-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
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
Bootstrap cluster with ignition #843
Comments
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues and PRs. This bot triages issues and PRs according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
Fedora CoreOS is still pending for ppc64le, will explore this task once builds are available for the testing. |
/assign @Prajyot-Parab @mkumatag can you please add the reference links/urls for the Fedora CoreOS (ppc64le) builds. |
@Prajyot-Parab https://fedoraproject.org/coreos/download/?stream=stable&arch=ppc64le#download_section you can download ppc64le stable images from here. |
@Prajyot-Parab can you document the initial investigation you have done and move this work item to next release. |
/milestone Next |
@mkumatag as per my initial understanding we will need to build the flatcar stable image for powervs, once we have that we can try the already tested workflow using it. Not sure how this is going to work with Fedora CoreOS-
@mkumatag need your guidance on this one. |
Flatcar image is not available for the power, let's explore the experiment with the fedoracore image directly and see what kind of errors we are hitting while running the flow?! |
Summary -
This will possibly need more exploration and upstream CAPI contributions to add support for spec 3.x.x ignition versions. |
@Karthik-K-N feel free to add more info, if i missed anything. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/remove-lifecycle stale |
WIP PR is submitted #1687, Need to complete it. |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
Currently CAPIBM controllers supports booting machine with ignition with 3.x version which is extensively used in Openshift clusters where the ignition is generated by installer and which has version 3.x. As a standalone CAPIBM cluster we are yet to support ignition because the CAPI has support for generating ignition with only 2.3 version. Possible goals?
Challenges
Alternatives
Upstream CAPI issues where its currently in planning state to support ignition 3.x version. |
@Karthik-K-N can we list down the pro and cons for both the approaches mentioned and debate from there? |
/kind feature
/area provider/ibmcloud
Describe the solution you'd like
https://cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io/tasks/experimental-features/ignition.html
Anything else you would like to add:
[Miscellaneous information that will assist in solving the issue.]
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: