<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:30:56
!startmeeting fedora_coreos_meeting
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:30:57
Meeting started at 2025-06-11 16:30:56 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
16:30:57
The Meeting name is 'fedora_coreos_meeting'
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:31:04
!topic roll call
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:31:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:31:46
Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) - he / him / his
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:32:49
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:32:50
None (jlebon)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:34:12
Jeremy (from cloud WG is going to join us today to)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:34:14
Jeremy (from cloud WG is going to join us today too)
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:35:39
I guess we can go ahead and start
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:36:01
!topic Action items from last meeting
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:36:36
We've had low attendance the last two meetings so nothing there, and there are no pending action items from previous meetings as far as I can tell
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:36:51
!topic Review Fedora 43 Release Schedule
<@jbtrystram:matrix.org>
16:37:05
!hi
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:37:05
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:37:05
We could consider changing the meeting time I guess to see if more people could join
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:37:05
> We've had low attendance the last two meetings
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:37:07
Jean-Baptiste Trystram (jbtrystram) - he / him / his
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:37:44
That's a good idea, I'd be fine with it being a bit earlier!
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:38:09
it's definitely an awkward time for me at least :)
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:38:30
!hello
<@aaradhak:matrix.org>
16:38:30
!hi aaradhak
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:38:31
Jeremy Cline (jcline) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:38:33
Aashish Radhakrishnan (aaradhak)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:38:41
maybe we can make it an issue in the repo and discuss next meeting
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:39:14
Does anyone want to open that issue?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:39:41
I can
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:39:48
Thanks!
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:40:32
as for the current meeting topic:
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:40:40
!info: The Fedora Change Proposal submission deadlines are approaching for Fedora 43. Make sure to submit any changes you're working on.
<@jbtrystram:matrix.org>
16:41:10
we already submitted the change about stopping the updates to the ostree repo
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:41:13
Jonathan Lebon: I don't suspect we'd need to or want to file a change proposal for the "build via podman" work?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:42:02
jbtrystram: do we still need to make changes to the pipeline to enforce that?
<@jbtrystram:matrix.org>
16:42:24
yes ! i'll pick that up next sprint I think
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:42:55
Doesn't have to be you.. I just couldn't remember :)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:43:07
dustymabe: i don't think we need, though i see the value in terms of raising awareness
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:43:31
Could certainly be beneficial from that respect
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:43:48
Could certainly be beneficial from that aspect
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:43:58
i'll draft something
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:44:32
!info The Fedora Change Proposal submission deadlines are approaching for Fedora 43. Make sure to submit any changes you're working on
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:45:05
Let's move on to the main topics
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:45:12
!topic Uploading to cloud platforms: Azure
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:45:23
!link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/148
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
16:45:36
dustymabe: would you like to introduce this one?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:45:47
Sure.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:46:11
This has been a long time issue for us where we've wanted to upload to Azure and make those images available for people to directly consume them.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:46:35
When we first wanted this "community galleries" (i.e. a way to share images with other people easily) didn't even exist
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:46:42
since then a lot has happened.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:47:24
1. Fedora has a tool now that knows how to upload to Azure
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:47:24
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:47:24
both:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:47:24
2. `ore` (the tool CoreOS uses for image uploads) has learned how to upload gen2 VM images and create image galleries
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:48:03
At a basic level we need to decide what we want the structure of our image galleries/definitions to look like (naming, versioning, etc)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:48:18
and secondary, what tool to use?
<@jdoss:beeper.com>
16:48:37
.hi jdoss
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:49:01
Jeremy Cline: I think would prefer the fedora cloud image uploader (since that's what Fedora Cloud is using), but as CoreOS there is benefit to using the tool we use for uploading everything else (at least right now)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:49:15
from briefly looking at this, it wasn't clear to me if there is _one_ community gallery users can browse, or if every project can create their own community gallery?
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:49:33
if the former, i couldn't find the link to it
<@jdoss:beeper.com>
16:49:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
16:49:49
Joe Doss (jdoss)
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:49:58
For some context on how Fedora Cloud images get uploaded and organized, a gallery is made up of "image definitions" which are streams of a particular version, and within the definition you have particular images. So we have a stream for 42-Arm64, 42-x64, etc.
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:50:31
Anyone can make a community gallery, but I _think_ there's some magic keyword blocklists so there aren't a million Fedora ones running around impersonating us
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:51:21
Do you have a link to a web frontend for the Fedora Cloud gallery that exists today?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:51:49
I like the idea of having just one tool to upload things, but if coreos doesn't want to do that, we can still use the same gallery, we'll just issue you credentials that can't create/delete galleries (which, to be fair, we don't issue to the cloud uploader either)
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:52:48
https://portal.azure.com/#view/Microsoft_Azure_ComputeHub/ComputeHubMenuBlade/~/communityImagesBrowse but I don't know that I can create a link to just Fedora, it's... not ideal.
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:53:04
(and you'll probably need an azure account to look at that
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:53:10
(and you'll probably need an azure account to look at that)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:53:29
yup, i see them. nice
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:53:33
https://fedoramagazine.org/launch-fedora-40-in-microsoft-azure/ also describes things a bit
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:53:48
So is `Fedora-5e266ba4-2250-406d-adad-5d73860d958f` the gallery name?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:54:03
Yeah, it appends a uuid to your chosen name
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:54:13
heh, "dusty-fedora-coreos-testing-aarch64-gen2" is on there
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:54:18
ouch, that's ugly :)
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:55:18
Heh, wait until you see the URL to launch via the web portal. I mostly just use the CLI.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:56:55
ok. so let's say we want to use `Fedora-5e266ba4-2250-406d-adad-5d73860d958f` for now (any opposed, speak up!)
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:57:06
Anyway, the basic layout I recommend is that you have an image definition for CoreOS-{stable,testing,next} and upload there. Each image definition has a "latest" which is determined by the version number and you can keep a history. You can also add images that are excluded from latest, so you can upload images, test them, and then promote them to "latest" by flipping a boolean.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:58:40
IIUC we'd need `CoreOS-{x86_64,aarch64}-{stable,testing,next}` ?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:58:54
Yeah
<@jcline:fedora.im>
16:59:31
Although Azure calls them x64 and Arm64 so I matched that in our image definition names so people aren't confused
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
16:59:36
I know GCP prefered the use of `arm64` so I think our image family over there uses that term. Not sure if Azure does the same or not
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
16:59:54
when you "exclude from latest", is it still usable by users if they look for it?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:00:25
Yes, you can explicitly boot a version instead of the default
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:01:01
ahhh ok. we probably don't want to use that for our pre-release testing then in case we abandon it.
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:01:08
On the CLI this looks like `--image /CommunityGalleries/Fedora-5e266ba4-2250-406d-adad-5d73860d958f/Images/Fedora-Cloud-Rawhide-Arm64/Versions/43.20250527.1` instead of `--image /CommunityGalleries/Fedora-5e266ba4-2250-406d-adad-5d73860d958f/Images/Fedora-Cloud-Rawhide-Arm64/Versions/latest`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:01:38
we can always upload to our testing gallery and test the image there before uploading to the prod gallery
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:02:04
Alternatively you can be clear that images excluded from latest aren't supported or approved. But if you want a separate testing gallery that's also something you can do.
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:02:51
yeah, makes sense
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:02:51
This would be nice, just from a development pipeline point of view
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:03:18
You can even make it not-a-community-gallery so only you can use the images
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:04:01
Does Fedora already have a testing gallery?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:04:56
No we just use the exclude from latest method
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:05:52
But it's trivial to make one so yeah, we can get you one
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:06:18
ok looking at your image definitions a bit I think maybe something like this:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:06:49
- `Fedora-CoreOS-{stream}-{x64,Arm64}`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:27
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:27
- `Fedora-CoreOS-{stream}-{x86_64,aarch64}`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:27
OR we just buck the platform conventions and go with:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:44
OR we just buck the platform conventions and go with:
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:44
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:44
- B `Fedora-CoreOS-{stream}-{x86_64,aarch64}`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:07:55
- A `Fedora-CoreOS-{stream}-{x64,Arm64}`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:08:03
Thoughts on A versus B anyone?
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:08:40
I would match the platform convention, esp. if the rest of Fedora follows it
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:09:39
any more on this specific subtopic (I have another subtopic)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:09:51
any more on this specific subtopic? (I have another subtopic)
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:10:24
I think A would be fine if that's what the rest of Fedora is using. Our users are familiar with the aarch64 term that we use, but there shouldn't be any issues there
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:10:49
Jeremy Cline: seem reasonable?
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:11:12
Seems reasonable to me. I think the Cloud images on GCP are also labeled that way so it's not super unusual
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:12:08
Yeah the image families in GCP are interesting.. they had the image family concept way before they ever had Arm hardware so the x86 image families just don't have an architecture in the name, but the arm ones have `-arm64` at the end :)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:12:38
ok the next subtopic is related to [versioning](https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/148#issuecomment-2919720569)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:12:54
> One wrinkle is that versions inside a gallery only accept X.Y.Z formatted versions. Our versions are X.Y.Z.A i.e.: 42.20250526.2.0.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:13:32
my proposal here is that we replace the last `.` in our version with `-`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:13:32
`42.20250526.2.0` -> `42.20250526.2-0`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:13:32
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:13:50
I don't think you can do dashes. They all have to be ints
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:14:04
I really recommend just mapping the Z to a stream because that's how it already works.
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:14:40
that's unfortunate
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:14:48
hmm. I was pretty sure semver supported a `-` in the last component
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:14:57
it definitely does, yes
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:15:03
(and assumed MSFT was going for semver compat)
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:15:21
this is why RHCOS is versioned this way as well
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:16:05
> Allowed characters for the image version are numbers and periods. Numbers must be within the range of a 32-bit integer. Format: MajorVersion.MinorVersion.Patch.
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:16:34
I don't see a reference to semver so I'm not sure they'll feel obligated to change it, unfortunately.
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:17:00
You can also apply arbitrary tags to images so you can tag it with the "real" version. I tag the cloud images with compose ids and such.
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
Jeremy Cline: I think your proposal would look like this:
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
Gallery Image Definition: `Fedora-CoreOS-testing-x64`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
Image Version: `42.20250526.0` (since it's mapped to the `testing` Image definition)
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
Azure Tag: i.e. `real_version=42.20250526.2.0`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
FCOS Version: `42.20250526.2.0`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:17:16
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:17:35
Yup, exactly
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:19:37
and inside the `Fedora-CoreOS-testing-x64` definition, we'd have a history of all testing images, with the most recent being tagged `latest`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:19:45
and inside the `Fedora-CoreOS-testing-x64` definition, we'd have a history of all `testing` images, with the most recent being tagged `latest`
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:20:09
and inside the `Fedora-CoreOS-testing-x64` definition, we'd have a history of all `[testing][x86_64]` images, with the most recent being tagged `latest`
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:20:17
Yeah, the most recent image (as determined by the version triple) that _also_ isn't marked as excluded is the `latest`
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:21:23
i'm OK with that i guess. almost would rather we make the final version e.g. `.099`? that way it's clear when someone brings us that version number, where it comes from
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:21:36
i.e. `.<P>99`
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:22:08
yeah. this definitely isn't ideal
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:22:25
I had thought the restriction was semver so we'd be able to easily mutate to get what we needed
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:22:37
there is no stream with number `0`, but if we had a patch release, it could be confused for a next release
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:22:47
there is no stream with number `0`, but if we had a patch release, it could be confused for a `next` release
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:23:00
the workaround proposed by Jeremy Cline does get us at least guarantee no no clashes with image versions, but I don't like that people will see different versions in different places
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:24:04
Yeah it'll be very confusing. If we do this, we'll have to be thorough with our documentation.
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:25:24
2. we can see if Jeremy Cline could ask about semver compatibility and if that is a goal and maybe they'll fix it one day if it is
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:25:24
1. let's try to see if doing an upload with the `-` in there will work (maybe it does??)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:25:24
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:25:24
I'd say the current proposal is workable and we should proceed with that, but we should also investigate other options:
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:26:22
I am 99.9999% sure it does not work (I tried and it didn't, but something might have changed despite the documentation very clearly stating they _must_ be integers)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:27:19
So you're telling me there's a chance? https://giphy.com/gifs/SanJoseStateSpartans-B8rOUw1NAJ70L1AXWA
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:27:44
I can try and ask if they'll change how images are versioned but I feel quite certain that they're going to say (likely much more politely) "lolno"
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:28:07
It's worth a shot if you don't mind - you can blame me :)
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:28:29
I'm sure we're not the only ones, maybe an extra data point of someone asking for it helps guide future direction
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:29:15
I'll email the product manager I know for community galleries
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:29:22
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:29:22
do we have any remaining questions on this topic that need to be answered?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:29:22
action items: get credentials for uploads to community gallery, get a testing gallery set up
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:30:01
Nothing more from me
<@jcline:fedora.im>
17:30:01
I can help with both those action items as well
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:30:39
marmijo gave a cookie to jcline. They now have 96 cookies, 7 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:30:40
I feel like everything we discsussed was sufficiently agreed upon that we don't need to do a separate proposed/agreed?
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:30:47
I feel like everything we discussed was sufficiently agreed upon that we don't need to do a separate proposed/agreed?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:31:05
dustymabe gave a cookie to jcline. They now have 97 cookies, 8 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:31:18
I can at least summarize what we've agreed to so far in the tracker issue
<@dustymabe:matrix.org>
17:31:33
This is exciting!
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:32:01
we're just over time. Does anyone else have anything else to discuss today?
<@jlebon:fedora.im>
17:32:14
nice, thanks all!
<@jbtrystram:matrix.org>
17:32:36
please monitor your `next` machines to make sure they update properly today :)
<@jbtrystram:matrix.org>
17:32:47
other than this I have nothing
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:33:15
Great, thanks everyone!
<@marmijo:fedora.im>
17:33:17
!endmeeting