On 12/3/20 6:02 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:50:33AM -0500, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:37:01AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> On 12/2/20 10:57 PM, Cleber Rosa wrote:
>>>> Currently in use Fedora 31 has been moved out of the standard download
>>>> locations that are supported by the functionality provided by
>>>> avocado.utils.vmimage. So right now, the boot_linux.py tests will get
>>>> canceled by not being able to find those specific images.
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, this would be bumped to version 33. But, I've found issues
>>>> with the aarch64 images, with various systemd services failing to
>>>> start. So to keep all archs consistent, I've settled on 32.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py | 12 ++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py
>>>> b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py
>>>> index 1da4a53d6a..0824de008e 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py
>>>> +++ b/tests/acceptance/boot_linux.py
>>>> @@ -42,13 +42,13 @@ class BootLinuxBase(Test):
>>>> vmimage.QEMU_IMG = qemu_img
>>>>
>>>> self.log.info('Downloading/preparing boot image')
>>>> - # Fedora 31 only provides ppc64le images
>>>> + # Fedora 32 only provides ppc64le images
>>>> image_arch = self.arch
>>>> if image_arch == 'ppc64':
>>>> image_arch = 'ppc64le'
>>>> try:
>>>> boot = vmimage.get(
>>>> - 'fedora', arch=image_arch, version='31',
>>>> + 'fedora', arch=image_arch, version='32',
>>>
>>> I already expressed my view on this (latest QEMU should be
>>> able to use at least f31 - which was tested - and eventually
>>> f33 - which is coverage extension). I'm not going to vouch
>>> this change. If other maintainers are happy with it, I don't
>>> mind this gets merged.
>>>
>>> BTW I don't see why this is urgent for 5.2.
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Phil,
>>
>> Are you implying that, in your opinion, QEMU (say 5.2) should somehow
>> provide compatibility with Fedora 31 because it was used during the
>> entire cycle? I sympathize with that, but, QEMU is not really
>> advertising compatibility support with specific Linux Distros, is it?
What I don't understand is why you remove F31 and not simply add a F32
test. Why should I stop testing F31 if I have it cached?
>>
>> And, assuming that the issues I found on the Fedora 33 aarch64 image
>> can not be worked around, would you suggest not moving to 32? I mean,
>> I don't see a reason why QEMU shouldn't be able to use at least Fedora
>> 32, which is a currently *active* version (different from 31).
>
> I think the problem with the Fedora acceptance is that we'll be constantly
> chasing a moving target. Every URL we pick will go away 6-12 months later.
> IOW, while the acceptance test pass today, in 6 months time they'll be
> failing. IOW, switching to F32 doesn't solve the root cause, it just
> pushs the problem down the road for 6 months until F32 is EOL and hits
> the same URL change problem.
>
> One way to avoid this is to *not* actually test a current Fedora.
> Instead intentionally point at an EOL Fedora release whose URL has
> already moved to the archive site which is long term stable.
I agree with Daniel, 'acceptance' test must not fail.
Having an archived image allow us to not rely on external disappearing
storage.
>
> Regards,
> Daniel
>
