In the grub2 element the grub2-efi-x64-modules package
is missing in the centos 9 section, this cause a failure
because grub2 cannot find the neccecary files when
installing the bootloader on EFI systems.
It seems grub2-efi-x64-modules was not included in release
9, this is likely why the block was added initially without
this package. Since it is now there, the Centos 9 specific
block is no longer needed.
Removing the rhel 8 block as well, as it is identical to the
family "redhat" block i.e it is redundant.
Closes-Bug: #1957169
Change-Id: Ia6b0ecf0cd15fb23c6740543940ee513a8602afe
This adds 9-stream support to the centos element.
See https://review.opendev.org/q/topic:cs9 for related patches.
Change-Id: Ib80fbd21edb77c25764eff2c0d66e55bde7a90af
Similar to https://review.opendev.org/#/c/663693/, the x64 packages
should be used for x86 architectures.
Change-Id: I5e8a4d58e96d65eb60fc539b8a1d56853b12faac
Closes-Bug: 1843820
RHEL8 ships a bunch of grub2-efi-X-modules in its main
repository, each of which provides grub2-efi-modules,
potentially causing nondeterminism when building images.
This changes the DIB elements to always use architecture-
specific RPMs when RHEL8 is selected.
Change-Id: If94f3721195d5ecd80036e4234a3ca223a19c349
Related: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1716672
Looks that the special handling for Ubuntu is not needed any longer
(its a pity that there are no detailed comments...).
The grub2 element is a second implementation of the bootstrap element
- but because there are some features that come only here, e.g. efi
boot, it should be working as long as this is not implemented in the
bootloader element.
Change-Id: I74269116ea30b84f3259805720d5cd1616f960c5
Signed-off-by: Andreas Florath <andreas@florath.net>
Closes-Bug: #1627402
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
