Systemd and config: align rhel custom files with upstream

[esposem]

Proposed Commit Message

So far RHEL had its own custom .service and cloud.cfg files,
that diverged from upstream. We always replaced the generated files
with the ones we had.

This caused only confusion and made it harder to rebase and backport
patches targeting these files.
Hopefully this brings some alignment with upstream.
At the same time, we are going to delete our custom downstream-only files
and use the ones generated by .tmpl.

The mapping is
config/cloud.cfg.tmpl -> rhel/cloud.cfg
systemd/* -> rhel/systemd/*

Such rhel-specific files are open and available in the Centos repo:
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/cloud-init

Signed-off-by: Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@redhat.com>

RHBZ 2082071

Checklist:

• My code follows the process laid out in the documentation
• I have updated or added any unit tests accordingly
• I have updated or added any documentation accordingly

[esposem]

@TheRealFalcon @raharper Hi!
I am (finally) trying to align rhel config and systemd files with cloud-init.
This is still work in progress, as we need to make sure that everything works as it should on our side too, but wanted to have some first impression and feedbacks from you too.
Thank you in advance

[esposem]

Rhel-specific files are here: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/cloud-init/-/tree/c9s/rhel

[TheRealFalcon]

@esposem , thanks for this! It will be good to bring things closer to upstream.

Comparing yours to the rhel-specific files you linked, I noticed a few differences:

• cloud-init-local.service: Yours missing line ExecStart=/bin/touch /run/cloud-init/network-config-ready.
• cloud-init.service: Yours includes DefaultDependencies=no
• cloud.cfg: A number of modules are re-ordered (or added from upstream)

Are all of these intentional?

Additionally, have you been able to build and test your changes?

[esposem]

@TheRealFalcon you are right, I did not notice these differences in cloud-init-local.service and cloud-init.service.
Regarding cloud.cfg, does order matter? I don't think so, right?
In any case, our order is probably pretty much outdated, so keeping yours should be fine.

Regarding testing yes, we have tested the changes (without the above you suggested), and all seems to work fine 🎉

[esposem]

Oh sorry I understand what you mean with cloud.cfg. If you mean some modules are in the wrong section cloud_final_modules vs cloud_config_modules, it's an error from our side that actually caused also bugs. That's also why I am trying to align everything with upstream, because the static rhel/ files were not updated and were always replacing the upstream files.

For example, we have an issue that requires the puppet module to be moved in cloud_final_modules, but upstream the module is already placed there! It's just us that never updated rhel/ to reflect it, therefore your fix got lost downstream.

Anyways I am pushing again, I think some modules are supported by rhel (at least, by looking at distros = [... "rhel" ] in their cc_module.py file). I don't think it will hurt us having additional modules (which were supposed to be there anyways following the various releases and rebases).

[esposem]

* `cloud-init-local.service`: Yours missing line `ExecStart=/bin/touch /run/cloud-init/network-config-ready`.

Actually, this was dropped in #1315
Therefore I think we should drop it too.
I was wrong. This PR is too new, not backported into RHEL yet. Centos is on release 22.1, therefore this PR has not landed in yet. I will not modify the diff, so this line will stay as default in Centos for all distros, until we backport your PR or rebase.

I will test the whole build again, and see if everything works as expected. But I don't see why it shouldn't.

[TheRealFalcon]

Once the build passes, let me know and I'll approve the PR.

[blackboxsw]

Thank you @esposem for pushing this content upstream. changeset looks pretty good, I am just trying to wrap my head around the intent behind a couple of changes. Please see questions inline.

[blackboxsw]

LGTM. Thank you @esposem for pushing these changes upstream.

[otubo]

Just reviewed the PR and LGTM too. Thanks for taking that, @esposem. Huge benefit for everyone 👍

[esposem]

@TheRealFalcon @blackboxsw downstream tests passed, feel free to merge this PR 🎉