Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for bootable container base images #569

Closed
opened 2026-05-27 09:13:42 +00:00 by siosm · 25 comments

Summary

Confirm approval to extend the use of the "Fedora Atomic" name to all bootc/rpm-ostree based systems produced by Fedora.

Confirm approval to extend the use of the "Fedora Atomic" name to the Fedora bootc base images produced by Fedora.

Background

A few years ago, the Council approved re-purposing the "Fedora Atomic" brand to use it for the Fedora Atomic Desktops:

Since then, we started and renewed the bootc initiative and there have been discussion on regrouping all rpm-ostree and bootable container based Fedora deliverables under a single name: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/dedicated-naming-thread-for-the-fedora-bootc-project/179260

The option that stood up was to re-use the "Fedora Atomic" name to regroup all bootc/rpm-ostree deliverable.

There will be some initial confusion as the Fedora Atomic Desktops are not yet fully using bootable containers in Fedora but this is expected to happen in an upcoming release. Once this transition is complete, the Fedora Atomic name will refer solely to bootable container variants of Fedora.

We would keep the "Fedora Atomic Desktops" branding as is.

We would like to clarify that point before we start moving the project to the new forge: https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/tracker/-/work_items/75

Details

Vote on the use the "Fedora Atomic" name for bootable container base images of Fedora.

Summary

Agree to use the "Fedora Atomic" name for bootable container base images of Fedora.

### Summary ~~Confirm approval to extend the use of the "Fedora Atomic" name to all bootc/rpm-ostree based systems produced by Fedora.~~ Confirm approval to extend the use of the "Fedora Atomic" name to the Fedora bootc base images produced by Fedora. ### Background A few years ago, the Council approved re-purposing the "Fedora Atomic" brand to use it for the Fedora Atomic Desktops: - https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/361 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AtomicDesktops Since then, we [started](https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/492) and [renewed](https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/549) the bootc initiative and there have been discussion on regrouping all rpm-ostree and bootable container based Fedora deliverables under a single name: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/dedicated-naming-thread-for-the-fedora-bootc-project/179260 The option that stood up was to re-use the "Fedora Atomic" name to regroup all bootc/rpm-ostree deliverable. There will be some initial confusion as the Fedora Atomic Desktops are not yet fully using bootable containers in Fedora but this is expected to happen in an upcoming release. Once this transition is complete, the Fedora Atomic name will refer solely to bootable container variants of Fedora. We would keep the "Fedora Atomic Desktops" branding as is. We would like to clarify that point before we start moving the project to the new forge: https://gitlab.com/fedora/bootc/tracker/-/work_items/75 ### Details Vote on the use the "Fedora Atomic" name for bootable container base images of Fedora. ### Summary Agree to use the "Fedora Atomic" name for bootable container base images of Fedora.
Author

I've realized a few things: This is not really for all rpm-ostree/bootc images as we want to preserve the Fedora IoT and Fedora CoreOS names.

There is also Fedora Hummingbird (announce, SIG) that we likely also don't want to include here and keep distinct? Fedora Hummingbird did not exist when we initially started this conversation. Do we have a (restrospective?) ticket around the approval for the Hummingbird name to clarify the scope?

So this is only for bringing the Fedora bootc base images under the Fedora Atomic name, alongside the Fedora Atomic Desktops.

I've edited the first comment to reflect that.

I've realized a few things: This is not really for all rpm-ostree/bootc images as we want to preserve the Fedora IoT and Fedora CoreOS names. There is also Fedora Hummingbird ([announce](https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-hummingbird-linux-taking-the-hummingbird-model-to-the-full-os/), [SIG](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hummingbird)) that we likely also don't want to include here and keep distinct? Fedora Hummingbird did not exist when we initially started this conversation. Do we have a (restrospective?) ticket around the approval for the Hummingbird name to clarify the scope? So this is only for bringing the Fedora bootc base images under the Fedora Atomic name, alongside the Fedora Atomic Desktops. I've edited the first comment to reflect that.
siosm changed title from Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for all bootc/rpm-ostree based systems to Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for all bootable container base images 2026-05-27 10:59:01 +00:00
Owner

Afaiu, Fedora Atomic are Fedora spins. They should be based on Fedora content and align with the Fedora policies.

The requirements for Fedora Hummingbird currently are different. It can override Fedora content quite heavily. So I would say Fedora Hummingbird can not be automatically included in the Fedora Atomic umbrella and should be its own thing, at least till there is a separate new conversation initiated for it.

Afaiu, Fedora Atomic are Fedora spins. They should be based on Fedora content and align with the Fedora policies. The requirements for Fedora Hummingbird currently are different. It can override Fedora content quite heavily. So I would say Fedora Hummingbird can not be automatically included in the Fedora Atomic umbrella and should be its own thing, at least till there is a separate new conversation initiated for it.
siosm changed title from Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for all bootable container base images to Use "Fedora Atomic" as name for bootable container base images 2026-05-27 13:56:09 +00:00
Author

CC other bootc initiative members @walters @nimbinatus

CC other bootc initiative members @walters @nimbinatus
Owner

We've been talking about this for a while, so I'm very much +1.

I also agree that we should keep Fedora Hummingbird as a separate space as it will be built differently with different needs, so I'd recommend a separate space and brand for now (I'm not saying that's the future state as I think future states might change as I don't have a way to predict the future). No other notes from me :)

We've been talking about this for a while, so I'm very much +1. I also agree that we should keep Fedora Hummingbird as a separate space as it will be built differently with different needs, so I'd recommend a separate space and brand for now (I'm not saying that's the future state as I think future states might change as I don't have a way to predict the future). No other notes from me :)

SGTM, let's do it.

SGTM, let's do it.
Owner

IIm +1 to this request. I think this can be actioned with a ticket vote from council, nothing here sounds like it needs discussion in a meeting.

@jspaleta @jflory7 @jonatoni @churchyard @t0xic0der @decathorpe I believe this ticket request falls under the 'lazy consensus' model with the amended proposal to exclude Fedora Hummingbird, so if no one disagrees I'd like to propose we 'vote' before the next council meeting on June 17th 2026 to fulfil this request.

Please refer to our Making Decisions policy if you are unsure of how votes are expected and in what circumstances https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions

IIm +1 to this request. I think this can be actioned with a ticket vote from council, nothing here sounds like it needs discussion in a meeting. @jspaleta @jflory7 @jonatoni @churchyard @t0xic0der @decathorpe I believe this ticket request falls under the 'lazy consensus' model with the amended proposal to exclude Fedora Hummingbird, so if no one disagrees I'd like to propose we 'vote' before the next council meeting on June 17th 2026 to fulfil this request. Please refer to our Making Decisions policy if you are unsure of how votes are expected and in what circumstances https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/#decisions
Owner

Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing?

Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing?

Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again?

Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again?

built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing?

There's a Fedora Konflux: https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/
Is there something about that that makes it not public Fedora infra to you? Significant effort has been spent on that and if there's gaps it'd be good to know about and ensure we have trackers for them.

Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again?

I don't think anyone is talking about rebranding Fedora CoreOS, but - in my opinion - it would certainly make sense to explicitly share infrastructure etc here and that is already happening in e.g. Fedora CoreOS using the fedora-bootc (future "atomic") base image as a base etc.

> built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing? There's a Fedora Konflux: https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/ Is there something about that that makes it not public Fedora infra to you? Significant effort has been spent on that and if there's gaps it'd be good to know about and ensure we have trackers for them. > Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again? I don't think anyone is talking about rebranding Fedora CoreOS, but - in my opinion - it would certainly make sense to explicitly share infrastructure etc here and that is already happening in e.g. Fedora CoreOS using the fedora-bootc (future "atomic") base image as a base etc.
Owner

There's a Fedora Konflux: https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/

Did you maybe intend to post a different link there? It's GitLab project with some repos, some of which link to https://konflux.fedoraproject.org/ which doesn't DNS-resolve here.

> There's a Fedora Konflux: https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/ Did you maybe intend to post a different link there? It's GitLab project with some repos, some of which link to <https://konflux.fedoraproject.org/> which doesn't DNS-resolve here.

I think https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config is the most up to date, and it has the link to the new Fedora Konflux cluster which was deployed after https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/KONFLUX-11098

However you're definitely right we should fix the CNAME to point to the new instance; filed infra/tickets#13403

I think https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config is the most up to date, and it has the link to the new Fedora Konflux cluster which was deployed after https://redhat.atlassian.net/browse/KONFLUX-11098 However you're definitely right we should fix the CNAME to point to the new instance; filed https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/13403

https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in...

https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in...

@ngompa wrote in #569 (comment):

https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in...

It's because of how the Konflux UI/UX was designed and implemented. I added a note at https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config#-faq.
It's not the best UX for people that have access to a few tenants, but better for ones that have access to lot of tenants.

Below the links to access the tenants (requires FAS authentication):
https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/bootc-tenant
https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/coreos-tenant

For information, the RBAC rule for fedora-bootc tenant lives at gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config/-@81792b112c/clusters/kflux-fedora-01/tenants/bootc-tenant/rbac.yaml (L93-106)

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569#issuecomment-818787: > https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in... It's because of how the Konflux UI/UX was designed and implemented. I added a note at https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config#-faq. It's not the best UX for people that have access to a few tenants, but better for ones that have access to lot of tenants. Below the links to access the tenants (requires FAS authentication): https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/bootc-tenant https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/coreos-tenant For information, the RBAC rule for fedora-bootc tenant lives at https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config/-/blob/81792b112c92b352f7b561ca8a9ec67e9b4f2387/clusters/kflux-fedora-01/tenants/bootc-tenant/rbac.yaml#L93-106
Author

Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing?

Those images are currently built both with pungi in a koji root task and using Konflux. They will eventually only be built using Fedora's Konflux instance. This has been accepted as a Change request for F44 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/konflux-atomic-change-proposal.

Fedora CoreOS is progressively moving to Fedora's Konflux as well. Accepted change in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Build_FCOS_on_Fedora_Konflux. Progress tracked in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/2125.

Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again?

As I wrote in #569 (comment), we currently want to preserve the distinct Fedora CoreOS & IoT branding, so this is only about the Fedora bootc base images.

Note that this is not a request to change the status of those images. This is still an in progress initiative.

> Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing? Those images are currently built both with pungi in a koji root task and using Konflux. They will eventually only be built using Fedora's Konflux instance. This has been accepted as a Change request for F44 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/konflux-atomic-change-proposal. Fedora CoreOS is progressively moving to Fedora's Konflux as well. Accepted change in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Build_FCOS_on_Fedora_Konflux. Progress tracked in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/2125. > Also, does this mean Fedora CoreOS now falls under Fedora Atomic branding again? As I wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569#issuecomment-760508, we currently want to preserve the distinct Fedora CoreOS & IoT branding, so this is only about the Fedora bootc base images. Note that this is not a request to change the status of those images. This is still an in progress initiative.

@siosm wrote in #569 (comment):

Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing?

Those images are currently built both with pungi in a koji root task and using Konflux. They will eventually only be built using Fedora's Konflux instance. This has been accepted as a Change request for F44 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/konflux-atomic-change-proposal.

FESCo did not approve moving from Pungi+Koji to Konflux. It is only approved as a secondary pipeline.

@siosm wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569#issuecomment-818912: > > Just for completeness - are these bootc images going to be built in public Fedora infra or are they a konflux-only thing? > > Those images are currently built both with pungi in a koji root task and using Konflux. They will eventually only be built using Fedora's Konflux instance. This has been accepted as a Change request for F44 in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/konflux-atomic-change-proposal. > FESCo did not approve moving from Pungi+Koji to Konflux. It is only approved as a secondary pipeline.
Author

Yes, thus the "eventually" in my sentence. This is not done yet and another change request will be made once we are ready to ask for the Konflux pipeline to be made the official Fedora pipeline for those images.

Some of the tickets currently in progress:

Yes, thus the "eventually" in my sentence. This is not done yet and another change request will be made once we are ready to ask for the Konflux pipeline to be made the official Fedora pipeline for those images. Some of the tickets currently in progress: - https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13115 - https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/12731 - https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13341

Yes, but the way you wrote it implied that the Change included that as an expected outcome. I'm clarifying that it is not an expected outcome, and will require a separate approval.

Yes, but the way you wrote it implied that the Change included that as an expected outcome. I'm clarifying that it is not an expected outcome, and will require a separate approval.
Author

FYI, I have a closely related change request in progress (still in draft) to start building the bootable container images for the Atomic Desktops using Konflux: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildAtomicDesktopsWithKonflux.

FYI, I have a closely related change request in progress (still in draft) to start building the bootable container images for the Atomic Desktops using Konflux: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BuildAtomicDesktopsWithKonflux.

@jcapitao wrote in #569 (comment):

@ngompa wrote in #569 (comment):

https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in...

It's because of how the Konflux UI/UX was designed and implemented. I added a note at https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config#-faq. It's not the best UX for people that have access to a few tenants, but better for ones that have access to lot of tenants.

Below the links to access the tenants (requires FAS authentication): https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/bootc-tenant https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/coreos-tenant

Please fix this, because magic URLs aren't okay for public systems. That's not how Koji works, and if Konflux is going to be a thing, it can't be one there either.

@jcapitao wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569#issuecomment-818809: > @ngompa wrote in #569 (comment): > > > https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org looks empty to me when I log in... > > It's because of how the Konflux UI/UX was designed and implemented. I added a note at https://gitlab.com/fedora/infrastructure/konflux/tenants-config#-faq. It's not the best UX for people that have access to a few tenants, but better for ones that have access to lot of tenants. > > Below the links to access the tenants (requires FAS authentication): https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/bootc-tenant https://konflux-ci.fedoraproject.org/ns/coreos-tenant Please fix this, because magic URLs aren't okay for public systems. That's not how Koji works, and if Konflux is going to be a thing, it can't be one there either.

@ngompa wrote in #569 (comment):

Please fix this, because magic URLs aren't okay for public systems. That's not how Koji works, and if Konflux is going to be a thing, it can't be one there either.

I've started a thread on the Konflux ML https://groups.google.com/g/konflux/c/JN3iS4pg-dw/m/nNUo4Q1lAgAJ

@ngompa wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/council/tickets/issues/569#issuecomment-818929: > Please fix this, because magic URLs aren't okay for public systems. That's not how Koji works, and if Konflux is going to be a thing, it can't be one there either. I've started a thread on the Konflux ML https://groups.google.com/g/konflux/c/JN3iS4pg-dw/m/nNUo4Q1lAgAJ
Owner

Thanks for those clarifications. I'm not necessarily opposed to extending the "Atomic" branding to become more of an umbrella term to cover bootc deliverables in addition to rpm-ostree deliverables, but I wonder if it won't create confusion since they're clearly quite different (and also built quite differently). The fact that the how the sausage is made is all publicly visible for the latter (also without having to log in), and the sausage factory for the former is not visible at all unless you log in and know magic links isn't great.

Thanks for those clarifications. I'm not *necessarily* opposed to extending the "Atomic" branding to become more of an umbrella term to cover bootc deliverables in addition to rpm-ostree deliverables, but I wonder if it won't create confusion since they're clearly quite different (and also *built* quite differently). The fact that the how the sausage is made is all publicly visible for the latter (also without having to log in), and the sausage factory for the former is not visible *at all* unless you log in *and* know magic links isn't great.
Owner

This feels like this conversation is veering into technical implementation. Respectfully, that is a conversation better had with FESCo. This request is to approve the use of Fedora Atomic naming for bootc based images.

I find no issue with this proposal, and am still +1.

This feels like this conversation is veering into technical implementation. Respectfully, that is a conversation better had with FESCo. This request is to approve the use of Fedora Atomic naming for bootc based images. I find no issue with this proposal, and am still +1.
Owner

+1 from me

The bootc-based images are currently being prepared on the side with the intent to replace the ostree-based images. They are meant to provide the same content to the users and under the same agreements.

They are not fully ready yet, content and infra-wise, but this is ok. Like Python 3.42 is not fully ready for adoption in the official Fedora repos yet, it is still Python.

The name correctly explains the goal

+1 from me The bootc-based images are currently being prepared on the side with the intent to replace the ostree-based images. They are meant to provide the same content to the users and under the same agreements. They are not fully ready yet, content and infra-wise, but this is ok. Like Python 3.42 is not fully ready for adoption in the official Fedora repos yet, it is still Python. The name correctly explains the goal
Owner

+1

+1
Owner

This request is now APPROVED (+4, 0, 0). This was also discussed in todays council meeting with no objections https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-07-01/council.2026-07-01-14.01.html.

Closing. Thanks all!

This request is now APPROVED (+4, 0, 0). This was also discussed in todays council meeting with no objections https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-07-01/council.2026-07-01-14.01.html. Closing. Thanks all!
jflory7 added this to the Fedora Linux 45 milestone 2026-07-11 03:00:26 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No assignees
9 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
council/tickets#569
No description provided.