Per the inline comment, a machine-id is required for kernels to
install correctly (this may well be a bug, but the linked issue
remained inconclusive).
Add a call to make the machine-id before install packages.
Change-Id: If75d04376e62bfdfe14ee3ca4d0bd5c8b383c1b0
Redhat-Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737355
This patch removes the check and default for rhel 8 requiring
xfs filesystem as rhel 8 images can successfully be built with
ext4 filesystems.
Change-Id: I1a6bfa26324fd43ae0c77c2c977dda0dd56e26e5
Make a version-less RHEL element to handle both '7' and '8' DIB_RELEASE.
The element usage should align with other elements which operate in the
same way such as the Fedora element.
Additionally, this patch adds support for RHEL8 that operates with
Python 3.
As of now, users of diskimage-builder will still be able to use the
'rhel7' element, or migrate to 'rhel' and specify their respective
DIB_RELEASE value.
* mount the xfs file-system for extraction as read-only. vaguely
based on explaination in [1] and the fact we only read the image
data into a tar, so can ignore this.
XFS (dm-1): Superblock has unknown read-only compatible features (0x4) enabled.
* Use the redhat system python as the dib-python version. dib was
ahead of it's time making an abstracted python interpreter for
system work ;) the system python should work for running the various
dib element scripts.
[1] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/247550/unmountable-xfs-filesystem
Redhat-Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700253
Co-Authored-By: Ian Wienand <iwienand@redhat.com>
Change-Id: I90540675c70bb475d9db2ae24f81c648a31f3f95
Several people have popped up in IRC recently with failures in these
elements. Without Python 2.7 available in the image they are
unsupported (OpenStack hasn't supported it for a long time). Remove
these to avoid further confusion.
The centos/centos7 DISTRO split that has happened with centos-minimal
is unfortunate but I don't think it helps to rename centos7/rhel7 ATM.
To summarise; DISTRO=centos7 means image based build,
DISTRO=centos && DIB_RELEASE=7 means the minimal build.
In the future, I think it is important that the minimal builds and
image builds set the same DISTRO. This reflects that "upper" layers
shouldn't care about the exact building of the lower layers. I see
CentOS 8 going one of two ways
1) the changes are so significant, we start separate centos8 /
centos8-minimal elements. They both set DISTRO=centos8 (and
DIB_RELEASE to point-release maybe?). This means we have to update
all "if DISTRO == centos || DISTRO == centos7" branches to also check
for "centos8". Evenually (!) "centos" goes away for versioned DISTRO
only
2) we restore centos element with DISTRO=centos and DIB_RELEASE=8, and
centos-minimal remains the same. This means we have to audit all "if
DISTRO == centos" calls to make sure they're appropriate for version 8
(stick a "&& DIB_RELEASE=7" on them all basically).
I'm not sure we can fully decide until we start to see excatly how the
distro switching/matching bits look, but (2) is consistent with Ubuntu
and probably the preferred solution.
Some "rhel" parts have been cleaned up. More could be done in
rhel-common, but given our lack of coverage of that I'd prefer to
leave it for now.
Change-Id: I6ea784116ef59ca22878c8512c963f29c815a00a
The dib-run-parts element was copying our internal version of
dib-run-parts into /usr/local/bin to be used running scripts inside
the target chroot. However, it never cleaned up after itself. This
means all images were left with an unmanaged local install of
dib-run-parts.
This copies dib-run-parts into the hooks directory of the chroot and
runs it from there. It is cleaned up automatically on the exit path.
The dib-run-parts element is no longer required and it has been
removed from all dependencies. It is left with a deprecation notice
in the README. For compatability we convert it to simply install
dib-utils.
Codesearch shows no users depending on this unintentional implicit
install. Note os-refresh-config depends on dib-utils and thus will
have an explicitly installed version.
Partial-Bug: #1673144
Change-Id: Ia2e96c00a4246c04beb96c17f83b8aefb69219ca
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
