Meeting started at 2026-06-03 15:30:37 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora_coreos_meeting'

!hi

Hristo Marinov: Hristo Marinov (hricky) - he / him / his

!hi

Cade: Cade Jacobson (cadejacobson)

!hi

thilofm: Thilo Fromm (tfm)

!hi

marmijo: Michael Armijo (marmijo)

!hi

Angel Cervera Roldan: Angel Cervera Roldan (acervera)

!hi

Timothée Ravier: Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his

!hi

!hi

dustymabe: Dusty Mabe (dustymabe) - he / him / his

rapneset: Rolv Apneseth (rapneset)

!hi

jcapitao: Joel Capitao (jcapitao) - he / him / his

Following the schedule the next important date is 2026-06-24. We have a checkpoint for changes requiring infrasctructere changes..

!hi

jbtrystram: Jean-Baptiste Trystram (jbtrystram) - he / him / his

Not much to discuss here at the moment. We are fresh off the F44 release. The change checkpoints are coming up, so if anyone has any changes in the works, please note the deadlines!

how are we doing on swittching COSA to f44?

It doesn't look like there's any updates to https://github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/pull/4541

apiaseck: was looking into this I think

FWIW in my dev environnement I switched to F44 and just removed the few deps from `deps.txt`, haven't run into issues so far. I don't use the COSA container

we should probably do the vendoring option to get us unstuck and let Adam look at the packaging without a time pressure

`python-pyrsistent` any idea why this one has been dropped if it is apparently neede by osbuild? That seems weird

I asked the osbuild dev and they say it's no longer required

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aosbuild%2Fosbuild%20pyrsistent&type=code

almost no hits

Timothée Ravier: i'm not sure. looking at the commit history it came in with the initial osbuild work.

Timothée Ravier: i'm not sure. looking at the commit history it came in with the initial osbuild work (which was done by me)

I can try to look into why it was needed

Thank you, dustymabe for looking at it.

dustymabe: lets just start a pipeline build on the devel pipeline with a cosa image without the dep and see if that hit anything

that's pretty easy to do

Thanks jbtrystram

Can we go ahead and cover the topics from the tracker repository or there is any other discussion related to this subject?

konflux is building cosa images on all arch for every PR already

ok to move on

so it's a really quick test, i'll do it later today ;)

siosm gave a cookie to jbtrystram. They now have 5 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

jbtrystram: but does it do image builds on all arches?

yes

c.f https://github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/blob/5a7f9cb5f5f13b34f7ed1277f55632b2286f2318/.tekton/coreos-assembler-pull-request.yaml#L30-L35

ydesouza gave a cookie to jbtrystram. They now have 6 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

acervera gave a cookie to jbtrystram. They now have 7 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

It's possible it was never needed and was a copy/paste error from my initial experimentation

So let's go ahead, we have a few topics to discuss today.

I added this one

So we initially revereted back to jenkins when the bootc pipeline was broken earlier this year. Since then jcapitao worked hard to move everything over to the new fedora cluster, which is now up to date and properly supported, and the bootc pipeline now works again

so we want to un-revert this to go back to Konflux produces OCI then jenkins picks it up and continue

👏

dustymabe has already given cookies to jbtrystram during the F44 timeframe

jcapitao++

dustymabe has already given cookies to jcapitao during the F44 timeframe

siosm gave a cookie to jcapitao. They now have 10 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

great! let's do it :)

marmijo gave a cookie to jbtrystram. They now have 8 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

jcapitao++

that was a good team work effort with Konflux folks !

marmijo gave a cookie to jcapitao. They now have 11 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

Can we create a action item for this?

not needed, all the PRs are ready

we are just waiting for a vote to click merge

Nice, thank you for working on this!

Let's move on to the next subject then

we still need to vote :)

rapneset gave a cookie to jcapitao. They now have 12 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

Ah, right. Sorry! Let's vote. I was thinking we already had an agreement.

++

+1

+1

!proposed We will re-enable building Rawhide with Konflux

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

+1

I think we have a agreement now :)

I think we can go to the next topic?

Sure!

I added this as well :)

As we are making progress toward build our disk images using image-builder, I'd like to move more things to the OCI container for it to be the source of as much info as possible.

Do we have https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1827 (install to-filesystem) ready?

Yes we have this enabled in rawhide for a while now

ah, we should update the issue then :)

I kept the issue open because it's not yet on all streams

image-builder is able to get the partition layout from the container, if the correct file exist in it. So I would like to effectively move the partition layout description from COSA to fedora-coreos-config and bake this file into the container

I created a draft PR to show what it could look like : https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/4195

Questions:

is it easy to define different partition layouts for different architectures without having to conditionalize it?

how advanced of partitioning can it handle, i.e. the downstream qemu-secex stuff for s390x is quite complicated and we should at least have some sort of plan for that

ok nice.. the PR answers some questions

We would have to ship the correct layout in the correct image. I don't know any other way around that for now. but we could ship everything and write a generic symlink : `disk.yaml -> $arch.yaml` I guess

One good thing here is that this is a very undocumented API yet so we can still make changes :)

About the qemu-secex I don't know, but i'll make sure to follow-up with the osbuilder guys :)

and the image-builder team have been very keen to adjust to our requirements so far

consult Nikita on the s390x secex stuff. he'd probably know more than the OSBuild team

zooming out a bit..

we've got a pipeline of changes.

let's plan to turn on `install to-filesystem` in `next-devel`/`next` (we've discussed doing this for other changes recently too) and when the `image-builder-cli` stuff (the next item in the pipeline) is ready we can switch it on in rawhide

hmm

yeah. I want to note that we have been working with the goal that Konflux would do the image-builder task

how does that impact the rollout plan?

It does not ! I just wanted to point it out

yeah. looks like we already want konflux for rawhide, so hopefully konflux won't block anything

yeah. looks like we already have konflux for rawhide, so hopefully konflux won't block anything

I think what Dusty means is that we should start rolling out the to-filesystem change to our other streams and then we can enable image-builder for rawhide

correct

I do have followup questions about konflux+image-builder-cli - but maybe we can discuss those in the coreos channel after the meeting

We don't have time for a long open floor today, but feel free to bring up any quick final thoughts. You can also open a thread in the FCOS room and we can keep the conversation going there.

If there is no topic for a quick open floor I think we can go ahead and finish this meeting :)

Thank you all for participating today!

Thanks Yasmin Valim de Souza

siosm gave a cookie to ydesouza. They now have 13 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle

Thanks !

jcapitao gave a cookie to ydesouza. They now have 14 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle