tagged for -released are push to: If el = 8 or 8s: debuginfo rpm packages: https://debuginfo.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ src.rpm packages: https://vault.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/Source/<project>-<version>/ Everything else: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ If el = 9 or 9s: http://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/<el>/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/ For src.rpm <arch> is source. Note: Although it is not relevant for the discussion, in fact on the mirrors the suffix "s" of <el> is replaced by "-stream". This currently is all fine. However it is planned that the infrastructure currently used for packages built for 8 or 8s will disappear once CentOS Stream 8 and CentOS Linux 7 are EOL (June 30th, 2024). So in case any SIG decides to produce content for RHEL 8 after that date packages can not be distributed properly anymore. Only using the -testing tag and thus https://buildlogs.centos.org is not really an option as it would probably produce too much load on these. My proposal: After CentOS Stream 8 went EOL (May 31st, 2024), which is the same date as the end of the Full support phase of RHEL 8, at least the -release tag of all RHEL 8 build targets is locked and SIGs have to opt-in in case they want to build content for RHEL 8 during its Maintenance Support phase (End: May 31st 2029) for a particular build target. For these, tagging for -release will then push content to http://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/8/<sig>/<arch>/<project>-<version>/, i.e. the same location as used for 9 and 9s. This gives SIGs one month for all required changes before the currently infrastructure disappears. Of course this means additional work for SIGs and Infra. However at some point the location where to push content to has to be changed before the currently used infrastructure disappears. Choosing an earlier date would result in work for SIGs who do not want to continue providing any packages once RHEL 8 enters Maintenance Support phase anyway. The second open question concerns the centos-release-* packages provided by SIGs to allow users to easily consume SIGs' content. For 8s and 9s the CBS tags extras<el>-extras-common-{candidate,testing,release} are used to build these packages. This repository is added in CentOS Stream 8 and 9. For packages build for RHEL 8 and 9 there is currently no common way to provide any means of easing the process to consume SIGs' content. My proposal to fix this is by adding extras<el>-extras-common-{candidate,testing,release} for <el> = 8 and 9, i.e., using the same system as currently used for 8s and 9s. To further ease the process I propose to introduce a package named centos-release-extras which contains the repository config pointing to the content of the tags extras<el>-extras-common-{testing,release} (only -release enabled by default) and the CentOS-SIG-Extras GPG key. The centos-release-extras packages itself would be built in the extras<el>-extras-common-el<el> build target. Users of RHEL would then only need to install this single package to allow them to easily install any other centos-release-* packages. Obviously someone needs to maintain the centos-release-extras package. I volunteer to maintain this package. [1]: https://git.centos.org/centos/board/issue/82 [2]: https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1002

4 11

Few questions on cloud images
by Pino Toscano 06 Jun '23

06 Jun '23

Hello, I have few questions related to the cloud images provides for c8s and c9s, i.e.: - https://cloud.centos.org/centos/8-stream/x86_64/images/ - https://cloud.centos.org/centos/9-stream/x86_64/images/ 1) I see the c9s images are regularly updated, while the c8s images not; is this wanted, or simply a mistake/miss somewhere? If so, will they be kept up-to-date just like the c9s images? 2) are the Vagrant images there officially supported? Let's say you use one, and find a bug; then check on a "classic" installation (baremetal/VM), and the bug isn't there; can users report problems in those cases? 3) would it be possible to have either unversioned or "-latest" symlinks for the latest versions of all the files (i.e. images, checksums, etc)? This way, it will be much easier for users to fetch the latest versions with no need to change URLs frequently. Of course, the assumption is that users of this are always willing to use the latest version. Thanks! -- Pino Toscano

7 14

CentOS x86-64 SIG naming
by Florian Weimer 15 May '23

15 May '23

During the board meeting, the naming issue was re-raised; “x86 SIG” just isn't that great. So I'd like to propose “x86-64 SIG” instead, with a hyphen. We use “x86_64” in the RPM architecture name and configure triplets, but only because we must, as “-” is consindered a separator in these contexts. The official vendor-neutral architecture name is x86-64. During the meeting, I was under the impression that the board was leaning towards a narrow scope, but that is not quite what the posted minutes reflect. Per Fabian's announcement, we have at least a bit of wiggle room for non-x86 ISA experiments in CBS (ThunderX2 has LSE atomics support). Personally, I'm not interested in such experiments at this time, though. But we could call the SIG “ISA SIG” to keep open the possibility for non-x86 work, if that's what people want. Thoughts? Thanks, Florian

6 7

RFC (Request for Comments) : future of bugs.centos.org
by Fabian Arrotin 10 May '23

10 May '23

Let's discuss https://bugs.centos.org ! For a long time, we used to only have one public tracker , powered by MantisBT (https://mantisbt.org/) , and it was https://bugs.centos.org Due to various changes in the CentOS ecosystem in the last years, some categories were removed/migrated elsewhere : - CentOS infra tracker : https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issues - CentOS Stream : https://bugzilla.redhat.com Some other SIGs also started to have (and document) their own tracker (see https://wiki.centos.org/ReportBugs) So the question is : while we can easily migrate bugs.centos.org to el9, should we ? All comments/remarks are welcome, and let's have a plan about what to do Kind Regards, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]

2 4

Are the CentOS and Fedora account systems separate?
by Florian Weimer 30 Apr '23

30 Apr '23

The CentOS password reset procedure email is sent from: Fedora Account System <fas(a)fedoraproject.org> Does this mean that the password reset affects FAS as well? Thanks, Florian

3 2

FYI : Faster aarch64 builders for SIGs (cbs.centos.org)
by Fabian Arrotin 20 Apr '23

20 Apr '23

Until today, we were using old ThunderX1 aarch64 machines as kojid builders but today I replaced two (out of three) aarch64 with ThunderX2 machines (decommissioned from old koji.mbox setup used for stream 8 builds, now merged with stream 9 build infra), so clearly faster (not as fast as $currently available aarch64 builders but better than what we had previously) See ticket : https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1135 FWIW, we directly saw a faster build for samba today (see details in ticket). Should you encounter any issue, feel free to raise an infra ticket at usual place (https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issues) Kind Regards, -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]

1 0

RDO Antelope Released
by Amy Marrich 18 Apr '23

18 Apr '23

The RDO community is pleased to announce the general availability of the RDO build for OpenStack 2023.1 Antelope for RPM-based distributions, CentOS Stream and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. RDO is suitable for building private, public, and hybrid clouds. Antelope is the 27th release from the OpenStack project, which is the work of more than 1,000 contributors from around the world. The release is already available for CentOS Stream 9 on the CentOS mirror network in: http://mirror.stream.centos.org/SIGs/9-stream/cloud/x86_64/openstack-antelo… The RDO community project curates, packages, builds, tests and maintains a complete OpenStack component set for RHEL and CentOS Stream and is a member of the CentOS Cloud Infrastructure SIG. The Cloud Infrastructure SIG focuses on delivering a great user experience for CentOS users looking to build and maintain their own on-premise, public or hybrid clouds. All work on RDO and on the downstream release, Red Hat OpenStack Platform, is 100% open source, with all code changes going upstream first. The highlights of the broader upstream OpenStack project may be read via https://releases.openstack.org/antelope/highlights.html but here are some highlights: - The continuation of SRBAC and FIPS to make OpenStack a more secure platform across various services, along with additional support in images. - Additional drivers and features for Block Storage to support more technologies from vendors such as Dell, Hitachi and NetApp, among others. - DNS Zones that can now be shared with other tenants (projects) allowing them to create and manage recordsets within the Zone. - Networking port forwarding was added to the dashboard for Floating IPs. - Additional networking features to support OVN. - Compute now allows PCI devices to be scheduled via the Placement API and power consumption can be managed for dedicated CPUs. - Load balancing now allows users to enable cpu-pinning. - Community testing of compatibility between non-adjacent upstream versions. OpenStack Antelope is the first release marked as Skip Level Upgrade Release Process or SLURP. According to this model ( https://governance.openstack.org/tc/resolutions/20220210-release-cadence-ad…) this means that upgrades will be supported between these (SLURP) releases, in addition to between adjacent major releases. *TripleO removal in the RDO Antelope release:* During the Antelope cycle, The TripleO team communicated the decision of abandoning the development of the project and deprecating the master branches. According to that upstream decision, TripleO packages have been removed from the RDO distribution and will not be included in the Antelope release. *Contributors* During the Zed cycle, we saw the following new RDO contributors: - Adrian Fusco Arnejo - Bhagyashri Shewale - Eduardo Olivares - Elvira Garcia Ruiz - Enrique Vallespí - Jason Paroly - Juan Badia Payno - Karthik Sundaravel - Roberto Alfieri - Tom Weininger Welcome to all of you and Thank You So Much for participating! But we wouldn’t want to overlook anyone. A super massive Thank You to all *52* contributors who participated in producing this release. This list includes commits to rdo-packages, rdo-infra, and rdo-website repositories: - Adrian Fusco Arnejo - Alan Pevec - Alfredo Moralejo Alonso - Amol Kahat - Amy Marrich - Ananya Banerjee - Artom Lifshitz - Arx Cruz - Bhagyashri Shewale - Cédric Jeanneret - Chandan Kumar - Daniel Pawlik - Dariusz Smigiel - Dmitry Tantsur - Douglas Viroel - Eduardo Olivares - Elvira Garcia Ruiz - Emma Foley - Eric Harney - Enrique Vallespí - Fabien Boucher - Harald Jensas - Jakob Meng - Jason Paroly - Jesse Pretorius - Jiří Podivín - Joel Capitao - Juan Badia Payno - Julia Kreger - Karolina Kula - Karthik Sundaravel - Leif Madsen - Luigi Toscano - Luis Tomas Bolivar - Marios Andreou - Martin Kopec - Matthias Runge - Matthieu Huin - Nicolas Hicher - Pooja Jadhav - Rabi Mishra - Riccardo Pittau - Roberto Alfieri - Ronelle Landy - Sandeep Yadav - Sean Mooney - Slawomir Kaplonski - Steve Baker - Takashi Kajinami - Tobias Urdin - Tom Weininger - Yatin Karel *The Next Release Cycle* At the end of one release, focus shifts immediately to the next release i.e Bobcat. *Get Started* To spin up a proof of concept cloud, quickly, and on limited hardware, try an All-In-One Packstack installation. You can run RDO on a single node to get a feel for how it works. Finally, for those that don’t have any hardware or physical resources, there’s the OpenStack Global Passport Program. This is a collaborative effort between OpenStack public cloud providers to let you experience the freedom, performance and interoperability of open source infrastructure. You can quickly and easily gain access to OpenStack infrastructure via trial programs from participating OpenStack public cloud providers around the world. *Get Help* The RDO Project has our users(a)lists.rdoproject.org for RDO-specific users and operators. For more developer-oriented content we recommend joining the dev(a)lists.rdoproject.org mailing list. Remember to post a brief introduction about yourself and your RDO story. The mailing lists archives are all available at https://mail.rdoproject.org. You can also find extensive documentation on RDOproject.org. The #rdo channel on OFTC IRC is also an excellent place to find and give help. We also welcome comments and requests on the CentOS devel mailing list and the CentOS IRC channels (#centos, #centos-cloud, and #centos-devel in Libera.Chat network), however we have a more focused audience within the RDO venues. *Get Involved* To get involved in the OpenStack RPM packaging effort, check out the RDO contribute pages, peruse the CentOS Cloud SIG page, and inhale the RDO packaging documentation. Join us in #rdo on the OFTC IRC network and follow us on Twitter @RDOCommunity. You can also find us on Facebook and YouTube. *Amy Marrich* She/Her/Hers Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms Red Hat, Inc <https://www.redhat.com/> amy(a)redhat.com Mobile: 954-818-0514 Slack: amarrich IRC: spotz <https://www.redhat.com/>

2 1

April board meeting and office hours
by Shaun McCance 17 Apr '23

17 Apr '23

The board had its monthly meeting last week. The recording, minutes, and recap are all available. Recording: https://youtu.be/-_A4Qd8tv0E Minutes: https://hackmd.io/@centosboard/HyfsgLsZh Recap: https://blog.centos.org/2023/04/centos-board-meeting-recap-april-2023/ We'll have the followup office hours this Thursday, April 20, at 14:00 UTC. Everybody is welcome to join and talk to the baord. https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86542707135?pwd=eHlOQTNCU01vNFk4dm5Hc3NieVdXZz09 Hightlights of the recap: * The Board discussed the x86 SIG proposal with Florian Weimer. There's a general agreement that we want the SIG, but some differences on the scope of work, which affects the name. * CentOS Linux 7 and CentOS Stream 8 will both reach end of life in 2024. We're working on messaging to ensure everybody has time to migrate. (Issue 93) * We discussed the next steps in allowing SIGs to sign test repositories. (Issue 92) * We talked about our presence at Red Hat Summit, as well as plans for events throughout the year.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel April 2023