Elevating Fedora Server VM distribution image

[Peter Boy]

Currently, our VM distribution image is not a fully-fledged distribution medium like our
iso media. It is merely a "nice to have“. 

This means, for example, that even a serious bug cannot become a "release
blocker", as an iso file could. Fedora then launches a new release with a (on
purpose) faulty Server VM image. This is already the case with release 40. Our VM image
still contains the LVM error, which happens to be not immediately noticeable in a standard
VM creation. And for the SBC image, the error will be corrected, although we do not
currently know how.  

This no longer fits into today's world, where virtual machines are a common working
model. To rectify this, we need to achieve a corresponding qualification with FESCo.

We need to appoint someone to initiate and oversee this process.


--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org

Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)

Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast

Hi Peter, 

Here is the pagure issue I filed for this effort. 

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12163

Do we expect both the aarch64 raw and the x86_64 qcow2's or just the qcow2s? 

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/

For example here are the Fedora Cloud Entries: 

Cloud/aarch64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.aarch64.qcow2
	
Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.qcow2

Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.raw.xz


On Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:58:36 AM CDT blackwell(a)disroot.org wrote:
>  Hi Peter, 
>  
>  Here is the pagure issue I filed for this effort. 
>  
>  https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12163
>  
>  
>  --
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List
>  Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List
>  Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  g Do not reply to spam, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Peter Boy]

Hi Jason,

We discussed this at the meeting last week. I think we should elevate auf generic VM (the
qcow2) image. And in my opinion we should do this for the ARM image, too.

But I think, we need a change proposal for each. The deadline for change proposal (Self
Contained Changes) is July 16, as far as I know. How can we put this forward? What are we
missing? What do we have to discuss / to resolve?


Best
Peter



>  Am 13.06.2024 um 23:09 schrieb blackwell(a)disroot.org:
>  
>  Do we expect both the aarch64 raw and the x86_64 qcow2's or just the qcow2s? 
>  
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/f40/blocking/
>  
>  For example here are the Fedora Cloud Entries: 
>  
>  Cloud/aarch64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.aarch64.qcow2
>  
>  Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.qcow2
>  
>  Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-RELEASE_MILESTONE.x86_64.raw.xz
>   
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org

Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)

Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast