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

[Dwight Engen]

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:38:14 -0500
"Michael H. Warfield" <mhw at WittsEnd.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 11:27 -0500, Stéphane Graber wrote: 
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:14:36AM -0500, Michael H. Warfield 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 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.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike
> 
> > So at least speaking for Ubuntu, changing to -R would be a disaster
> > as it'll suddenly break dozens of scripts that are calling the
> > template with the short arguments.
> 
> Same might be said of the other camp, although I personally don't have
> any.
> 
> > Speaking for lxc-download, switching to -R would be rather odd since
> > I've taken great care not to use any captitalized parameters,
> > lxc-download actually only supports 3 short arguments, -d <dist>, -r
> > <release> and -a <arch>.
> 
> I'm certainly not married to a convention of all lower case options
> but I'm not opposed either.  Cast that into a BCP and recommend that
> template writers / maintainers strive to follow it.  Reserve those
> options for those purposes.
> 
> All discussion aside, this is something that should be decided and
> established as "the" convention.  If it's "-r", so be it.  Someone
> needs to decide this.  Who gets to make that executive decision?  I
> will follow.

I'm okay with changing the oracle template to -r as long as we can
get the other templates to all agree as well. So Mike, if you're okay
changing fedora and centos, that leaves alpine, arch, and openmandriva.

Since I'd be changing the oracle template "extra packages option",
should we also try to standardize on -P|--packages for installing extra
packages as Mike suggested? Or maybe we just don't try to standardize
that one as several templates are using -P for something else.
 
> I may be sticking my nose in deeper into the opensuse template after
> some chatting with Fredric (who is no longer maintaining the opensuse
> template) and his coworker Thorsten.  This is relevant to that
> endeavour, since the opensuse template is deficient in that area as
> well.  I can code it either way and it's a trivial change either way
> since that template isn't currently using either option.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike