Bug 2023855

After evaluating this issue, there are no plans to address it further or fix it in an upcoming release.  Therefore, it is being closed.  If plans change such that this issue will be fixed in an upcoming release, then the bug can be reopened.

@

(please, ignore my previous comment)

This apparently slipped under our radar, sorry about that.

@mkolman Is this still needed?

We currently put

```
[Anaconda]
# List of enabled Anaconda DBus modules
kickstart_modules = ...
```

in /etc/anaconda/conf.d/90-osbuild.conf

If am I reading Vendy's PR correctly, should we now use `activatable_modules` in the same config file instead? I presume this affects only Fedora and RHEL 9.

cc @sdevlieg

BTW, this change will be needed for upstream/Fedora very soon, since kickstart_modules is getting removed: https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4764

Hello Ondřej! The removal https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4764 is tentatively aimed at RHEL 10, so yes, it would be good to address :) It won't be backported to RHEL 9.

I'd say you have two options:

1) Continue listing explicitly what you want started, just in activatable_modules.
2) Flip the logic and list what you want to prevent running in forbidden_modules. That's the approach chosen for most profiles that we currently have in the repo.

I see the osbuild code for the first time, so I'm not sure if I get it completely. Perhaps the first option is closer to what you already have, and needs less changes.

----

Apart from the original issue, we are adding a new Runtime module in Rawhide, so the lists need extending anyway. https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/4730

The first would be the easiest approach for us. From what Fedora version (and RHEL version) onwards can `activatable_modules` be used instead of `kickstart_modules`? If I read this correctly then that'd be Fedora 37 and RHEL 9?

tl;dr: New option supported and old deprecated since Fedora 35, RHEL-9 has the same since 9.0, RHEL-8 has only the old one.

----

My unsolicited 2c: The yes/no availability for the to-be-removed option appears to be currently identical to the RHEL/Fedora distinction. So, you could leave all currently supported RHELs use `kickstart_modules`, and switch to `activatable_modules` for all Fedoras. (Assuming you don't support EOL Fedoras...) However, since an overlap between RHEL-8 and RHEL-10 support seems guaranteed, eventually, you will need some mechanism based on distro version anyway. With that mind, you could switch to the new option only for Rawhide and f39+ for now, and add RHEL-10 when the time comes.

Please keep in mind also that Rawhide/39 is getting a new mandatory module, which is not available on earlier versions, so a version-based list might help there too...

----

Availability details with links and hashes to verify:

The change adding `activatable_modules` and deprecating `kickstart_modules` was merged for Fedora 35, available since anaconda-35.20-1.

https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/3464
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/3464/commits/e6263e163802c7a226a95d3227f4a6b5e7173b01
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/releases/tag/anaconda-35.20-1

For RHEL-9, this appeared in 9.0 with anaconda-34.25.0.21-1. This theoretically means you can switch to `activatable_modules` there too. However, `kickstart_modules` is only deprecated in RHEL-9, and will stay so to satisfy the compatibility policy. That means `kickstart_modules` will keep working there.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957063
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/3716
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/pull/3716/commits/960e4f3a8b5e8c8aec382be5f0d1f1473a59abc4
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/releases/tag/anaconda-34.25.0.21-1
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/5154

In RHEL-8 there is only the old option.
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/rhel-8/data/anaconda.conf

Some 2/3 of a quarter later, I would like to know how to proceed.

The PR to add this functionality to osbuild (a prerequisite for adding it to osbuild-composer) has been waiting for review: https://github.com/osbuild/osbuild/pull/1320 I'll ping the relevant people if they can take another look.

Thank you!

This will still need to be moved up into osbuild-composer and the image definitions, `osbuild` got released with this feature available today. I'll get to the next parts.

Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.

This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.