Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1031525
inconsistent locations of upgrade.img
Last modified: 2014-01-15 14:47:03 EST
Current image locations:
Wouldn't be better to place them under a different location?
images-$arch for example.
upgrade.img isn't product.img, it is used by redhat-update so it's up to Will.
But really, at this point we shouldn't be moving locations unless something is broken.
(In reply to Brian C. Lane from comment #1)
> But really, at this point we shouldn't be moving locations unless something
> is broken.
That's why I proposed this for RC and we shouldn't touch it before Beta.
Yeah, the inconsistent layout is goofy and I'd like to make every arch use the same locations for vmlinuz/initrd.img/upgrade.img.
The .treeinfo file is supposed to be the canonical reference for the locations of these images, so we should be able to change the paths without breaking anything.. so long as it uses .treeinfo, anyway.
There used to be other things that use those paths (the forth stuff in the ppc hybrid images had it hardcoded IIRC), but I'm not aware of others right now.
If you want to work toward having kernel/initrd/upgrade.img in a consistent location for all arches, I'd definitely support that. So come up with a plan of action and let's give it a shot!
sorry, wrong $SUBJ
I really meant upgrade images.
Time to decide if we want to do this for 7.0 GA, postpone, or close. Given the pm_score and current date, I am voting for closing this out entirely.
Well. I'd *like* to have consistent layout, but I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Here's the balance, as I see it:
* Consistency / predictability between arches
* Simpler lorax templates
* More migration effort for people not using .treeinfo
* Some naming quirks might actually have technical reasons behind them, which
we would need to fix (e.g. why is the kernel named "kernel.img" on s390x?)
If do we decide it's worth the effort, I'd suggest something like:
The latter seems cleaner to me. But the question remains: is it worth the effort?
I think we should leave things as-is for RHEL7 and first do this in Fedora.
Agreed, setting devel_ack- per comment #7.
Development Management has reviewed and declined this request.
You may appeal this decision by reopening this request.