FIG request
by touruni touruni
All,
Per initiation procedure outlined here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/GettingSponsored
Will someone be kind enough to sponsor this semi-young lad who has:
- 10 Years of experience in IT
- 1 Year of Python programming
- 3 Year of RHEL Administration
- RT/Nagios/The Grinder/Xen/Kickstart/Plone/Django
I am interested the items listed below :
Python
Script writers and automators
Virtualization
Building and build environments
Ideally i would like to work on all things that utilizes python. I am
looking to develope my python programming skills. Whether it be a program
that needs to written or a script or updating something
that is python.
I am applying from Sacramento, California / PST. I am interested in working
on the team because I have a passion to learn. I want to sharpen my skills
and collaborating with others who have the same
passion.
Best,
Sophon Im
<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/GettingSponsored>
13 years, 8 months
New guy
by Carlos "casep" Sepulveda
Hi!
I'm Carlos from Chile.
I'm a 10 years linux user and currently full time AIX/RedHat sysadmin.
I'm interested in monitoring and/or configuration setups
versioning/control (I've never used git, only cvs and svn, shame on
my!)
I hope could help, soon.
Regards
--
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Percy Bysshe Shelley
http://sites.google.com/site/carlossepulveda
13 years, 8 months
Re: Fwd: PROBLEM: koji01.phx2.fedoraproject.org/koji is CRITICAL
by Dennis Gilmore
Sure that's fine
"Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 07:01, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us> wrote:
>> All the rhel5 builders are disabled until i can rebuild them. they can not be
>> enabled as they can not build rawhide packages.
>
>Ok if I change the test to x86-10 as it is EL6
>
>
>> Dennis
>>
>
>
>--
>Stephen J Smoogen.
>“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
>Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
>"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
>— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
>_______________________________________________
>infrastructure mailing list
>infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
13 years, 8 months
Fwd: PROBLEM: koji01.phx2.fedoraproject.org/koji is CRITICAL
by Stephen John Smoogen
This looks to be some sort of change in koji or the builders is
causing this page. The check is to see if x86-01 appears on the
website
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/hosts
however none of the builders x86-01 -> x86-08 show up currently. The
systems seem to be active and running but not listed in koji at the
moment.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nagios Monitoring User <nagios(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 06:18
Subject: PROBLEM: koji01.phx2.fedoraproject.org/koji is CRITICAL
Service: koji
Host: koji01
Info: HTTP CRITICAL: HTTP/1.1 200 OK - string not found - 14549 bytes
in 0.361 second response time
Source: noc01
Date: Sat Jul 24 12:18:11 UTC 2010
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
13 years, 8 months
Fwd: RECOVERY: log01.phx2.fedoraproject.org/Disk Space / is OK
by Stephen John Smoogen
Ok most of the data was taken up by collectd report on spins. It would
seem collects was seeing every time something /var/tmp/imagecreate was
built and so was logging it which was a lot of files because the names
are unique.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nagios Monitoring User <nagios(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 08:10
Subject: RECOVERY: log01.phx2.fedoraproject.org/Disk Space / is OK
To: smooge+mobile(a)gmail.com
Service: Disk Space /
Host: log01
Info: DISK OK - free space: / 3277 MB (16% inode=98%):
Source: noc01
Date: Sat Jul 24 14:10:41 UTC 2010
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
13 years, 8 months
Upcoming rebuilds: Rebuilding publictestXX and .stg. servers
by Stephen John Smoogen
Ok its time to start rebuilding the various publictest and .stg.
environment to make sure that the systems are 'sound'. I would like to
get this started next week with the publictest systems and then the
week after with the .stg. systems.
The systems that have been in use lately seem to be:
publictest2, publictest3, publictest6 and publictest8
I would like to rebuild the following servers first:
publictest1 (move people from pt2 here)
publictest4 (move people from pt3 here)
publictest5 (move people from pt6 here)
publictest7 (move people from pt8 here)
and have people move to the rebuilt servers. After that I will look at
rebuilding or decommissioning the other servers so that we would have
1-8 running either EL-5 or EL-6 beta. Others could be brought up as
needed, but would remain generally off for security reasons.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
13 years, 8 months
Dedicated hosting
by Vijay Gharge
Hello Matt,
I work here for Vodafone and I am really not sure if they will sponsor any
open source activity.
I am interested in individual contribution without any expectation from my
current employer...
But yes...one thing is sure..I can use existing infrastructure for possible
feature testing etc.
Hope this is ok.. :-)
Regards,
13 years, 8 months
Re: Search Engine on start.fedoraproject.org (fwd)
by Mike McGrath
FYI, this topic came up recently. I sent it to FAB because it was
initially impactful to start.fp.o as a whole (and policies) but we're also
starting to talk about infrastructure policies and I wanted to make sure
everyone here was in the loop.
Start of thread:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2010-July/008750....
Policy in question:
http://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/csi/free-software-policy/en-US/ht...
Specifically "Proprietary Dependence"
-Mike
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:41:29
From: Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com>
To: advisory-board(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: Search Engine on start.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Thoughts, comments?
> >
> > -Mike "Sorry but the free road is a hard one sometimes" McGrath
>
>
> Mike and I had a nice little discussion on irc about all this and I
> want to sum up my thoughts for everybody about what our policy should
> really be in terms of web services.
>
> First and foremost i think we all need to come into door with an
> understanding that all external webservices break traditional
> assumptions about how traditional open source licensing(prior to
> AGPL-like constructions) provide freedoms to users. Such licensing has
> primarily relied on the act of distribution as a key provision to
> protecting particular freedoms that we want to retain as users and
> developers. Web services break the assumptions that usage by a new
> entity requires distribution to that entity. So a lot of our hard
> fought consensus understanding on how all this open licensing stuff
> works gets thrown under the bus with that underlying assumption.
>
> A web service could be completely built with openly licensed code
> under traditional open licensing (BSD) and we'd never be required to
> be given access to that codebase. And even for services that offer
> access to a codebase (AGPL), we have no practical ability to verify
> that the externally running service does indeed match the codebase we
> have access to making it difficult to ensure compliance to the
> licensing.
>
> So with that in mind. I'm going to ask everyone to throw away the
> language in the policy that Mike pointed to and ask people to answer a
> more fundamental question. What freedoms do we need to
> protect/maintain when we choose to rely on _any_ externally built and
> maintained web service.
>
> I'll go ahead and give you how I've answered that question in my
> conversation with Mike, but I'm more than happy to have others
> disagree with me and express an alternative opinion.
>
> What I think we need to protect is API compliance and to ensure that
> we can reimplement a service on our own as a replacement if the
> external service goes up in smoke for some reason. Which means we need
> services with documented stable APIs and we need to identify an
> existing open codebase that we can rebuild into a replacement service
> that conforms to the APIs we make use of in any 3rd party service
> provider we choose to rely on.. but not necessarily the same codebase
> that the 3rd party service provider is running.
>
> Anything more restrictive than that as a policy and I think we pretty
> much prevent ourselves from depending on any external service without
> bending the policy way way out of shape to meet the practical
> realities of relying on any external service provider...cough Red Hat
> bugzilla...cough.
>
> And I don't mean that we ensure that we can build an equivalent
> service in-house either. There's a lot about the day-to-day utility of
> a service, even with open codebase, that can't be replicated without a
> signficant infrastructure investment that we simply aren't going to be
> able to make all the time. We _could_ build our on in-house search
> engine, but we aren't going to be investing in the infrastructure to
> index the web very effectively so our in-house service would have
> drastically reduced utility. But we could build it if we felt we had
> to.
>
> It really comes down to API restraint on our part. We restrict
> ourselves to the use of services with published APIs, and we ensure
> there is an open codebase out in the wild that conforms to those APIs
> and we squirrel that codebase away as a hedge against the external
> service provider going dark or closing down its public APIs.
>
I liked one of the examples we talked about right at the end of that
conversation with rsync.net. We considered rsync.net as a backup
solution. This was something that was pretty clearly easy for us to
duplicate if we wanted to but for cost reasons or whatever we could have
just paid rsync.net for the storage.
Now, the api for rsync is pretty well documented, there are several
implementations. But we had no promises that rsync.net was even running a
FOSS version of rsync, nor what OS they may have been running, etc. By
that definition our current policy would have disallowed us from using
rsync.net but I don't think it should have. So the policy will have to be
altered a bit in that respect.
At the same time, Google's search API is pretty well open. It just uses
an http GET url and you get your results. However, it does seem google's
actual search is closed. So we certainly couldn't provide our own google
if we wanted (ignoring content licensing and size for now).
So now the trick is to try to find wording that describes what Jef said
above. We don't want to be locked into a vendor and we do want to be able
to duplicate an external service on our own if the service goes away.
I'd also like wording that states that "duplicating it ourselves" does not
mean "writing our own rsync". I think Jeff's comment about API restraint
is going to go in the policy as a "must" requirement. But I think there's
some should's there about actual software availability. If we actually do
start relying on some external service and it goes away and our own
recourse is to build our own from scratch, that's a recipe for disaster.
But if our recourse is to install some software and can duplicate (or near
duplicate) the functionality I think that's more feasible and realistic.
I'll continue to mull over this a bit. We want a simple policy that's
easy to understand but still protects our values. Please do comment if
you have thoughts on this.
-Mike
13 years, 8 months