FAQ
Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
well for more votes.


rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.


All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.


WIP rpm files are here: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've been
adding these to my copr repo here:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and lalatenduM
might have something to add to this.
--
Lokesh
Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150702/46574d37/attachment.sig>

Search Discussions

  • Jason Brooks at Jul 6, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lokesh Mandvekar" <lsm5@fedoraproject.org>
    To: centos-devel at centos.org
    Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 2:17:04 PM
    Subject: [CentOS-devel] Including rkt in virt7 - yay/nay?

    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.

    +1

    rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
    systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.

    All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
    https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
    pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
    RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.

    WIP rpm files are here: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've been
    adding these to my copr repo here:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and lalatenduM
    might have something to add to this.
    --
    Lokesh
    Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
    GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD

    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
  • Danilo Falcão at Jul 6, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    On Jul 6, 2015 7:34 PM, "Jason Brooks" wrote:

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Lokesh Mandvekar" <lsm5@fedoraproject.org>
    To: centos-devel at centos.org
    Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2015 2:17:04 PM
    Subject: [CentOS-devel] Including rkt in virt7 - yay/nay?

    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list
    as
    well for more votes.
    +1

    +1 here too

    rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
    systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.

    All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
    https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
    pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
    RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.

    WIP rpm files are here: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've
    been
    adding these to my copr repo here:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and
    lalatenduM
    might have something to add to this.
    --
    Lokesh
    Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
    GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD

    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150706/c6c049f0/attachment.html>
  • Jim Perrin at Jul 6, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    On 07/02/2015 04:17 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.

    rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
    systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.

    My only concerns about this would be unintended breakage due to feature
    changes. There's quite a bit in systemd that gets disabled or otherwise
    turned off. I'm okay with including it, but there should be testing with
    it as well.

    All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
    https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
    pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
    RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.



    Ugh, that's not overly nice. So long as this is being resolved/fixed
    upstream, I'm okay with it.





    WIP rpm files are here: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've been
    adding these to my copr repo here:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and lalatenduM
    might have something to add to this.







    --
    Jim Perrin
    The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
    twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77
  • Lokesh Mandvekar at Jul 7, 2015 at 4:36 am

    On Mon, Jul 06, 2015 at 03:15:02PM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
    On 07/02/2015 04:17 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.

    rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
    systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.
    My only concerns about this would be unintended breakage due to feature
    changes. There's quite a bit in systemd that gets disabled or otherwise
    turned off. I'm okay with including it, but there should be testing with
    it as well.

    Sure thing. systemd and rkt probably should go into a new koji tag
    virt7-rkt-{master,common}-* so they won't mess with the existing tags.


    And we can get this tested before announcing anything :)
    All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
    https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
    pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
    RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.

    Ugh, that's not overly nice. So long as this is being resolved/fixed
    upstream, I'm okay with it.

    There was some talk of separating stage1 into its own project earlier. Can't
    say if this will happen for sure though.

    WIP rpm files are here: https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've been
    adding these to my copr repo here:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and lalatenduM
    might have something to add to this.

    Guess we (me + whoever's interested) should get started with scratch builds
    for this like KB suggested earlier.


    Thanks all for the feedback so far.
    --
    Lokesh
    Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
    GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 819 bytes
    Desc: not available
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150707/dbc005f4/attachment.sig>
  • Joe Brockmeier at Jul 7, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    On 07/02/2015 10:17 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.

    I'm +1 for having it, either in the virt or Atomic SIG repos. My
    interest is primarily in being able to include it in the 4-week CentOS
    Atomic builds for folks who want to use rkt. Not sure how rkt
    does/doesn't line up with the goals of the virt SIG.


    Best,


    jzb
    --
    Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
    jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
    Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/


    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 473 bytes
    Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150707/52f69428/attachment.sig>
  • Lokesh Mandvekar at Jul 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 01:26:58PM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
    On 07/02/2015 10:17 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.
    I'm +1 for having it, either in the virt or Atomic SIG repos. My
    interest is primarily in being able to include it in the 4-week CentOS
    Atomic builds for folks who want to use rkt. Not sure how rkt
    does/doesn't line up with the goals of the virt SIG.

    I'm totally fine with rkt being in Atomic or any other SIG that we feel
    appropriate. Just that Docker is currently in Virt SIG and we kinda sorta
    decided to keep it there, while afaik the
    Atomic SIG consumes docker from Virt and a few other SIGs and is mainly
    concerned with creating Atomic images.
    Best,

    jzb
    --
    Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
    jzb at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
    Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/



    --
    Lokesh
    Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
    GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 819 bytes
    Desc: not available
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150707/0948d438/attachment.sig>
  • Lalatendu Mohanty at Jul 7, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    On 07/03/2015 02:47 AM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    Wondering if people would be ok with including rkt in virt7 SIG repos.
    some folks gave this a yay on IRC, but reaching out to the mailing list as
    well for more votes.

    rkt is _not_ in fedora yet and including it would also imply including
    systemd >= 220 in virt7 as it isn't present in base CentOS.

    All the gory detail around rkt packaging for fedora can be found here:
    https://github.com/coreos/rkt/issues/686 . The main
    pending issue that fedora won't agree to right now is
    RE: installing the stage1 rootfs tarball at rpm install time.

    WIP rpm files are here:https://github.com/fedora-cloud/rkt-rpm/ . I've been
    adding these to my copr repo here:
    https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/lsm5/rkt/ . markllama and lalatenduM
    might have something to add to this.

    +1 from me (which was understood I guess). I would be happy to help
    with maintaining the package in virt7.


    -Lala

    _______________________________________________
    CentOS-devel mailing list
    CentOS-devel at centos.org
    http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150707/de946e81/attachment.html>
  • Lokesh Mandvekar at Jul 7, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:12:40PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
    +1 from me (which was understood I guess). I would be happy to help with
    maintaining the package in virt7.

    Of course!


    All, let us know what's a good SIG to put rkt in. Or, if we need a new
    _Container_ SIG or whatever to put rkt, Docker and any other related tools.

    -Lala

    --
    Lokesh
    Freenode, OFTC: lsm5
    GPG: 0xC7C3A0DD
    -------------- next part --------------
    A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
    Name: signature.asc
    Type: application/pgp-signature
    Size: 819 bytes
    Desc: not available
    URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150707/ab32c440/attachment.sig>
  • Lalatendu Mohanty at Jul 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    On 07/07/2015 07:33 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote:
    On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 07:12:40PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
    +1 from me (which was understood I guess). I would be happy to help with
    maintaining the package in virt7.
    Of course!

    All, let us know what's a good SIG to put rkt in. Or, if we need a new
    _Container_ SIG or whatever to put rkt, Docker and any other related tools.

    +1. Yeah I actually meant for any SIG which is appropriate :).


    -Lala

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupcentos-devel @
categoriescentos
postedJul 2, '15 at 9:17p
activeJul 7, '15 at 2:09p
posts10
users6
websitecentos.org
irc#centos

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase