Re: [PATCH-for-5.2? 1/1] Acceptance tests: bump Fedora to 32

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

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 <crosa@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?
> 
> 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.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|