[lxc-users] No Redhat template

Sat Mar 8 03:58:36 UTC 2014

On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 22:32 -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> Sorry for joining this discussion late but I've been out of pocket since
> 2/16 and this is the first I've had a chance to comment...
> 
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 16:25 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:01:24AM +0000, Jon Brinkmann wrote:
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > > 
> > > I'm hesitant to use Centos repos, mainly due to its "acquisition" by
> > > RH as a test bed for RHEL.

> Time out...  I don't recall hearing that it was for a "test bed for
> RHEL" at all.  That's what they support Fedora for.  The statement was
> made that they were supporting CentOS as a community supported version
> but very much in parallel with RHEL as it has been.  RHEL releases first
> and CentOS makes the OpenSource pieces available after.  Doesn't sound
> like a "test bed" to me.

> This is almost getting back to their roots of the pre Fedora RHEL split.
> I have no heartburn over that and even welcome it.  CentOS has suffered
> from an on-again, off-again commitment to it's ongoing development and
> stability (there was some serious heartburn for several months that
> CentOS 6 would EVER come out).  Having a corporate backer is a good
> thing in that it removes some doubt at to the long term support and
> longevity. 

> > SL is and will remain more conservative,
> > > cloning RHEL.

> Which is cool and which is why and SL template would be a good thing
> too.

> >   I guess I have to react to that, first historically SL did diverge
> > more than than CentOS (in order to better serve their audience, a
> > deliberate choice), also it has been made clear that the way packages
> > were built into CentOS is not changing, just the guys doing it
> > work for Red Hat. There is work being done to provide new variants of
> > CentOS serving more specific space and diverging from the base platform,
> > but if you want to stick to the RHEL clone, just use the base platform.
> >    http://www.centos.org/variants/
> >    http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup

> >   I know this list may not like Red Hat a lot, and not trust me in
> > particular since I'm the original author of libvirt, but I still think
> > I need to correct the above misconception.

> I've become sort of the defacto maintainer for the Fedora and CentOS
> templates.  The list is not anti-redhat, quite the contrary.  There are
> a lot of contributions and direction from the Ubuntu crowd but I've
> found that Serge and Stephane are both very happy with having rpm based
> distros such as Oracle, CentOS, Suse, and Fedora (as long as it's
> someone else doing the supporting).  I have not encountered any
> antipathy from any of the crowd here against that.  I've gotten stuck
> with leading the charge into the systemd fire, so I guess it's an
> attitude that they would rather have it be me than them in that
> flamefest.

> > > I'm not familiar with Oracle's policies, but I found
> > > differences between their lxc instructions and Centos'.
> > > 
> > > I'll work on a SL template, which uses the SL repos, and submit it to
> > > lxc-devel.

> >   It would actually be interesting to find out what changes need to be
> > done for the SL template compared to the CentOS one, if any are
> > required, my guess is that you will end up with the same except for
> > the resources URLs, release package name, and possibly the path for the
> > cache and release file.

> I've looked at it.  It's, as you say, largely going to be centered
> around the initial bootstrap of the cache and, yeah, it's going to be
> mostly the url's for the initial packages and repos.  IIRC from my last
> look, I had some heartburn over retro releases (i.e. building an SL 5.0
> container) because some of the repo directories were restructured
> between 5 and 6 that was going to be problematical.  If it's just
> structured for the latest release, like OpenSuse is, it's not that
> difficult.

Oh, yeah...  Just peeked at it again.  Now I remember where I was
getting that migraine from.

Up there at http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/

Sooo...  For the 6.x release, you've got these directories (at SL):

6, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6rolling.

What the hell is the difference between 6 and 6rolling?  CentOS, 6 is
the rolling release and it's what that template uses for that rev.

Now for 5.x you've got this:

5rolling, 5x, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 510.

Sigh...  Different directory paradigm.  No 5 at all.  Presumably 5x.
But no "." in any of them.  So the logic to support both the 5.x and 6.x
versions is going to be butt ugly.

Supporting JUST the rolling releases, I could pull 6rolling for 6 and
5rolling for 5.  Getting minor releases working will be a pain and
probably not needed anyways.

Except...  The directory structure under 6rolling is not the same as
5rolling.

The packages in 5rolling are here:

5rolling/x86_64/SL/

The packages in 6rolling are here:

6rolling/x86_64/os/Packages/

Just one more thing that needs to be handled.

> I think the CentOS template is the best place to start there (no
> aspersion cast upon Dwight and the Oracle template - I've been grabbing
> great ideas from him and he's done great work with that template).  I
> mentioned SL some time ago and I may take a look at it myself if someone
> else doesn't beat me to it.

> Several people have commented that these 4 templates (Oracle, CentOS,
> SL, and Fedora) should be so close they could almost be consolidated but
> I don't see that happening any time soon and I don't see a support
> mechanism (other than maybe symlinking them, which I don't like).
> Another fish to fry on another day...

> > Daniel

Mike

> > > Thanks again,
> > > 
> > > Jon
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:50:33PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Tamas Papp <tompos at martos.bme.hu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 02/18/2014 08:34 AM, Jon Brinkmann wrote:
> > > > >> I'm trying to build containers in Scientific Linux, a clone of RHEL.
> > > >
> > > > >> However, when I attempt to create a container, I get:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>       # lxc-create -t redhat -n system1 -P /systems/
> > > > >>       lxc_container: No such file or directory - bad template: redhat
> > > >
> > > > >> There's no sign of a redhat template.  How do I proceed?  Should I create
> > > > >> a template for it from lxc-centos and submit it to lxc-devel?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My question would be "what would you need redhat template for"?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > There is no official template for redhat.... I guess because there is no
> > > > > public redhat repository available.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Correct. lxc uses public repositories and some kind of bootstrapping
> > > > (yum, debootstrap, etc) to setup the guest container. Redhat does not
> > > > provide access to such container.
> > > >
> > > > Submitting a scientific linux (SL) template would be a good idea, if
> > > > you use it often and have something speicifc that only SL can provide.
> > > > There's already oracle linux and centos template, If you just need a
> > > > working redhat-clone.
> > > >
> > > > An alternative is to clone a working RHEL installation, and customize
> > > > it for lxc (using the content of lxc-centos template script as
> > > > example)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Fajar
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > lxc-users mailing list
> > > lxc-users at lists.linuxcontainers.org
> > > http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/listinfo/lxc-users
> > 
> 

-- 
Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 978-7061 |  mhw at WittsEnd.com
   /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/          | (678) 463-0932 |  http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
   NIC whois: MHW9          | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
 PGP Key: 0x674627FF        | possible worlds.  A pessimist is sure of it!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 482 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.linuxcontainers.org/pipermail/lxc-users/attachments/20140307/f625606c/attachment-0001.pgp>