[lxc-devel] [PATCH] Update Fedora and CentOS templates for common conf includes.

[Dwight Engen]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:14:36 -0500
"Michael H. Warfield" <mhw at WittsEnd.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 10:24 -0500, Dwight Engen wrote: 
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:02:05 -0500
> > "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw at WittsEnd.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:35 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: 
> > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:29:23AM -0500, Michael H. Warfield
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 20:25 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: 
> > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:56:56AM -0500, Michael H.
> > > > > > Warfield wrote:
> > > > > > > Update Fedora and CentOS templates for common conf
> > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This updates the Fedora and CentOS templates to utilize a
> > > > > > > common included config.  This is largely based on the
> > > > > > > changes in the Oracle template with some exceptions.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Dropping of setpcap (present in the Oracle template) is
> > > > > > > commented out in the Fedora template.  It seems to cause
> > > > > > > problems, such as large login delays with Fedora 20
> > > > > > > containers (but not Fedora 19 - strange).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The Fedora template is further modified to disable
> > > > > > > systemd-journald.service as it is unnecessary in a
> > > > > > > container and causes serious problems when running in a
> > > > > > > Fedora 20 container.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The Fedora template is also updated to default to Fedora
> > > > > > > 20 when running on a non-Fedora host.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael H. Warfield <mhw at WittsEnd.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Acked-by: Stéphane Graber <stgraber at ubuntu.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'll setup builds for CentOS 6.5 on amd64 and i386 and for
> > > > > > Fedora 19 and 20 also on amd64 and i386.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I believe Fedora 20 also supports armhf but that one may
> > > > > > need a bit more work to get going (do you know if your
> > > > > > template works with armhf?).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fedora does support armhf in mainline now.  Previously it was
> > > > > in aux. The template was definitely working with Raspberry Pi
> > > > > armhf with Fedora18.  That was before they created the
> > > > > "Pidora" respin which broke the Fedora template thanks to the
> > > > > name change and some repo changes. Since then, I've also done
> > > > > that distro agnostic bootstrap coding.  I wouldn't be
> > > > > surprised if it was broken, but it should be close.  I'll
> > > > > have to give it a shot on one of my RPi's.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Mike
> > > 
> > > > The image build worked at least, I still need to actually test
> > > > the resulting images to make sure they work though.
> > > 
> > > > Btw, any chance of getting -A working before 1.0 release?
> > > 
> > > Ok, you got it in both the Fedora and CentOS templates.  I just
> > > posted the patch.  I changed it to be "-a" instead of "-A" to
> > > correspond with the options in the Oracle and Ubuntu templates as
> > > well.
> > 
> > That reminds me, should we try to consistify which template option
> > specifies the release? Currently we have:
> 
> > alpine:       -R|--release
> > altlinux:     -R|--release
> > arch:
> > busybox:
> > centos:       -R|--release
> > cirros:
> > debian:       -r|--release
> > download:     -r|--release
> > fedora:       -R|--release
> > gentoo:
> > openmandriva: -R|--release
> > opensuse:
> > oracle:       -R|--release
> > plamo:        -r|--release
> > sshd:
> > ubuntu-cloud: -r|--release
> > ubuntu:       -r|--release
> 
> Hmmm...  Looks like 6 votes for "-R" and 5 votes for "-r" with 4
> abstentions (not counting busybox or sshd).
> 
> I'd call that vote too close to call.
> 
> > I don't really care if we go with -R or -r but I think it might be
> > nice if they were all the same. Some of the templates (alpine,
> > archlinux, oracle) are already using -r for other things, while the
> > templates using -r for release don't appear to be using -R for
> > anything so it may be easier to move release to -R.
> 
> I agree that we should standardize on a common set of extended
> template options and stick with them as closely as possible.  That's
> why I made the change from -A to -a in my two.  I'll go along with
> the rough concensus of the group.
> 
> That's interesting that Oracle is using -r for additional user rpms.
> I would have almost preferred calling it a more generic
> "packages" (-P ?) option that would usable across other distros and

I agree, -P|--packages would be better. I'm fine to change that if
other templates have a similar option.

> formats (.rpm, .deb, .apk, .tgz, etc) but that's interesting.  I may
> look at how you have that implemented (doesn't that screw up your
> cache or do you not cache those additional packages?) and consider
> that for CentOS and Fedora.

Yeah the Oracle template doesn't cache because I wanted to avoid the
problems it might cause (mismatch between what is cached for example in
a 6.latest and what the template does to prepare the cached image). For
this use case I think creating a base container and then just using
lxc-clone from that is better than cache anyways.

> Regards,
> Mike