I'm not sure if we need to have a ton of new repos, we could just opportunanistically snag swap the
I'm not sure if we need to have a ton of new repos, we could just opportunanistically snag swap the common ones like gnome/kde, as those come online.
IIt'd be simple to switch the base image and remove a
dnf groupinstall once upstream Fedora produces them
Jhow's the tool song go? save us from our wanton slumber? 
Zi was wondering when we would get to doing this. Very interesting. what does
groupinstall do? I dont think ive ever seen that
Nit's a DNF command. There are groups of packages you can install and allows you to install all the ones you need. An example would be like the Gnome DE or KDE DE.
Aif you do that you will get an invalid selinux policy and invalid permissions on your directory tree
Aand it will not boot
II haven't encountered that with bootc, but that might be relevant to rpm-ostree -> bootc migration
Athe reason you ahvent is because youre using an image that has the DE in the commit
Aso it has correct SELinux and correct directory permissions
Aif you make the base commit smaller, such as using an image without a DE it doesn quite work
Athe guys here had this problem with cosmic too
Athey needed to use a workaround for selinux
II don't think that's the case,
dnf list installed | grep -i gnome has no output within the AlmaLinux bootc imageAand does it boot?
II believe so, but I can confirm that rq
Awhats the link to almalinux
IThat's the base image that I'm using, and that image does not contain a DE
Acan you link me?
R
Afoudn it
Adidnt lol
Aok went through it, its essentially a variant of the fedora-bootc
IConfirmed, it does boot
Awhere is the policy for gnome?
Aselinux-policy-targeted?
IExactly, the AlmaLinux image uses the Fedora bootc config as a git submoduel
Acould be that, so it was only an issue with cosmic
AView selinux-policy-targeted-40.24-1.fc40 in Fedora 40. selinux-policy-targeted: SELinux targeted policy
Aso its included in the base commit
IWould a ublue EL10 image be CentOS Stream based?
IWhat you have in https://github.com/ublue-os/main-bootc/tree/initial-bootc-desktop-builds is exactly what I had in mind
GitHub
OCI base images of Fedora bootc with batteries included - GitHub - ublue-os/main-bootc at initial-bootc-desktop-builds
RYeah, it's not as bad as I expected. rpm-ostree doesn't support those meta groups, so I thought we'd have the same issue here.
JI would think so, just get it directly from there is what I'm thinking, and then people could swap out to alma/rocky/whatever and we don't have to choose the right or "wrong" one.
R@j0rge Can I takeover the main-bootc repo? It's currently re-pushing the base fedora-bootc image, but I'd like to use it to start building bootc desktops 
J100% don't even PR just go go go. 
RCould I have admin? I'd like to change a few repo settings
Jlike if we crib off of one of your images in order to get the rest of the stuff in place then that sounds smart to me.
Jcheck your inbox.
RThanks!
NWoooooo
BGOOO
RAnyone happen to be familiar with this error in systemd-remount-fs?
Wondering if it has anything to do with composefs in the bootc images
Wondering if it has anything to do with composefs in the bootc images
RIf I ignore that error, and manually create the gdm group, I get a desktop!
Well, the login screen. The desktop isn't loading
Well, the login screen. The desktop isn't loading
IOk, so 5 years of ublue lts? Since ublue distributes end-user images, I don't think the ability to switch to a different EL clone base will matter. The main distinction is between EL-next and EL
Isystemd works with bootc, feel free to
systemctl enable gdmIThoughts on the relationship between HeliumOS and ublue lts?
RIt's enabled by default. The primary issue is it fails to start due to gdm group not being present for some reason
IStrange. Do you have your changes pushed to your branch?
RAll changes are in the
main branch of the main-bootc repoIHave you tried the "Fedora Workstation" group instead of gnome-desktop?
