atomic, kubernetes, etc on non x86_64

[Dennis Gilmore]

Hi all,

Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would take 
to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json files.  
the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
-    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
+    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",

Neither is the hardcoded packages, 
-                "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
-                "efibootmgr", "shim",
+                "extlinux-bootloader",

the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by using 
comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me curious about 
how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches as it seems to be 
designed around a single arch silo.

However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes both had 
"ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging guidelines in 
the process) but they do actually build just fine for all the primary arches 
and are installable on arm at least. I was able to make a atomic repo in the 
end.  I plan to throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as soon 
as I can.

What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for supporting 
the greater world?  could it be something we work with someone like 
https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud servers today to support?

Dennis

[Adam Miller]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would take
> to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json files.
> the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
> "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
> "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",
>
> Neither is the hardcoded packages,
>            "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
>            "efibootmgr", "shim",
>            "extlinux-bootloader",
>
> the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by using
> comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me curious about
> how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches as it seems to be
> designed around a single arch silo.
>
> However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes both had
> "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging guidelines in
> the process) but they do actually build just fine for all the primary arches
> and are installable on arm at least. I was able to make a atomic repo in the
> end.  I plan to throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as soon
> as I can.

This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like
help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle
and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)
> What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for supporting
> the greater world?  could it be something we work with someone like
> https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud servers today to support?

How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with
cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into
IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to
be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)

-AdamM
> Dennis
>
> cloud mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, August 28, 2015 08:45:50 AM Adam Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would
> > take to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json
> > files. the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
> > "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
> > "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",
> >
> > Neither is the hardcoded packages,
> >            "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
> >            "efibootmgr", "shim",
> >            "extlinux-bootloader",
> >
> > the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by
> > using comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me
> > curious about how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches
> > as it seems to be designed around a single arch silo.
> >
> > However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes both
> > had "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging
> > guidelines in the process) but they do actually build just fine for all
> > the primary arches and are installable on arm at least. I was able to
> > make a atomic repo in the end.  I plan to throw together a kickstart and
> > attempt to install it as soon as I can.
>
> This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like
> help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle
> and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)

I will let you know :)
> > What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for
> > supporting the greater world?  could it be something we work with someone
> > like https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud servers today to
> > support?
>
> How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with
> cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into
> IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to
> be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)

We would need to get Legal to review any documents on uploading images and 
make sure there is no legal blockers in the agreement. To date the main 
contention has been to do with liability and indemnification.  Once legal is 
done it is the simple task of having an account we can use to upload images 
and taking advantage of the API's etc to get thinsg registered and working.

Dennis

[Troy Dawson]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Adam Miller 
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore  wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would
>
> take
> > to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json
>
> files.
> > the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
> > "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
> > "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",
> >
> > Neither is the hardcoded packages,
> >            "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
> >            "efibootmgr", "shim",
> >            "extlinux-bootloader",
> >
> > the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by
>
> using
> > comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me curious
>
> about
> > how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches as it seems
>
> to be
> > designed around a single arch silo.
> >
> > However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes
>
> both had
> > "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging
>
> guidelines in
> > the process) but they do actually build just fine for all the primary
>
> arches
> > and are installable on arm at least. I was able to make a atomic repo in
>
> the
> > end.  I plan to throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as
>
> soon
> > as I can.
>
> This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like
> help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle
> and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)
> > What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for
>
> supporting
> > the greater world?  could it be something we work with someone like
> > https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud servers today to
>
> support?
>
> How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with
> cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into
> IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to
> be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)
>
> -AdamM

Send the scaleway people an email, letting them know you are asking
officially on behalf of Fedora cloud.
In my personal dealings, they have been very nice to work with.
I don't know how it came about, but I know that centos has 4 machines
dedicated to them.  I'm not saying that will happen, just saying it.

Troy

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 08/28/2015 10:40 AM, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Adam Miller
> <[e-mail] >
> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would take
> > to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json files.
> > the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
> > -    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
> > +    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",
> >
> > Neither is the hardcoded packages,
> > -                "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
> > -                "efibootmgr", "shim",
> > +                "extlinux-bootloader",
> >
> > the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by using
> > comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me curious about
> > how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches as it seems to be
> > designed around a single arch silo.
> >
> > However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes both had
> > "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging guidelines in
> > the process) but they do actually build just fine for all the primary arches
> > and are installable on arm at least. I was able to make a atomic repo in the
> > end.  I plan to throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as soon
> > as I can.
>
> This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like
> help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle
> and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)
>
> >
> > What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for supporting
> > the greater world?  could it be something we work with someone like
> > https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud servers today to
> support?
>
> How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with
> cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into
> IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to
> be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)
>
> -AdamM
>
>
> Send the scaleway people an email, letting them know you are asking
> officially on behalf of Fedora cloud.
> In my personal dealings, they have been very nice to work with.
> I don't know how it came about, but I know that centos has 4 machines
> dedicated to them.  I'm not saying that will happen, just saying it.

It looks like we already have Fedora on Scaleway?

https://www.scaleway.com/imagehub/fedora/

Best,

jzb

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Friday, August 28, 2015 10:51:28 AM Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 08/28/2015 10:40 AM, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Adam Miller
> > <[e-mail] >
> >
> > wrote:
> >     On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it
> > > would take to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some
> > > of the json files. the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all
> > > -    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",
> > > +    "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",
> > > 
> > > Neither is the hardcoded packages,
> > > -                "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",
> > > -                "efibootmgr", "shim",
> > > +                "extlinux-bootloader",
> > > 
> > > the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with
> > > by using comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made
> > > me curious about how it was envisioned to support atomic on
> > > multiple arches as it seems to be designed around a single arch
> > > silo.
> > > 
> > > However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes
> > > both had "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating
> > > packaging guidelines in the process) but they do actually build
> > > just fine for all the primary arches and are installable on arm at
> > > least. I was able to make a atomic repo in the end.  I plan to
> > > throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as soon as I
> > > can.
> >
> > This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like
> > help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle
> > and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)
> >
> > > What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for
> > > supporting the greater world?  could it be something we work with
> > > someone like https://www.scaleway.com/ who have arm based cloud
> > > servers today to>     
> > support?
> >
> > How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with
> > cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into
> > IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to
> > be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)
> >
> > -AdamM
> >
> > Send the scaleway people an email, letting them know you are asking
> > officially on behalf of Fedora cloud.
> > In my personal dealings, they have been very nice to work with.
> > I don't know how it came about, but I know that centos has 4 machines
> > dedicated to them.  I'm not saying that will happen, just saying it.
>
> It looks like we already have Fedora on Scaleway?
>
> https://www.scaleway.com/imagehub/fedora/

There is a fedora remix, it does not have our kernel.

Dennis