2024-03-20 16:30:36 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !startmeeting fedora_coreos_meeting 2024-03-20 16:30:38 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-03-20 16:30:36 UTC 2024-03-20 16:30:39 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'fedora_coreos_meeting' 2024-03-20 16:30:42 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !topic roll call 2024-03-20 16:31:19 <@ravanelli:matrix.org> .hi 2024-03-20 16:31:26 <@marmijo:fedora.im> !hi 2024-03-20 16:31:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michael Armijo (marmijo) 2024-03-20 16:31:27 <@mnguyen:fedora.im> .hi 2024-03-20 16:31:32 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> !hi 2024-03-20 16:31:34 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) - he / him / his 2024-03-20 16:31:52 <@jlebon:fedora.im> !hi 2024-03-20 16:31:52 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !hi jbtrystram@matrix.org 2024-03-20 16:31:53 <@zodbot:fedora.im> None (jlebon) 2024-03-20 16:31:53 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sorry, I can only look up one username at a time 2024-03-20 16:31:55 <@mnguyen:fedora.im> !hi 2024-03-20 16:31:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michael Nguyen (mnguyen) 2024-03-20 16:32:16 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !hi jbtrystram@matrix.org 2024-03-20 16:32:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Sorry, I can only look up one username at a time 2024-03-20 16:32:29 <@aaradhak:matrix.org> !hi aaradhak 2024-03-20 16:32:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aashish Radhakrishnan (aaradhak) 2024-03-20 16:33:03 <@spresti:fedora.im> !hi 2024-03-20 16:33:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Steven Presti (spresti) 2024-03-20 16:33:33 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !hi jbtrystram 2024-03-20 16:33:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jean-Baptiste Trystram (jbtrystram) - he / him / his 2024-03-20 16:34:00 <@spresti:fedora.im> jbtrystram: you dont need to Hi if you are hosting 2024-03-20 16:34:11 <@spresti:fedora.im> or atleast I have never done that 2024-03-20 16:34:18 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> okay :) 2024-03-20 16:35:14 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> Ok I assume everyone is here let's start 2024-03-20 16:35:29 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !topic Action items from last meeting 2024-03-20 16:36:13 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/fedora-coreos-community-meeting-minutes-2024-03-13/108132 2024-03-20 16:36:28 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> fifofonix to bring up a 1.28 cluster with zswap 2024-03-20 16:36:55 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> it does not look like fifofonix is around today 2024-03-20 16:37:24 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> let's re-action this one for next time 2024-03-20 16:37:45 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> I feel it's been re-actionned 5 or 6 times already :) 2024-03-20 16:37:56 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !action fifofonix to bring up a 1.28 cluster with zswap 2024-03-20 16:38:30 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> there were no other actions items in the last meeting 2024-03-20 16:38:39 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> let's start with the topics 2024-03-20 16:38:43 <@ydesouza:fedora.im> !hi 2024-03-20 16:38:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Yasmin Valim de Souza (ydesouza) 2024-03-20 16:39:06 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !topic New Package Request: zip 2024-03-20 16:39:18 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1690 2024-03-20 16:40:13 <@jlebon:fedora.im> actually, let's skip this 2024-03-20 16:40:34 <@jlebon:fedora.im> the reporter wanted to join the meeting but I failed to get back to them in time to give that info 2024-03-20 16:40:35 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> we forgot to tell PhrozenByte when to join the community meeting 2024-03-20 16:40:37 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1690#issuecomment-1995593202 2024-03-20 16:40:44 <@jlebon:fedora.im> let's see if they can join next week 2024-03-20 16:41:28 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> let's make an action item 2024-03-20 16:41:44 <@jlebon:fedora.im> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1690#issuecomment-2010024306 2024-03-20 16:41:51 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> ah, you already update the issue. Thanks Jonathan Lebon 2024-03-20 16:42:03 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> let's skip. 2024-03-20 16:42:36 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !info we will ask @ PhrozenByte to join the community meeting to discuss the request next week 2024-03-20 16:42:49 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !topic Ship dnf in FCOS and RHCOS 2024-03-20 16:42:58 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !link https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1687 2024-03-20 16:43:29 <@jlebon:fedora.im> i can take this one 2024-03-20 16:43:51 <@jlebon:fedora.im> so this is related to the cliwrap discussion we had recently-ish 2024-03-20 16:44:28 <@jlebon:fedora.im> the motivation is the same: to provide a consistent experience when writing Containerfiles to derive from FCOS 2024-03-20 16:45:22 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> so we would ship dnf but it would only work when deriving images ? 2024-03-20 16:45:26 <@jlebon:fedora.im> the cliwrap approach was intended as a stopgap until we had better dnf support for the client-side, but there were UX concerns with it that made it less appealing 2024-03-20 16:45:33 <@ravanelli:matrix.org> :q 2024-03-20 16:45:46 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> what would happen if i do `dnf` on a running fcos ? 2024-03-20 16:46:01 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> what would happen if i do `dnf install` on a running fcos ? It layers the packages ? 2024-03-20 16:46:12 <@jlebon:fedora.im> jbtrystram: today, it would be useful in two situations: when layering on the container side, and client-side in an unlocked system (e.g. `ostree admin unlock`) 2024-03-20 16:46:52 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> TIL about `unlock` ! does it break updates ? 2024-03-20 16:46:59 <@jlebon:fedora.im> today it'll error out with an error about the filesystem being read-only. but there's rough consensus to have it give a more useful error error soon that points to different options (one of them being `rpm-ostree install`) 2024-03-20 16:47:04 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> I think the "client-side in an unlocked system" isn't compelling - that need has always been there and we've never suggested to install dnf to solve that problem before 2024-03-20 16:48:14 <@jlebon:fedora.im> dustymabe: there have been *many* times when i've directly `rpm -i` packages in an unlocked system to debug things 2024-03-20 16:48:38 <@jlebon:fedora.im> it's doable today sure. having actual dnf makes it easier :) 2024-03-20 16:48:48 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> Jonathan Lebon: yes, but only now (many years later) have you suggested we should install `dnf` to solve that problem 2024-03-20 16:49:08 <@jlebon:fedora.im> dustymabe: it's not a primary motivation. i'm just laying out where the gaps are and what works today 2024-03-20 16:49:47 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> agreed. all i'm saying is that if that were the only reason then we wouldn't do this 2024-03-20 16:49:56 <@jlebon:fedora.im> agreed 2024-03-20 16:50:25 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> reading the linked issue a question comes to mind : if I were to do `admin unlock` then `rpm -i` , the installed stuff would be gone after a reboot ? 2024-03-20 16:50:34 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> so really the reason we should focus on is "make the container installing experience easier" 2024-03-20 16:50:44 <@jlebon:fedora.im> jbtrystram: yup, exactly :) 2024-03-20 16:51:00 <@mnguyen:fedora.im> There's a hotfix option which will make it persist 2024-03-20 16:51:00 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> jbtrystram: yes, unless you added an option to make it persistent (I think `--hotfix` does that) 2024-03-20 16:51:14 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> Jonathan Lebon: that's a really cool trick to know !! 2024-03-20 16:51:41 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> IMO you really only want to do this on systems you are debugging or developing on and you can easily throw them away after 2024-03-20 16:52:24 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> what's the difference between `hotfix` and layering with `rpm-ostree install` ? 2024-03-20 16:53:03 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> that may be a good question for Jonathan Lebon or jmarrero after the meeting :) 2024-03-20 16:53:41 <@jlebon:fedora.im> jbtrystram: hotfix permanently modifies a specific deployment 2024-03-20 16:53:48 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> yeah sorry to disrupt 2024-03-20 16:53:51 <@jlebon:fedora.im> `rpm-ostree install` carries it across updates 2024-03-20 16:53:55 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> Jonathan Lebon: are there any other reasons to install dnf? other than the two you listed? 2024-03-20 16:54:27 <@jlebon:fedora.im> dustymabe: alignment with the future of bootc, dnf, and rpm-ostree 2024-03-20 16:54:54 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> i'm still not sure clear on what that future is TBH 2024-03-20 16:55:01 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> i'm still not super clear on what that future is TBH 2024-03-20 16:55:44 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> kind of like a soup where things are moving around willy nilly 2024-03-20 16:55:47 <@jlebon:fedora.im> it's not fully fleshed out, but essentially: client-side logic in rpm-ostree will drain into dnf 2024-03-20 16:55:48 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> dustymabe: making the system more fedora-like as well ? If we want atomic workstations to become the default (something that travier have been working on IIRC) then `dnf` should do something otherwise people will be confused 2024-03-20 16:56:28 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> jbtrystram: but including DNF here won't do that (other than the case where you are building a derived container) 2024-03-20 16:57:05 <@jlebon:fedora.im> also of note that dnf is shipping in the base bootable images. once we rebase on top of that, we'd have to consciously remove it (and possibly differ from other variants) 2024-03-20 16:58:06 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> I guess that would need to play into our decision to move over to that? which IIUC we haven't discussed anywhere 2024-03-20 16:58:20 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> this seems a little "cart before the horse"ey 2024-03-20 16:58:37 <@jlebon:fedora.im> for FCOS at least this should at least wait until dnf5 is the default. in RHCOS... well this is going to ship in other variants very soon... 2024-03-20 16:59:32 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> yeah, that's fine. hopefully they don't push off dnf5 to after F41 2024-03-20 16:59:41 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> they've already pushed it quite a bit already 2024-03-20 16:59:43 <@jlebon:fedora.im> so, i'm trying to keep them to not differ too much, but of course we could also do it in one and hold in the other 2024-03-20 17:01:35 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> ok what's next? 2024-03-20 17:01:51 <@jlebon:fedora.im> I know there's a lot of uncertainty surrounding this. I think we'll get more clarity in the mid-term at least, but that's where things happening around us are pointing currently. 2024-03-20 17:03:22 <@jlebon:fedora.im> how about we re-discuss this once the f41 dnf5 change has been approved? i think we need to discuss the RHCOS side too, but we can do that separately 2024-03-20 17:03:50 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> > also of note that dnf is shipping in the base bootable images sre there base bootable image from fedora that we could rebase on ? 2024-03-20 17:03:57 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> > also of note that dnf is shipping in the base bootable images are there base bootable image from fedora that we could rebase on ? 2024-03-20 17:04:02 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> > also of note that dnf is shipping in the base bootable images are there base bootable image from fedora that we could rebase on ? 2024-03-20 17:04:03 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> I'm not the biggest fan of waiting 2024-03-20 17:04:20 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> could we for now install microdnf and symlink `/usr/bin/dnf` to it? 2024-03-20 17:05:00 <@jlebon:fedora.im> dustymabe: yeah, was thinking about that... possibly? i don't know enough about the gap between the two. but one thing i tested was that even the fedora-minimal image doesn't use microdnf 2024-03-20 17:05:37 <@jlebon:fedora.im> so i'm not sure where it's in active use 2024-03-20 17:05:48 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> k - so probably has issues, or at least if there are issues it won't get fixed 2024-03-20 17:06:23 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> ```[core@cosa-devsh ~]$ sudo microdnf install htop Package Repository Size Installing: htop-3.3.0-3.fc40.x86_64 rawhide 200.2 kB hwloc-libs-2.10.0-3.fc40.x86_64 rawhide 2.2 MB Transaction Summary: Installing: 2 packages Reinstalling: 0 packages Upgrading: 0 packages Obsoleting: 0 packages Removing: 0 packages Downgrading: 0 packages Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading packages... Running transaction test... error: Error -1 running transaction ``` 2024-03-20 17:06:25 <@jlebon:fedora.im> it does ship dnf5 though. so possibly dnf5 renders it obsolete? 2024-03-20 17:06:52 <@jlebon:fedora.im> (e.g. i mean `fedora-minimal:39` ships dnf5 today) 2024-03-20 17:07:02 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> interesting.. didn't know that 2024-03-20 17:07:19 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> could we just pick up and use dnf5 then (since it's obviously built for f39/f40)? 2024-03-20 17:07:20 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> I think it's used in redhat `ubi` images 2024-03-20 17:08:52 <@jlebon:fedora.im> dustymabe: we could... i do like though the signal we get from it being the default in Fedora 2024-03-20 17:11:42 <@jlebon:fedora.im> i would really like also to have `dnf install` output a more useful error message before we add it to FCOS 2024-03-20 17:15:37 <@jlebon:fedora.im> my initial goal with this discussion is more about having rough alignment of where we're going. there isn't anything actionable right now. if we agree to ship it in f41, great! but I'm also OK re-discussing that when there's more clarity. 2024-03-20 17:16:30 <@jlebon:fedora.im> well, i guess we could add it to the rawhide stream now 2024-03-20 17:16:40 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> I imagine we could actually ship this in rawhide already and make it conditional on F41? 2024-03-20 17:16:41 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> yeah 2024-03-20 17:16:47 <@jlebon:fedora.im> we could say "we'll add it in f41 and rediscuss at branching" 2024-03-20 17:17:01 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> I assume rawhide is dnf5 already? 2024-03-20 17:17:14 <@jlebon:fedora.im> i'm not sure. i'll check 2024-03-20 17:17:44 <@jlebon:fedora.im> not in `fedora:41` at least 2024-03-20 17:18:48 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> ahh, good to know 2024-03-20 17:19:02 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> ok, wrap up this topic? 2024-03-20 17:19:20 <@jlebon:fedora.im> ok here's my proposal and we'll see what comes out: proposed: we will add dnf5 to the rawhide stream to test it out and help shake out issues. we will re-evaluate at f41 branching. 2024-03-20 17:19:48 <@jlebon:fedora.im> ok here's my proposal and we'll see what comes out: proposed: we will add dnf5 to the rawhide stream to test it out and help shake out issues. we will re-evaluate at f41 branching whether to continue with it or hold off. 2024-03-20 17:20:26 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> that seems fine to me, though I'm not sure about "re-evaluate at f41 branching whether to continue with it or hold off" -> we need a mechanism to make us re-evaluate if we really want to re-evaluate remembering to re-evaluate, probably won't work well 2024-03-20 17:20:57 <@jlebon:fedora.im> we can add it to the f41 checklist (which we can file now) 2024-03-20 17:22:36 <@jlebon:fedora.im> ack, nack? the faster we vote, the faster we move on :) 2024-03-20 17:23:11 <@aaradhak:matrix.org> +1 2024-03-20 17:23:20 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> +1 2024-03-20 17:23:25 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> +1 2024-03-20 17:23:56 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> might be worth including our reasoning for including DNF in the agreed 2024-03-20 17:24:14 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> or maybe the conversation in the ticket is sufficient 2024-03-20 17:24:22 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> so 1 action to add dnf to rawhide, and 1 action to add to f41 checklist to rediscuss it 2024-03-20 17:25:00 <@jlebon:fedora.im> jbtrystram: you can assign those to me. i can also take care of posting the agreement in the ticket after the meeting, where i'll add more details about some of the things we discussed 2024-03-20 17:26:27 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !agreed: @jlebon will add dnf5 in the rawhide stream to test it out. We will add to the f41 branching checklist to reconsider this and evaluate at this point in time 2024-03-20 17:27:30 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> the semicolon prevent the bot to pick it up. Before I confirm this, no objections ? 2024-03-20 17:28:14 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> yeah probably need to drop the colon 2024-03-20 17:28:22 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !agreed @jlebon will add dnf5 in the rawhide stream to test it out. We will add to the f41 branching checklist to reconsider this and evaluate at this point in time 2024-03-20 17:29:08 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> we are running out of time. Should we carry on or push the remainings topics to the next time ? 2024-03-20 17:30:25 <@jlebon:fedora.im> i think let's just do an open floor 2024-03-20 17:30:53 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> the reporter of the next issue is not here I think 2024-03-20 17:31:12 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !topic Open Floor 2024-03-20 17:31:27 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> Any other topics to discuss ? 2024-03-20 17:31:44 <@dustymabe:matrix.org> we do have a test day coming up (assuming we get a Beta GO this week) 2024-03-20 17:33:06 <@jlebon:fedora.im> ash, jbtrystram how's that coming along? 2024-03-20 17:33:28 <@aaradhak:matrix.org> The Fedora test week is now rescheduled to the first week of April 2024-03-20 17:37:11 <@aaradhak:matrix.org> We are at the stage of shipping next as part of the tasks under Fedora 40 beta 2024-03-20 17:39:27 <@aaradhak:matrix.org> We are at the stage of shipping rebased next as part of the tasks under Fedora 40 beta 2024-03-20 17:41:13 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> ok, if no one else as anything I'll end the meeting shortly 2024-03-20 17:43:27 <@jbtrystram:matrix.org> !endmeeting