It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org)
This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel.
I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders).
Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other SIG, but so lacking s390x support.
During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today, someone mentioned https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public process if there is another way :)
That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122
Opinions ? Thoughts ?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org)
This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel.
I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders).
Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other SIG, but so lacking s390x support.
During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today, someone mentioned https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public process if there is another way :)
That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122
I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares about mainframes).
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org)
This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel.
I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders).
Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other SIG, but so lacking s390x support.
During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today, someone mentioned
https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public process if there is another way :)
That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122
I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares about mainframes).
I was recently approached about making various images on all the RHEL supported arches. The lack of s390x did come up. It was still in the "idea" phase, so I don't know if anything will come of it.
Anyway, in short. Currently, the Alternative Images SIG does not need it. But it's possible that in the future we might need it.
As a Board Member I think it would be a good idea to make s390x available to our SIGs. It's hard to know how much it will get used, but it's very possible that there are new SIGs formed, or new s390x uses for existing SIGs. We just won't know unless we try it.
Troy
On 23/09/2024 21:49, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@centos.org <mailto:arrfab@centos.org>> wrote: > > It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to > ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org <https://cbs.centos.org>) > > This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel. > > I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach > out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders). > > Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to > s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local > mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, > as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other > SIG, but so lacking s390x support. > > During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today, > someone mentioned > https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x/ <https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x/> > > > Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage > ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this > first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public > process if there is another way :) > > That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122 <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122> > I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares about mainframes).I was recently approached about making various images on all the RHEL supported arches. The lack of s390x did come up. It was still in the "idea" phase, so I don't know if anything will come of it.
Anyway, in short. Currently, the Alternative Images SIG does not need it. But it's possible that in the future we might need it.
As a Board Member I think it would be a good idea to make s390x available to our SIGs. It's hard to know how much it will get used, but it's very possible that there are new SIGs formed, or new s390x uses for existing SIGs. We just won't know unless we try it.
Troy
I don't mind, if the CentOS board permits me, try to engage with the openmainframeproject and see if they'd like to sponsor one (or two) s390x VMs, and under which conditions (including technical ones).
So does the board agrees on me doing that ? (that was the underlying question in this thread ;-) )
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 7:10 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
On 23/09/2024 21:49, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@centos.org <mailto:arrfab@centos.org>> wrote: > > It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to > ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org <https://cbs.centos.org>) > > This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel. > > I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we canreach
> out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders). > > Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to haveaccess to
> s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local > mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, > as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other > SIG, but so lacking s390x support. > > During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earliertoday,
> someone mentioned >https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x... < https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
> > > Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage > ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this > first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through thatpublic
> process if there is another way :) > > That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122 <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122> > I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares about mainframes).I was recently approached about making various images on all the RHEL supported arches. The lack of s390x did come up. It was still in the "idea" phase, so I don't know if anything will come of it.
Anyway, in short. Currently, the Alternative Images SIG does not need it. But it's possible that in the future we might need it.
As a Board Member I think it would be a good idea to make s390x available to our SIGs. It's hard to know how much it will get used, but it's very possible that there are new SIGs formed, or new s390x uses for existing SIGs. We just won't know unless we try it.
Troy
I don't mind, if the CentOS board permits me, try to engage with the openmainframeproject and see if they'd like to sponsor one (or two) s390x VMs, and under which conditions (including technical ones).
So does the board agrees on me doing that ? (that was the underlying question in this thread ;-) )
I received the question last time and asked Fabian on #centos-devel.
The request was related to NFV SIG and specifically asking for OpenvSwitch bulds for s390x arch in order to run kubevirt.
I think this may be an interesting case for s390x builds in SIGs.
Best regards,
Alfredo
-- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.centos.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.centos.org
Fabian,
The Board is definitely in favor if there is interest from the SiGs to use it.
Amy
*Amy Marrich*
She/Her/Hers
Principal Technical Marketing Manager - Cloud Platforms
Red Hat, Inc https://www.redhat.com/
amy@redhat.com
Mobile: 954-818-0514
Slack: amarrich
IRC: spotz
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 12:09 AM Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
On 23/09/2024 21:49, Troy Dawson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@centos.org <mailto:arrfab@centos.org>> wrote: > > It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to > ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org <https://cbs.centos.org>) > > This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel. > > I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we canreach
> out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders). > > Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to haveaccess to
> s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local > mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, > as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other > SIG, but so lacking s390x support. > > During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earliertoday,
> someone mentioned >https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x... < https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
> > > Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage > ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this > first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through thatpublic
> process if there is another way :) > > That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122 <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122> > I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares about mainframes).I was recently approached about making various images on all the RHEL supported arches. The lack of s390x did come up. It was still in the "idea" phase, so I don't know if anything will come of it.
Anyway, in short. Currently, the Alternative Images SIG does not need it. But it's possible that in the future we might need it.
As a Board Member I think it would be a good idea to make s390x available to our SIGs. It's hard to know how much it will get used, but it's very possible that there are new SIGs formed, or new s390x uses for existing SIGs. We just won't know unless we try it.
Troy
I don't mind, if the CentOS board permits me, try to engage with the openmainframeproject and see if they'd like to sponsor one (or two) s390x VMs, and under which conditions (including technical ones).
So does the board agrees on me doing that ? (that was the underlying question in this thread ;-) )
-- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.centos.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.centos.org
On 25/09/2024 13:32, Amy Marrich wrote:
Fabian,
The Board is definitely in favor if there is interest from the SiGs to use it.
Amy
Thanks Amy for having confirmed this.
FWIW, I just submitted the form so I'll post updates to this thread when I'll have received info about it
On 25/09/2024 13:46, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 25/09/2024 13:32, Amy Marrich wrote:
Fabian,
The Board is definitely in favor if there is interest from the SiGs to use it.
Amy
Thanks Amy for having confirmed this.
FWIW, I just submitted the form so I'll post updates to this thread when I'll have received info about it
Good news ! I got answer back from Openmainframeproject/IBM acknowledging the request for one s390x VM that we'll be able to use for our community build service (aka https://cbs.centos.org) !
I just created the infra ticket https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1500 where I'll post all status update about this request but once ready, and available for our SIGs through CBS, I'll just update the SIG guide and send another announce email this this list
The openmainframe offers RHEL, Ubuntu, and SUSE virual machines. Generally for a limited period but they are willing to convert to permanent VMs. There’s no real IBM engagement involved. I built our CentOS 6 and 7 clones for s390x on that system.
From: Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org Date: Monday, September 23, 2024 at 10:26 To: devel@lists.centos.org devel@lists.centos.org Subject: [CentOS-devel] access to s390x arch for SIGs (looking for comments) It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out to me to ask about s390x architecture access for CBS (https://cbs.centos.org)
This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel.
I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders).
Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through local mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual processes, as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every other SIG, but so lacking s390x support.
During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today, someone mentioned https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x...
Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually engage ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on this first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public process if there is another way :)
That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request : https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122
Opinions ? Thoughts ?
-- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]
-
Alfredo Moralejo Alonso -
Amy Marrich -
Fabian Arrotin -
Neal Gompa -
Neale Ferguson -
Troy Dawson