Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fedora 41 Readiness Tracker #634

Open
20 of 23 tasks
p5 opened this issue Aug 25, 2024 · 28 comments
Open
20 of 23 tasks

Fedora 41 Readiness Tracker #634

p5 opened this issue Aug 25, 2024 · 28 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@p5
Copy link
Member

p5 commented Aug 25, 2024

Please can maintainers try to keep this list up-to-date with any issues that could hold back the F41 cycle.

TODO:

@p5 p5 pinned this issue Aug 25, 2024
@travier
Copy link

travier commented Aug 26, 2024

I deferred composefs to F42.

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Aug 26, 2024

We can probably include testing bootupd in this list: https://gitlab.com/fedora/ostree/sig/-/issues/1

@yodatak
Copy link

yodatak commented Sep 18, 2024

Hello is there is a way to test bazzite fedora 41 to iron some bug and help make it stable would love to help ?

@p5
Copy link
Member Author

p5 commented Sep 18, 2024

Hello is there is a way to test bazzite fedora 41 to iron some bug and help make it stable would love to help ?

Not yet. We're usually waiting around for a while for dependencies to start building for the newest release.
I'll create a PR today to see what we're waiting for.

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 18, 2024

Bootupd is in F41 but there is still a major bug right now: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd#How_To_Test

The fix should be in tomorrow's build.

@castrojo castrojo added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 19, 2024
@castrojo
Copy link
Member

castrojo commented Sep 19, 2024

Ok most of this stuff is straightforward, and composefs is for F42 so less things to worry about. 😄

Can we get consensus on the Asus and Surface images? For bluefin: fsync in latest now and it might be worth just putting those users there for now, and then when fsync lands in stable post key rotation people will have 2 choices. Note that we'll probably have to keep them around another cycle, we don't have the live rebaser enabled, we'd have to slow roll it.

I've now experienced the need for an Asus image with my newly paved G14, but I am unsure if there are other options. That asus control center thing is a perfect sysext candidate so maybe keep it around until that's ready? I think surface can go though.

Now that kernel-cache exists custom image folks can now opt into fsync if they want so they'll have more flexibility in that regard and then get onto the stock image. Also q good lesson: Whenever we do an hwe thing we should just also outline an exit strategy for it since ideally we want these to be temporary.

(And probably we should stop making them in the future unless we have to, especially since we need the builder room for nvidia builds that are about to double their resource requirements.

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

Hum, the fixed ostree is still not here. You can get it from https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-3945fdf385 in the mean time.

The main challenge for UBlue from my perspective is going to be to test bootloader updates with bootupd on all the hardware that you support.

You need to:

Testing directly installing using F41 would be good as well but I'm less afraid that it will break things (apart from dual boot via GRUB, which won't work anymore: fedora-silverblue/issue-tracker#530).

I want to enable bootloader updates by default on boot for F41 for EFI only but I would prefer to do that if you are confortable with it as well and testing here is successful.

Thanks!

@m2Giles
Copy link
Member

m2Giles commented Sep 19, 2024

Can we get consensus on the Asus and Surface images? For bluefin: fsync in latest now and it might be worth just putting those users there for now, and then when fsync lands in stable post key rotation people will have 2 choices. Note that we'll probably have to keep them around another cycle, we don't have the live rebaser enabled, we'd have to slow roll it.

We will still need the images because of the additional packages on both surface and Asus. Surface swaps out the Wacom packages and some other items. Asus has control GUI app and a bunch of added firmware.

Instead we change how we build them to be a FROM bluefin and add those changes instead of building from Silverblue. We do not build Asus and surface images during PRs anymore so there won't be any changes for PRs.

@castrojo
Copy link
Member

The main challenge for UBlue from my perspective is going to be to test bootloader updates with bootupd on all the hardware that you support.

Hey just to confirm, we have images with bootc/bootupd already on them (Bluefin does at least), and have had so for a long time. They would still need to explicitly upgrade right?

I can start testing this weekend, and then I can post instructions on the forum for a call for testing.

apart from dual boot via GRUB, which won't work anymore:

I am glad we decided to not support this, though we have people with custom setups. 😄

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

Can you show me how you added bootupd to the current images? As far as I could find it's not here https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aublue-os+bootupd&type=code and I don't include it in the F40 container images.

Once it's properly added in the image (https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/blob/main/f/bootupd.yaml), the installer will use it for new installations. It's in the F41 container images right now.

For updating systems, we will have a systemd unit that will update systems on boot: https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/pull-request/571

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

I am glad we decided to not support this, though we have people with custom setups. 😄

It will still be possible to manually setup a boot entry for another system by adding it in the GRUB config. It "just" won't be done by default anymore.

@fiftydinar
Copy link
Contributor

@travier bootc package is installed, which pulls bootupd.

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aublue-os+bootc&type=code

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

OK, then I wonder how your ISOs work without the post process part from https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/blob/main/f/bootupd.yaml 🤔

@fiftydinar
Copy link
Contributor

OK, then I wonder how your ISOs work without the post process part from pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/blob/main/f/bootupd.yaml 🤔

It's included in Bluefin/Aurora at least:

https://github.com/search?q=org%3Aublue-os+bootupctl+backend+generate-update-metadata&type=code

I think that only Bazzite doesn't install bootc and uses older ISO version which doesn't require it

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

Then you're lucky no-one tried it out yet as we found bugs! 😅

@fiftydinar
Copy link
Contributor

fiftydinar commented Sep 19, 2024

Then you're lucky no-one tried it out yet as we found bugs! 😅

Hmm, bugs about bootupctl backend generate-update-metadata?
Or some new Anaconda bugs with bootc?

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

Bugs when adopting and updating systems without bootupd to use bootupd

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

New installations are fine

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 19, 2024

The "updating old systems" part is #634 (comment). It's what needs testing the most.

@travier
Copy link

travier commented Sep 23, 2024

Alright, we've now landed the needed fixes so we should be good for testing adopting systems without bootupd:

  • Install UBlue from a version before bootupd was included in the image (I don't know if you still have those at hand?)
  • Rebase to an F41 image of UBlue
  • Use the instructions from fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraSilverblueBootupd#How_To_Test to test adopting and updating using bootupd

@p5
Copy link
Member Author

p5 commented Sep 23, 2024

Awesome!
We're currently still waiting for some upstream dependencies before we're able to publish F41 images, but we'll definitely start testing ASAP!

@castrojo
Copy link
Member

In case anyone is wondering, don't followup the bootupd instructions if you're on F40. 😄

@castrojo castrojo changed the title Meta: Fedora 41 Readiness Tracker Fedora 41 Readiness Tracker Oct 4, 2024
@m2Giles
Copy link
Member

m2Giles commented Oct 7, 2024

One item, for the F41 images when built in main and hwe, I recommend that we give them the convenience tag of Beta.

  1. Bluefin/Aurora are prepped to convert Beta to a version number.

  2. We can ship a service to yell at you if still on Beta after the release is finalized. We had a fair amount of people using 39 tags who were confused why they didn't roll forward to 40 when they rebased to 39 from 38.

@antheas
Copy link

antheas commented Oct 18, 2024

I think the old secureboot key should stay there for a year more, I cannot think of 1 benefit to removing it.

It is not more secure, as the users will still have the old key. If we care about security we should tell the users of the old key how to remove the previous one after they enroll the new one.

@nikodunk
Copy link

nikodunk commented Oct 19, 2024

Rebasing to Silverblue F41 from Bluefin dx 40 now works smoothly on a bare-metal install, FWIW.

@znmeb
Copy link

znmeb commented Oct 19, 2024

I can wait till Bluefin:latest goes to 41 - Bluefin 40 is rock solid. 👍

@antheas
Copy link

antheas commented Oct 26, 2024

Little blocker:

Oct 26 15:00:21 antheas-ally-x setroubleshoot[1861]: SELinux is preventing ublue-sulogin-g from read access on the file passwd.
                                                     
                                                     *****  Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests   **************************
                                                     
                                                     If you believe that ublue-sulogin-g should be allowed read access on the passwd file by default.
                                                     Then you should report this as a bug.
                                                     You can generate a local policy module to allow this access.
                                                     Do
                                                     allow this access for now by executing:
                                                     # ausearch -c 'ublue-sulogin-g' --raw | audit2allow -M my-ubluesuloging
                                                     # semodule -X 300 -i my-ubluesuloging.pp

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Status: In Progress
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants