-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 219
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
Support CentOS #275
Comments
Same question for CentOS8, now that it is available. |
There are no pre-canned Toolbox images for CentOS like we have for Fedora. That said, you can always create your own using a Dockerfile and use the Take a look at the Fedora Dockerfiles in the |
@debarshiray How would I do this for the Arch base image from dockerhub? I don't know what url to add after |
So can i make pull request for centos image? To the same directory as you have for fedora? |
Yes, this is it |
Any news on this issue? |
From our side no news. We're currently focused on rewriting toolbox. |
Ah, i see. Will it support centos X images? |
Currently the goal is to get the original functionality and then we want to add new functionality. |
Ok. I see. Will it be version 0.1.XX? |
Probably yes. |
Any updates? |
I've just tested it and it looks fine to me. |
I am producing base c7 here : registry.gitlab.com/ndmspc/user/c7:toolbox |
Due to the change in focus of the CentOS Project, it doesn't make sense to push forward with CentOS support. Specifically RHEL 7 or CentOS 7 is too old by this point to consider supporting it out-of-the-box, because it will inevitably need fixes to the OS, which are very unlikely to be accepted at this point. Instead, we are going to do this via Red Hat's Universal Base Image. We already have a UBI-based |
See #791 |
This is a shame, because CentOS has everything needed to build for RHEL, but RHEL itself does not. And UBI is a small subset of RHEL, though in my case that doesn't even matter. My goal today was "build WebKitGTK," but it's just not possible to do with RHEL because required -devel packages are buildroot only. In contrast, CentOS has a more normal distro setup without the self-sabotage. I think Toolbx images for c8s or c9s would be very useful, whereas UBI is just not enough to do what I want. |
People can still use their own custom CentOS images. There's nothing stopping that. As far as out-of-the-box support is concerned, we already have UBI images for Toolbox (for various RHEL and RHCOS use-cases that we can't get into here), and we spent a very considerable amount of energy getting those done. So it doesn't make sense to add another flavour of RHEL before wrapping up the UBI work. Also, the whole CentOS Stream and UBI space is fresh and constantly evolving. So, I think it's wise to wait for things to settle down. |
Well, the main problem with UBI is the massively incomplete userspace. If RHEL UBI had the complete RHEL userspace, then sure, there's no real reason to use CentOS here. (cc: @fatherlinux). |
The questions are, in my mind are:
Personally I think the minor speed bump to use the RHEL content is worth the value. Best Regards |
Getting subscription-manager to work properly on Fedora Linux is a pain (it doesn't work right now on my Fedora Linux 35 system). It is also pretty much not available in any other distribution, so that nullifies 1 and 2. |
On Fri, Dec 10 2021 at 01:01:15 PM -0800, Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) ***@***.***> wrote:
If RHEL UBI had the complete RHEL userspace, then sure, there's no
real reason to use CentOS here. (cc: @fatherlinux).
I share your concerns about UBI not being very useful, but even if it
had the full set of RHEL packages, it still would not be good enough
for me because I require buildroot-only -devel packages that are
available in CentOS but not in RHEL. What I want to do is rebuild a
RHEL package. This is very easy to do with CentOS, but it is not
generally possible with RHEL due to the lack of available -devel
packages.
Michael
|
@mcatanzaro ask the maintainers to ship the required -devel packages in AppStream or CRB? |
Why should I have to do that? What a waste of everybody's time! I would rather just use CentOS. |
It's not relevant who will do it. Your reply sounded like there's no way to go and I just wanted to be explicit about a way that exists. |
To be clear -devel packages are a RHEL issue, not a UBI issue, but I get it. I spoke with Josh Boyer about this problem the other day, and it's my understanding that each SST is left to make it's own decisions about whether to ship the -devel packages. It's mostly a resource problem. Each team has unlimited wants being asked of them, but they have limited resources to accomplish those asks. |
In fact, that's my point. Even if UBI provided everything that RHEL does, it still wouldn't be a suitable replacement for CentOS. Having an official CentOS Stream toolbox image would still be very useful. (Ditto for Alma and Rocky.) |
Wouldn't Alma and Rocky have the exact same problems as RHEL? |
No, I just tested Rocky and it has all -devel packages available in PowerTools. Pretty sure CentOS is the same. |
I bring this up because that would mean that those downstreams are pulling
some packages from CentOS Stream and some from RHEL. That's interesting
news to me.
…On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 1:50 PM Michael Catanzaro ***@***.***> wrote:
Wouldn't Alma and Rocky have the exact same problems as RHEL?
No, I just tested Rocky and it has all -devel packages available in
PowerTools. Pretty sure CentOS is the same.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#275 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA4WZL464JLVWOILZDKY3LUQY55XANCNFSM4I2XTCXA>
.
--
Scott McCarty
***@***.***
http://crunchtools.com
@fatherlinux
|
No way? Maybe you misread something?
Ah, that said, my test was totally wrong. I was comparing RHEL without CRB to CentOS with PowerTools enabled. Oops. RHEL actually does have the -devel packages required to build what I need to build. So I'm not sure about this anymore. The point about UBI stands though.... |
For what it's worth, PowerTools content in CentOS should be identical to CRB content in RHEL. For EL9, CRB is CRB for both CentOS and RHEL. If you can do it with CRB on RHEL, then RHEL UBI with all the userspace would satisfy this need. |
Ahh, I'm glad to hear this! We do add the CRB channels to UBI as well. We
just don't add them all, but those would be easier to add since they aren't
"supported" on RHEL anyway. We just don't enable the CRB channels by
default on RHEL nor UBI.
…On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Michael Catanzaro ***@***.***> wrote:
No way? Maybe you misread something?
No, I just tested Rocky and it has all -devel packages available in
PowerTools. Pretty sure CentOS is the same.
Ah, that said, my test was totally wrong. I was comparing RHEL without CRB
to CentOS with PowerTools enabled. Oops. RHEL actually *does* have the
-devel packages required to build what I need to build. So I'm not sure
about this anymore.
The point about UBI stands though....
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#275 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA4WZPRC3TC76LTD3QKJHTUQZE5LANCNFSM4I2XTCXA>
.
--
Scott McCarty
***@***.***
http://crunchtools.com
@fatherlinux
|
CRB is absolutely enabled by default on RHEL UBI.
If it wasn't, it'd be much more painful to use. |
Oh, my apologies. For some reason my memory was wrong. I had thought that
historically we did not have that enabled by default, but I just messed
with two of my systems and it does appear to be enabled. I have
this recollection that I failed to find CRB content before.
…On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 2:57 PM Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) < ***@***.***> wrote:
CRB is absolutely enabled by default on RHEL UBI.
***@***.*** ~> podman run --rm -it ubi8
***@***.*** /]# dnf repolist
Updating Subscription Management repositories.
Unable to read consumer identity
This system is not registered with an entitlement server. You can use subscription-manager to register.
repo id repo name
ubi-8-appstream Red Hat Universal Base Image 8 (RPMs) - AppStream
ubi-8-baseos Red Hat Universal Base Image 8 (RPMs) - BaseOS
ubi-8-codeready-builder Red Hat Universal Base Image 8 (RPMs) - CodeReady Builder
If it wasn't, it'd be much more painful to use.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#275 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAA4WZLRFADWCHNIQU4SQTTUQZFZXANCNFSM4I2XTCXA>
.
--
Scott McCarty
***@***.***
http://crunchtools.com
@fatherlinux
|
A CentOS Stream 8/9 toolbox image would be great. Is there any progress here? I wanted to create one myself based on the existing UBI version1, but I ran into a roadblock due to the incomplete publicly available source code. The Containerfile seems to be a copy of the Fedora one but with different |
Same question as @gotmax23
says CentOS is still not supported. Am curious because most of this conversation happened before CentOS Stream 9 even existed. What is missing for CentOS Stream 9 support? Or is it something as simple as adding CentOS Stream 9 to the supported list? |
Hey there, to anyone that stumbles on this issue, I believe most of the conversation moved to this one: #1019 so this one could probably be closed. The conversation boils down to community images for toolbox are managed separately in the following repository: https://github.com/toolbx-images/images Which are hosted on Quay: So if you want a CentOS image Cheers! |
I expect that toolbox should DTRT out of the box on CentOS Stream and use CentOS Stream containers. I don't want UBI toolboxes on a CentOS system. |
Yeah we should probably close this. I thought we still didn't have CentOS Stream toolboxes based on this issue still being open. |
Is there a way to run centos 7 image via toolbox?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: