We ran into an interesting situation during Fedora 32 Beta blocker review. This bug renders fresh 32-bit ARM installs unbootable. It would clearly be a release blocker...except that no installer images are listed as release blocking for 32-bit ARM. There is a release-blocking 64-bit ARM installer image, and there are release-blocking 32-bit ARM disk images (that do not use anaconda to deploy).
So technically speaking, right now, we don't have a justification to block on installer issues that are specific to 32-bit ARM, like this one. However, @pwhalen pointed out this is potentially an issue, on the basis that we use installer images to deploy builders.
I see a few options:
1) Throw the 32-bit ARM Everything netinst on the release-blocking images list 2) Declare that we're fine with this and 32-bit ARM installer issues really don't block release 3) Don't put any images on the release-blocking list but still block on installer issues anyway, massaging the release criteria text to somehow back this up
What do folks think? Also tagging @pbrobinson , please tag anyone else who's likely to have an opinion...
@kevin and @mohanboddu for releng angle.
I'd be inclined to go for 1). There's still a lot of arm32 hardware out there that people use Fedora on.
@zbyszek note, we do have 32-bit ARM disk images in the release-blocking list, and those would usually be what you would use to deploy to real hardware. The installer images would usually only be used to deploy VMs.
I also like 1. It would be anoying to somehow have a release that couldn't be kickstart installable for our armv7 builders.
+1 to 1)
Hmm, I was all set to vote for 2) until I read this. If our builders are relying on kickstart installs, it seems to me like that's an implicit requirement we should be considering. So I guess I'm voting for either 1) or 3).
I also vote for option 1)
Metadata Update from @churchyard: - Issue tagged with: F32
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue tagged with: meeting
+1 to have our own infrastructure needs to be release blocking, thus on item 1)
+1 for option 1)
This was discussed during today's FESCo meeting (16/3/2020):
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue untagged with: meeting - Issue assigned to bcotton
This is now done: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Releases%2F32%2FReleaseBlocking&type=revision&diff=568019&oldid=567042
Thanks @bcotton.
Metadata Update from @zbyszek: - Issue close_status updated to: Accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata Update from @bcotton: - Issue untagged with: F32 - Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 32
Login to comment on this ticket.