<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:01:01
!startmeeting fedora_bootc_initiative
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:01:04
Meeting started at 2025-02-25 15:01:01 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
15:01:04
The Meeting name is 'fedora_bootc_initiative'
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:01:17
!topic roll call
<@hricky:fedora.im>
15:01:32
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:37
Hristo Marinov (hricky) - he / him / his
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:01:50
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:52
Colin Walters (walters)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:01:55
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:01:57
Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) - he / him / his
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:02:04
!hi
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:02:04
!hi jasonbrooks
<@rsturla:fedora.im>
15:02:05
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:05
None (jlebon)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:06
None (rsturla)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
15:02:06
Jason Brooks (jasonbrooks) - he / him / his
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:02:36
How's it going, folks? It looked like last week was a video meeting?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:03:37
👋
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:03:57
Yep. Last week was video. jmarrero ran it
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:04:49
Were there any action items to follow up on from that meeting?
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:05:14
!topic Action items from last meeting
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:05:15
I think we took notes in the etherpad.. do you have a link to that handy?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:05:28
https://etherpad.opensuse.org/p/bootc-initiative-meetings
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:06:16
I think there were no action items. From the FCOS side we were trying to figure out if we needed to re-adjust our "inherit" strategy for F42 because of the major rework going on to the base images definitions
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:06:49
ultimately we ended up deciding for F42, when the major rework lands, we'll just copy out the definitions. For f43 we'll incorporate the reworked definitions upstream
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:06:52
I think the status quo is it's not strictly needed to change right now, but it probably should at some point soon
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:07:16
Regarding a past action item of mine, I did file an issue to discuss the future of this initiative, once it's run its initial course: https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/tracker/-/issues/62
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:07:38
Hope to get some discussion on the issue
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:07:59
Does anyone have a topic to discuss today?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:08:39
I'd like to at least continue the base image bits
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:08:50
Jason Brooks: yes.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:09:18
Jonathan Lebon: did you want to continue base image rework discussion or should we move to the need/wishlist items for bootc from the coreos side?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:09:47
of course, interested if any other members here have topics too (so FCOS doesn't hog the discussion)
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:10:46
Note that the new MR in https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/base-images/-/merge_requests/98/ does *not* totally rework yet how we build the image, and I think tier-x will keep working...actually let me test that now
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:11:04
yeah updated the bootc submodule to that MR and fcos is still building
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:11:10
!topic Base Image Discussion
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:12:29
so I think my proposal for f42 is fcos just stays as is (although we may now go ahead and rename tier-x as the naming never made sense and is now fully obsolete)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:12:54
dustymabe: good either way from my side. nothing in particular to add to upstream discussions
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:12:59
i.e. after that PR merges?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:12:59
> now fully obsolete
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:12:59
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:13:10
oh I guess it merged already
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:13:24
Colin Walters: i think we're ready to pull in the manifests whenever, so we don't have to make concessions to keep tier-x working it makes things too messy
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:13:30
Colin Walters: i think we're ready to pull in the manifests whenever, so we don't have to make concessions to keep tier-x working if it makes things too messy
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:13:32
oh I guess it merged already - a few minutes ago
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:13:56
tier-x is still there
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:14:22
I don't think it's a problem to keep it until we implement https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1861 and then we can drop it
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:15:04
what is important to me as part of this rework is not the tier-x naming/separate target, but its package list. which i think is still there, just named differently
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:15:17
it's still there and named the same
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:15:27
i mean longer term
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:15:37
ok yeah
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:16:30
what I'm a bit more interested is to get some feedback soon about bootc-base-imagectl from interested users and if it meets their needs
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:17:32
TL;DR - what's the tool do?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:17:41
TL;DR - what does the tool do?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:18:03
well, it's in the docs but it basically lets you rebuild the base image from the base image
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:18:20
(or, build a really minimal image)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:18:26
is this the `build-from-self` thing ?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:18:42
yeah same idea different name
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:19:26
ok, we can probably move on
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:19:51
Where can we ask users to look at / try bootc-base-imagectl to give their feedbac?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:20:16
One problematic thing here is https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/base-images/-/merge_requests/98#note_2365931396
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:21:31
but it will land in c10s soon; anyways I'll followup to that q
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:22:23
On where to point ppl?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:22:44
right
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:22:50
OK, do we want to talk about wish list items for bootc from fcos today, or do that next time?
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:23:00
i think the idea clicks when you're working with the canonical base image. but what'd be cool is if this command worked for a layered image onto which you might want to layer more things, but that's tricky to do.
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:23:00
i.e. the invariant is "this image will rebuild itself", not "this image will rebuild the original base image on which this whole chain of derivations is based"
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:23:00
it's a cool idea.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:23:22
Jason Brooks: I'd like to today if we can.. maybe we won't get through all of it
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:24:12
!topic Wish List Items for bootc from FCOS
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:25:43
Jonathan Lebon: want to intro this one? or should I?
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:25:59
is there a corresponding issue?
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:26:01
i admire your optimism of starting that convo with 4 minutes left :)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:26:13
dustymabe: take it!
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:27:12
From the FCOS side there are things we need in order to move over to bootc and then some things we want (which would also make moving over to bootc much more compelling because ostree/rpm-ostree wouldn't have those features)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:27:22
Most of these items are sourced from https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1726
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:27:47
the first one (being a `Need`) is: local layering: https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/tracker/-/issues/4
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:28:29
since a good chunk of our userbase uses this feature today we can't really move until this story is more complete
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:28:31
can I edit the "Rebasing on Fedora Bootc container images" section to point to https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1861 ?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:28:58
Colin Walters: maybe just make a comment in the issue and we'll update it? we meet regularly to discuss the path forward
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:29:16
what about the path of having people using fcos with local layering switch to using bootc w/containerfile?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:29:32
on this topic, do we know if any targeted work is being done today?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:30:12
Colin Walters: where would that "glue" exist?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:30:28
I think the desire here is for it to be a feature of bootc/dnf and not something bolted on
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:31:16
what i'm saying is they basically stop using fcos
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:31:29
dustymabe: i think the dnf team is working in the vicinity but not yet directly on it. there is now a dnf-bootc plugin but only for dnf4 for now IIUC
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:31:51
I think of course there's a divide here where *some* of the people who were customizing fcos in this way are likely to be way, way happier owning custom container builds. But the "single/standalone node" case remains a sticking point.
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:32:31
i guess we have no telemetry on this unfortunately...
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:33:34
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:33:34
People who want to use bootc, build their own thing, and control their updates themselves will do so I believe.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:33:34
I still think FCOS offers compelling value for people who just want to tweak CoreOS slightly, but still follow our streams
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:33:53
(to elaborate it's basically "take your ignition config and put the 90% of it that's writing files in the container build, take your 10% that's partitioning and translate to kickstart/blueprint, and now you're on bootc)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:35:58
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:35:58
Do you think local layering will ever be considered?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:35:58
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:35:58
I think "don't use CoreOS, use bootc directly" isn't the outcome I was hoping for. I still think there's a lot of value in what we're doing with CoreOS.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:35:58
It certainly doesn't make me want to be involved.
<@walters:fedora.im>
15:38:06
well yes, i mean i put many many months of my life into rpm-ostree supporting this for I think good reasons, and to be clear we're not going to break rpm-ostree in the forseeable future, and yes reimplementing this local build flow in a bootc world still makes a lot of sense
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:39:06
I think all we're trying to voice here is that we think the feature is very important for our userbase and we also think our userbase finds value in the things that CoreOS is doing differently than bootc
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:39:17
I think all we're trying to voice here is that we think the feature is very important for our userbase and we also think our userbase finds value in the things that CoreOS is doing differently than bootc (i.e. streams, etc)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:39:49
we may even be willing to help jump in and implement those features, but we're trying to understand where they stand today and if there are aligned parties that we can work with to achieve those goals
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:40:49
so.. who should we talk to on that front ^^
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:41:25
we've discussed this with the dnf team in the past
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:41:56
in the next video meeting maybe we could invite them again to discuss it
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:42:23
they just wrapped up "transient package installs", which is related
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
15:42:53
e.g. some FCOS users doing layering today might be fine with transiently overlaying it on boot each time
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:43:10
> and to be clear we're not going to break rpm-ostree in the forseeable future
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:43:10
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:43:10
on this front - yep, I think we know that, which is good, but we'd like to move over to the new stuff sooner so we can be more a part of that community (here) :)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:44:01
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:44:01
> e.g. some FCOS users doing layering today might be fine with transiently overlaying it on boot each time
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:44:01
that seems, unideal. either wasting bandwidth OR CPU/startup time
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:44:26
Would it not make sense to have a process where instead of local layering there's locally built derived images -- a new upgrade from fcos comes along, and your system builds a derived image to upgrade to, locally?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:44:58
Jason Brooks: the implementation is up to the implementers.. i'm interested in the user story. Can be implemented different ways
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:46:27
so maybe an action item then to discuss this with the DNF team?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:46:33
when is the next video meeting?
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:47:40
We can do it next week if we'd like, there's no strict schedule
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:48:21
Anyone opposed to a video meeting next week?
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:49:32
OK, cool, and let's ping the dnf folks to make sure they can come
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:49:46
Jason Brooks: are you good to do that ^^ ?
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:49:56
Yeah, I'll do it
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:50:10
!action jbrooks to ping dnf folks for video mtg next week
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:50:40
Thanks!
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
15:51:03
I think for our later wish list items we can push those off to next meeting (after the dnf discussion) if time allows.
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:51:33
Ok, any other small items to raise before we close out?
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:53:30
all right, I'm closing it, thanks everyone!
<@jbrooks:matrix.org>
15:53:33
!endmeeting