linux-firmware and linux-firmware-whence (meta package for mostly iwl
firmwares) packages account for approx. 289 M install size on a F30
system, and linux-firmware for approx. 176 M on CentOS 7. Users needing
these firmwares are eventually baremetal users and are not looking for a
very minimal operating system base install like virtual image users are.
Thus, a non-minimal OS element is better suited for them. Alternatively,
it could be later considered a dedicated firmware element.
This is inline with I8ce65e1d357d15e8ed8995ad1dcaea02bbd1986f.
Change-Id: If104fc3c1e9349b8d501a2351fff1ab4c0dbc6a4
Change I008f8bbc9c8414ce948c601e3907e27764e15a52 has shown that we
build redhat images without the "semange" tool available, which comes
from the policycoreutils-python package (see also
I3f9e2c322d042a5dddba33451c0fc21a4d32a88a).
I403e7806ae10d5dd96d0727832f4da20e34b94c7 added some of the selinux
libraries to yum-minimal for ansible support, but not to others.
Given both these changes, it seems that selinux[-targeted],
libselinux[-python] and policycoreutils[-python] can reasonably
considered part of all base images. Move the selinux related packages
into redhat-common.
This also adds it explicitly to install_test_deps.sh. It was actually
being dragged in by the docker install, but is a required component
for building (should be in bindep, but not there with that yet).
Change-Id: Idd4ae71ee6deee84604823b6b5dc4a845f316e01
Related-Bug: #1707788
I'm uncertain as to why this is using the "fedora" element for testing
... but it requires downloading the fedora .qcow on every test which
has shown to be unreliable. An easy thing to do is to switch it to
fedora-minimal; that will only involve downloads from local mirrors in
the gate.
Add redhat-rpm-config for minimal. I admit I have not fully gone
through why this is not pulled in. It's been an issue since
I459f2203fa145049dda185da952813118193d573 and there's all sorts of
bugs.
Change-Id: I37458e3926dae32a259bd5aa9efc645561b029a0
Currently we have all our elements and library files in a top-level
directory and install them into
<root>/share/diskimage-builder/[elements|lib] (where root is either /
or the root of a virtualenv).
The problem with this is that editable/development installs (pip -e)
do *not* install data_files. Thus we have no canonical location to
look for elements -- leading to the various odd things we do such as a
whole bunch of guessing at the top of disk-image-create and having a
special test-loader in tests/test_elements.py so we can run python
unit tests on those elements that have it.
data_files is really the wrong thing to use for what are essentially
assets of the program. data_files install works well for things like
config-files, init.d files or dropping documentation files.
By moving the elements under the diskimage_builder package, we always
know where they are relative to where we import from. In fact,
pkg_resources has an api for this which we wrap in the new
diskimage_builder/paths.py helper [1].
We use this helper to find the correct path in the couple of places we
need to find the base-elements dir, and for the paths to import the
library shell functions.
Elements such as svc-map and pkg-map include python unit-tests, which
we do not need tests/test_elements.py to special-case load any more.
They just get found automatically by the normal subunit loader.
I have a follow-on change (I69ca3d26fede0506a6353c077c69f735c8d84d28)
to move disk-image-create to a regular python entry-point.
Unfortunately, this has to move to work with setuptools. You'd think
a symlink under diskimage_builder/[elements|lib] would work, but it
doesn't.
[1] this API handles stuff like getting files out of .zip archive
modules, which we don't do. Essentially for us it's returning
__file__.
Change-Id: I5e3e3c97f385b1a4ff2031a161a55b231895df5b
