Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2013-12-12 17:00 - 18:00 UTC)
by James Antill
======================
#fedora-meeting-1: fpc
======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 17:01:55 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-12/fpc.2013-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* Roll Call (abadger1999, 17:02:06)
* SCLs (abadger1999, 17:05:13)
* #358 autotools guidelines (abadger1999, 17:07:17)
* #371 Packages approved without satisfied dependencies
(abadger1999, 17:08:19)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/371 (abadger1999,
17:08:23)
* Blocking a package review until all dependencies of hte package are
satisfied rejected (+1:1, 0:0, -1:5) (abadger1999, 17:13:06)
* Packages should not be built unless all of their Dependencies are
satisfied Passed: (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:19:42)
* Bundling exception for slic3r (abadger1999, 17:19:54)
* Temporary exception for slic3r to bundle admesh through F20. Will
revisit if necessary for F21. Passed (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)
(abadger1999, 17:26:15)
* 374 Ada guidelines changes for Comfignat and runpaths (abadger1999,
17:27:14)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/374 (abadger1999,
17:27:19)
* Add information about Comfignat build tool to the Ada Guidelines
Passed (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:44:12)
* Add explanation of the GNAT_add_rpath macro to the Ada guidelines
did not pass. Feedback given in ticket (+1:0, 0:4, -1:0)
(abadger1999, 17:48:56)
* Open Floor (abadger1999, 17:49:30)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/303 (abadger1999,
17:52:28)
* Package EOL (abadger1999, 17:53:21)
* ACTION: RemiFedora to write up something about Package retiring and
freezes for next meeting (abadger1999, 17:59:31)
Meeting ended at 18:01:18 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* RemiFedora to write up something about Package retiring and freezes
for next meeting
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* RemiFedora
* RemiFedora to write up something about Package retiring and freezes
for next meeting
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* abadger1999 (96)
* geppetto (29)
* limburgher (27)
* RemiFedora (22)
* tibbs|w (12)
* SmootherFrOgZ (11)
* Rathann (9)
* zodbot (8)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
10 years, 3 months
Minutes from today's (12/11/2013) cloud WG meeting
by Sam Kottler
Thanks everyone who was able to make it to the meeting today! For those who weren't able to make it, here are few important links:
Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-11/fedora-meeti...
Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-11/fedora-meeti...
Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-11/fedora-meeti...
Log (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-11/fedora-meeti...
Here's a summary of the meeting (link to the HTML and text versions above):
==========================================
#fedora-meeting-1: cloud WG weekly meeting
==========================================
Meeting started by samkottler at 17:01:14 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-11/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* rollcall (samkottler, 17:02:05)
* PRD (samkottler, 17:06:33)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas (samkottler,
17:09:01)
* ACTION: samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop
virtualization (samkottler, 17:24:35)
* open floor (samkottler, 17:41:33)
Meeting ended at 17:43:02 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop virtualization
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* samkottler
* samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop
virtualization
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* samkottler (41)
* mattdm (40)
* jzb (29)
* frankieonuonga (19)
* sgallagh (5)
* rbergeron (5)
* zodbot (4)
* geppetto (2)
* number80 (0)
17:01:14 <samkottler> #startmeeting cloud WG weekly meeting
17:01:14 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 11 17:01:14 2013 UTC. The chair is samkottler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:14 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:43 <samkottler> #chair mattdm rbergeron number80 jzb
17:01:43 <zodbot> Current chairs: jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron samkottler
17:02:05 <samkottler> #topic rollcall
17:02:20 * samkottler is here :-)
17:02:32 * jzb is here
17:02:49 * geppetto is here
17:03:13 <samkottler> #chair geppetto
17:03:13 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto jzb mattdm number80 rbergeron samkottler
17:04:17 <samkottler> looks like we don't have quorum this week?
17:04:44 <mattdm> Okay, so maybe just talk about PRD and not vote on anything?
17:04:58 <jzb> samkottler: how many do we need for quorum?
17:05:08 <samkottler> jzb: 5
17:05:08 <jzb> I could vote twice...
17:05:43 * rbergeron is here and is also trying to do something with someone in sweden simultaneously so i may be distractomundo
17:05:43 <jzb> mattdm: +1
17:06:02 <rbergeron> but if you scream i'll say I'M HERE I'M HERE , no free time for u today!
17:06:05 <geppetto> rbergeron: That probably sounds more awesome than it is :)
17:06:33 <samkottler> #topic PRD
17:06:40 <samkottler> sooo the PRD...
17:06:44 <mattdm> I started one PRD related thread on the mailing list, about use cases...
17:06:49 <mattdm> that seemed productive. :)
17:07:30 <mattdm> I think maybe that's the next approach -- to take some of the sections and talk about them in chunks like that on the list.
17:07:40 <samkottler> I think we should decide if we want specific use cases for each private & public cloud
17:07:40 <mattdm> since we can't get everyone together on irc very easily
17:07:47 <samkottler> I'm leaning pretty heavily toward "no"
17:08:01 <mattdm> samkottler right that was the specific thing :)
17:08:22 <jzb> mattdm: I tried that with the section I worked on...
17:08:28 <jzb> got a little feedback.
17:08:39 <jzb> still wondering what "major themes" should be, though.
17:09:00 <samkottler> the server WG put this together
17:09:01 <samkottler> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
17:09:05 <mattdm> My thought there is that -- with the *possible* exception of market-dominating EC2 -- the actual cloud tech isn't actually the use case itself.
17:09:12 <samkottler> and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Use_Cases#Questions_.2F_Discussion_...
17:10:45 <samkottler> mattdm: yeah exactly
17:10:50 <mattdm> rbergeron -- hey what does major themese mean?
17:11:17 <samkottler> the use cases are 'what are the different reasons people care about fedora in the cloud space'
17:11:24 <samkottler> and who are the people
17:11:28 <mattdm> samkottler So I'm going to replace that section with something like what I posted to the list.
17:11:35 <samkottler> mattdm: +1
17:11:48 <mattdm> and we can work on refining it from there.
17:12:22 <mattdm> mrunge had a bunch of other ones....
17:12:25 <rbergeron> mattdm: think of it as groupings of major ... stories or features
17:12:28 <rbergeron> if that makes sense?
17:12:34 <rbergeron> feel free to ... do ... whatever
17:12:45 <mattdm> rbergeron ah, okay, yeah, that definitely makes sense.
17:13:58 <jzb> rbergeron: gotcha. OK
17:14:02 <mattdm> mrunge's use cases make me go back to an earlier thing I talked about -- cloud image as a cloud guest vs. other fedora products running in the cloud
17:14:47 <mattdm> for example, an old school mail server seems like it probably really fits best in the server wg even if it happens to be hosted in a cloud environment.
17:15:01 <samkottler> agreed
17:15:19 <mattdm> a mail server as part of some larger cloud application (the part that sends out notiications or subscriptions or something) might fit in
17:15:24 <samkottler> and when we talked with sgallagh there was rough agreement that we'd be responsible for the cloud specific stuff and they'd control the rest
17:15:37 <mattdm> I'll respond on the list with these thoughts.
17:15:46 <jzb> mattdm: +1
17:16:03 <jzb> mattdm: I don't really see many people running just a mail server in the cloud as a stand-alone
17:16:30 <mattdm> jzb especially since IP space for all public clouds is a spam blackhole.
17:16:33 <jzb> (though, a Fedora instance that can be fired up as a plug and play mail server might be a nice thing to have these days with the concerns about the NSA/Google, etc."
17:16:49 <jzb> (setting up a mail server is still way more difficult than it should be)
17:16:54 <jzb> mattdm: indeed.
17:17:05 <sgallagh> jzb: For the record, that's something we're exploring as a "role" for the Fedora Server
17:17:13 <jzb> sgallagh: explore faster! :-)
17:17:16 <mattdm> the cloud desktop use case is similar -- I think it's interesting, but also very, very different from the rest of our focus.
17:17:27 <jzb> sgallagh: it's one of my holiday projects
17:17:36 <sgallagh> jzb: Please collaborate with us, then!
17:17:52 <sgallagh> We're planning to focus on two or three roles at first.
17:17:58 <mattdm> I talked to someone at LISA who runs infrastructure for a medium/large law firm and they use fedora on the desktop in exactly this way
17:18:03 <jzb> sgallagh: I'll see what I can do.
17:18:07 <sgallagh> If we have someone willing to get their hands dirty for a mail server, that would go a long way
17:19:04 * sgallagh returns to lurking
17:19:54 <mattdm> But I think the hosted desktop use case is more something for the desktop WG -- or possibly a different SIG of its own
17:20:39 <frankieonuonga> hi folks...sorry i am late
17:21:10 <samkottler> mattdm: we should probably start a convo with the desktop WG about how to handle that
17:21:10 <jzb> mattdm: VDI gets into a lot of areas that it would make sense to have its own SIG, I think.
17:21:28 * mattdm nods
17:21:38 * samkottler agrees with jzb
17:22:01 <frankieonuonga> can someone please bring me up to speed
17:22:23 <mattdm> frankieonuonga we're talking about the PRD
17:22:37 <mattdm> right now, use cases -- just referring to the message I posted about that on the mailing list
17:23:01 <frankieonuonga> mattdm: thank you
17:24:03 <mattdm> Is there another area we should start a mailing list thread about?
17:24:35 <samkottler> #action samkottler to start thread to desktop WG about desktop virtualization
17:24:52 <jzb> mattdm: who's on the detailed requirements section?
17:25:07 <jzb> or are we holding that for use cases?
17:25:14 <mattdm> i think we need to get the use cases nailed down
17:25:17 <jzb> K
17:26:39 <mattdm> and crickets :)
17:27:07 <samkottler> do we want to go over the product branding doc again?
17:27:17 <frankieonuonga> just a sec before we go there
17:27:49 <frankieonuonga> i posted something on that doc and I think it is not that good..but i need to know if it is in the right dirction
17:28:10 <frankieonuonga> can someone please just have a quick look at apache cloudstack section
17:28:39 * mattdm looks
17:28:48 <samkottler> I think we'll ultimately end up removing those individual sections
17:29:23 <frankieonuonga> i agree with samkottler because that section is all IAAS. that should all be the same.
17:29:23 <mattdm> I don't think it hurts to have a "target environments" section, just not under use cases
17:29:35 <frankieonuonga> independent of the interfacing software
17:30:39 <mattdm> does anyone feel inspired to start filling out the second half of the document?
17:31:12 <samkottler> I can take the Logging and Configuration management sections
17:31:29 <mattdm> also the release cycle / updates things we talked about previously should go in here somewhere.
17:31:51 <frankieonuonga> release cycles is something i can work on
17:32:01 <mattdm> cool thanks
17:32:01 <frankieonuonga> considering i volunteered to help dgilmore with that
17:32:06 <mattdm> yeah :)
17:32:19 <jzb> mattdm: I can take support requirements
17:32:48 <samkottler> some of these are a little meta (i.e. releases) and others feel more technical
17:32:53 <samkottler> should we split them into two sections?
17:33:02 <mattdm> samkottler yes good suggestion.
17:33:06 <jzb> for "release criteria" are we adopting standard Fedora release criteria?
17:33:18 <jzb> is there anything really original we need to consider there?
17:33:41 <mattdm> jzb I think that section should be general and point to something about how we will define/enhance/implement updated cloud criteria
17:33:54 <mattdm> we don't want the actual release criteria in this document
17:34:38 <jzb> K
17:36:35 <samkottler> okay seems like there are people who are going to be working on the majority of the sections
17:36:48 <samkottler> I'll have a bunch of time over the weekend to work on it
17:37:19 <mattdm> awesome. I think "generally jump in and work on anything" applies. Even adding a sentence to some blank section helps.
17:38:10 <frankieonuonga> isnt the deadline 15th
17:38:26 <mattdm> yeah we are not going to make that deadline :)
17:38:32 <frankieonuonga> or when are we suppose to be done..cause if we do not meet his we need to get guys to hack away on this
17:38:38 <samkottler> frankieonuonga: the deadline is one that we set for ourselves
17:38:50 <mattdm> We are supposed to be done in january. But it seemed like it would be good to have a draft by next week.
17:38:53 <frankieonuonga> oh yeah...that is the one i suggested
17:38:55 <frankieonuonga> ha ha
17:38:57 <mattdm> because of the holidays
17:38:57 <frankieonuonga> how can i forget
17:39:03 <mattdm> It was not a bad plan :)
17:39:06 <frankieonuonga> thank you guys
17:39:22 <frankieonuonga> yeah i recall now mattdm and sam
17:39:28 <frankieonuonga> thank you for implementing this
17:39:43 <samkottler> I don't have anything else to bring up today unless folks want to go over the production branding
17:39:46 <samkottler> product**
17:40:09 <jzb> samkottler: you're referring to the ticket responding to Mo's query?
17:40:15 <samkottler> jzb: yep
17:40:18 <frankieonuonga> i would like to go through that and hear what guys have to say
17:40:25 <jzb> samkottler: er, that was due last week
17:40:34 <samkottler> ah right
17:40:35 <jzb> samkottler: I took the feedback we had and sent it on last week
17:40:36 * samkottler remembers now
17:40:42 <samkottler> jzb+++++
17:41:08 <jzb> I haven't gotten an ACK yet, but I'm assuming it's received...
17:41:33 <samkottler> #topic open floor
17:41:42 <samkottler> anyone got anything else to bring up before we call it quits for the day?
17:42:47 <jzb> nope
17:42:50 * samkottler takes that as a no
17:43:02 <samkottler> #endmeeting
10 years, 3 months
Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-12-11)
by Matthew Miller
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-12-11)
===================================
Meeting started by mattdm at 18:00:46 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-12-11/fesco.2013-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (mattdm, 18:00:59)
* #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default (mattdm, 18:04:33)
* AGREED: We add -Werror=format-security by default. (A -1 indicates
that we will add -Wformat-security instead) (+7,-2) (mattdm,
18:17:29)
* #1201 Enabling third party repositories (mattdm, 18:18:02)
* AGREED: Proposal: Copr repos may be searched for applications to
install as long as the user is explicitly asked to enable the copr
before installing packages from them (See
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201#comment:19 for details)
(+6,-,0) (mattdm, 18:36:59)
* signing and unicorns for all (mattdm, 18:37:05)
* AGREED: FESCo is okay with pointing to free software repositories
approved by Fedora Legal in the same way as COPR repos (+8/-0/1)
(mattdm, 19:13:53)
* AGREED: For non-free sofware repositories, FESCo is not changing
exisiting policy. If you think the policy should change, talk to the
board. (+9,-0,0) (mattdm, 19:19:06)
* AGREED: Revised 1a (with proposal and t8m's feedback): FESCo is okay
with pointing to free software repositories in the same way as COPR
repos if they are approved by FESCo and Fedora Legal. They are not
limited in the criteria that they can choose to apply. (+7,-0,1)
(mattdm, 19:44:49)
* further discussion to ticket and lists if necessary (mattdm,
19:45:55)
* #1211 F21 System Wide Change: Headless Java (mattdm, 19:46:27)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/HeadlessJava (mattdm,
19:46:47)
* AGREED: Headless Java system wide change is approved. Please update
the change page to be consistent with comment#2 in the ticket and
get updated packaging guidelines to FPC soon. (+8,0,0) (mattdm,
19:53:18)
* Next week's chair (mattdm, 19:53:41)
* abadger1999 to chair next week. (mattdm, 19:55:27)
* we're going to skip the next two meetings after next week due to the
holidays (mattdm, 19:55:44)
* Open Floor (mattdm, 19:56:08)
* t8m to chair january 8th meetiing (mattdm, 19:59:45)
Meeting ended at 20:01:35 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mattdm (145)
* abadger1999 (75)
* jwb (62)
* sgallagh (56)
* mitr (43)
* notting (40)
* pjones (33)
* t8m (31)
* nirik (25)
* mmaslano (17)
* zodbot (15)
* halfie (6)
* jreznik (2)
* pknirsch (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
--
Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project Architect -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
10 years, 3 months
2013-12-09 - Fedora QA Meeting - recap
by Adam Williamson
As always, minutes and IRC transcript available on the wiki at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131209
Next meeting is scheduled for 2013-12-16 at 1600 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
If you have topics you think we should bring up at the meeting, please
add them to the Wiki page at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20131216. Thanks!
TOPIC: Previous meeting follow-up
=======================================================================
* adamw to draft a new test case and matrix row for validating
cloud image checksums - adamw still failed to get around to
this, will try once more for next week
TOPIC: Fedora 20 Final status
=======================================================================
* Test coverage was looking decent, just a couple of tests
remain that hadn't been run since Beta
* Two accepted blockers were outstanding, and several proposed
* Next compose date depends to some extent on anaconda work
* Go/No-Go again on Thursday
TOPIC: Open floor
=======================================================================
* tflink and roshi both looking for feedback on ideas: tflink's
proposal for a taskotron task description format[1] and
roshi's proposal for validation test case 'roadmaps' for
running multiple tests together[2]
Action items
=======================================================================
* adamw to draft a new test case and matrix row for validating
cloud image checksums
1. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/2013-December/000556.html
2. http://roshi.fedorapeople.org/testing-efficiently.html
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 years, 3 months
Meeting Summary / December 3, 2013
by Máirín Duffy
Sorry for the lateness of this. I had a very busy week.
Blog post is here:
http://fedoraserver-wgblog.rhcloud.com/fedora-server-working-group-dec-3-...
Copy/pasta below for your convenience:
Agenda
Our agenda was set ahead of time on the mailing list after an active
discussion on the call for agenda post.
- Adam Williamson Confirmation
- Discuss Role Implementation
- PRD (we didn’t get to this topic)
Members Present
sgallagh
nirik
mizmo
simo
adamw
mitr
Evolution
davidstrauss
Adam Williamson Confirmation
As discussed at last week’s meeting, sgallagh approached the Fedora QA
team to seek a nomination for a new Server working group member to fill
Viking-Ice’s vacated spot. Adam Williamson volunteered to fill the
vacated seat. This was supported all of the by the seven present voting
members with no disagreement, so adamw is now the newest Server working
group member.
Discuss Role Implementation
This conversation was very dense and meandering, and after spending a
couple of hours trying to turn it into a useful readable dialog I
decided it’s going to be more valuable to just summarize it up,
point-by-point. That summary follows.
Cockpit
stefw and andreasn participated in this discussion from the perspective
of the Cockpit project – a server console UI. They have been thinking
about “ways to make more advanced server roles (sorta like some of the
wizards in windows) discoverable and accessible via cockpit. [To] have a
nice way to configure one of your servers as a Freeipa server, for
example, is a goal of ours. Or to have a way to configure a server as a
monitoring server.”
Server Role APIs
There was some discussion about designing an API – stefw cautioned the
group against designing a generic server role API from the bottom up and
instead recommended looking at how people should interact with it first.
sgallagh noted that OpenLMI could be a good abstract API to use.
davidstrauss remarked that [cockpit?] seems to map to systemd and thus
it isn’t generic.
mitr pointed out that based on server list discussions:
UI is important
Automated installations are at least equally important.
One possibility that was suggested is to have a single
‘configuration’ for a role and to be able to ‘(re)apply it,’ i.e. not an
API to change a value, but to remove/read a role with a new
configuration (retaining data, of course).”
simo is fine with enabling cockpit and OpenLMI, but isn’t sure it’s a
good idea to have Fedora Server rely on them.
Configuration
Some suggestions that were brought up:
Move most of the package and operational config to post-installation
so we can better support remote tools. (davidstrauss)
We should do as little configuration as possible by default, with
the option for “advanced” knobs post-deployment. (sgallagh)
Install all packages, install config, and bring up a ‘standard’ (I’m
not talking static. I mean, ‘ask for the minimum information necessary
to reasonably install) config of the service, and then allow users to
tweak after the fact. The way that most boxed server vendors work.
(sgallagh)
Without a lot of info from the user up front (nirik)
It’s a spectrum from: just install the needed packages and user goes
from there all the way to: install all packages, install config and
bring up a ‘standard’ config of the service… (nirik)
For most networking services, config generally needs to be delayed
anyway because you need hostnames and sometimes IP addresses to be the
final ones, anyway. A lot of software can’t be correctly tweaked after
install easily. (simo)
My vision of a ‘default install’ for a server OS would be basically
Fedora’s current minimal. (adamw)
I would like to see minimum be truly minimal though. Not minimal for
basic. but absolute bare-bones. (Evolution)
We could work with package maintainers to just have the package
provide whatever default ‘standard’ thing to tweak out of the box? (nirik)
Should we ask at OS install time or at firstboot time? (simo)
That’s the part we need to figure out and the part that I was
talking about having an ‘API’ for… To configure it for “default” use.
I’m not committing to a complete configuration API right now. (sgallagh)
Basic configuration should be able to be performed by the installer
or a management console like cockpit. (sgallagh)
stefw is hoping that openlmi will provide the scripting and cockpit
the UI, and cockpit can use OpenLMI as appropriate.
Scripts are complex, but using scripts to manage configuration
sounds like debconf, and it seems debconf is a model we’d like to avoid:
The scripts create a lot of maintenance overhead
It breaks automated config tools because of how its interactive
configuration works
It starts things after installation, without using the config
you wanted for initial startup.
It’s integrated with the packaging system. Package installation
and configuration are two very separate steps.
Even with the bulleted list approach above, you can see how this was
kind of all over the place. :)
Taking a Step Back
I tried to come up with a rough long-term vision for how server role
installation and configuration would work based on the discussion:
“When you install a role, it comes prepackaged with a set of sane
defaults which you can configure post-install.”
davidstrauss noted that it’s already 95% of the case. I asked how is
this vision solving anything, and stefw said that sane defaults don’t
come with many packages. “Fixing up software and packages so that
they’re ‘roleable’ is a big part of this,” he also said.
adamw also suggested,
“It sounds like we’re discussing some sort of distro-owned
configuration/wizard/helper layer between the default configuration we
set in packages and whatever configuration guides/tools the upstream
software provides, which I thought was a business Fedora had been trying
to get out of.”
sgallagh explained,
“We want to behave more like Windows Server does here: If someone
tells Server Manager that ‘that machine over there is a domain
controller,’ it gives you a wizard to set up the basic information and
then later allows you to tweak it further.”
I brought up that I recently tried to set up postfix and it was a bit of
a nightmare, and I wasn’t sure how you could configure it to run
out-of-the-box when so much of the setup was specific to a given network
/ domain.
“You cannot solve that problem w/o building something like kolab,” said
simo. “I do not want to get Fedora in the business of building in
tightly integrated roles, because we will fail.”
simo, mitr, and sgallagh agreed that, for at least the short term,
packaging only simple roles or existing integrated roles is something we
should focus on, and we shouldn’t try to integrate non-existing roles.
davidstrauss suggested using containers to allow tight integration
between daemons. “[It's] easy to run into conflicts between how one
‘app’ wants DNS configured and another one does.” mitr disagreed with
the container approach, though, “containers do pretty much nothing
valuable to the user in this aspect – isolation is an aspect of
reliability, not an end-user feature.”
“I’m actually saying with the container stance that we should punt on
the problem,” said davidstrauss. “I don’t think we’re equipped to do the
integrated recipes.”
There was some discussion about implementation – OpenShift gear recipes
and docker were brought up.
“I’m very anti-NIH. Proudly invented elsewhere should be a goal of
ours,” said davidstrauss, and the whole group appeared to agree.
Vision Statement
Post-meeting, I expanded the vision statement for role installation
based on the above discussion,
Roles will be maintainable objects in a repo managed with Fedora
maintainer standards, integrated & coherent for things like email
server, groupware, etc.
Users can select roles to add to a system, and would be provided
with
a (wordpress first-run like) wizard for some initial information and
they’ll be given a working server using sane defaults.
Optionally, the
user should also be able to deploy the role in a mass deployment
without
having to interact with the wizard.
The configuration should be able to be modified post-install
(but not
necessarily via GUI right away; it’s hard to commit to this.)
How to move forward
Generally everyone seemed to suggest that we need to choose 1-3 roles
for the first release, and learn the best approach from exploring them.
simo also suggested that someone needs to take a stab at proposing a
clear view and provide a well-thought-out example. sgallagh volunteered
to do this using FreeIPA as the example, which he has already posted.
Meetbot Minutes
Here is the official meetbot meeting minutes with links to the full raw log:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-03/fedora-meeti...
10 years, 3 months
20131209 Release Engineering Meeting minutes
by Dennis Gilmore
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
=============================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Release Engineering
=============================================
Meeting started by dgilmore at 16:34:54 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-12-09/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* init who is here? (dgilmore, 16:35:12)
* tickets (dgilmore, 16:40:02)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3761 (dgilmore,
16:40:14)
* ticket https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3761 (dgilmore,
16:40:32)
* having a script to run to sign all the checksums .treeinfo files etc
would be a useful thing to have (dgilmore, 16:43:25)
* scheduling (dgilmore, 16:53:27)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5767 (nirik,
17:03:59)
* wiki cleanup (dgilmore, 17:06:35)
* LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering (dgilmore,
17:06:52)
* new year (dgilmore, 17:11:29)
* secondary arches (dgilmore, 17:22:40)
* secondary arches - s390 (dgilmore, 17:22:52)
* secondary arches - ppc (dgilmore, 17:29:14)
* secondary arches - arm (dgilmore, 17:33:13)
* open floor (dgilmore, 17:35:43)
Meeting ended at 17:39:59 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* dgilmore (113)
* nirik (28)
* masta (23)
* sharkcz (18)
* Kick__ (6)
* zodbot (2)
* dan408_ (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSpgEIAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRSHkP/jzNUN5Fy2gy6kldw5lMRZxb
uHkkee7kt3InsAxAOxqFY76/8odRjDF23Igpfr0ELT9Ilq645Cfpkpa9jiVGg2lP
HqlHHLS41tsKafue1vW6AwTve8zCViY7dRHuN+hIeIznM35Ke28NOlw76cJUJ391
WMYNFn5puRBienHJ4XNy0APJmOKTyQJCw6bf0Dgzo5A4HJIN2iNmhlDSFzGe5qUo
+XdfgqpSF6ncr6vC3xXfpKR6ZEfd3VYXtBf4OnPQkPk5Joo8IMJd/DVU1d9o2ypM
WTU128eQwbeCDvpINfi3zVrNNrpfeNVEuG9sWRmNFhAlbSKrquchaUDEsijGL438
USCsNXqRAJL7SJX1bElb0B/DfmV1M41GFoqPeho7jsTZZWn5FDnI9/6epboI5CxP
rmCwne1HaoTawMW+qAihXWekJ7p4vfsGRNBAMOGNoM4pPEKBnjvLWKY0PYGmV0fh
OdKbOM9V43Hh/peSj1QccfnFE97+22jM86zTjOBHf52eNwckHin0drelVdWERDta
kw0iCrlve7UurEdg+6SIX4lVohVI2VjfM/AwU93LMlVFwJTpzzXOMttyepBsCJcG
CefpBXgnzJWxpoeMiKbmbfHdD4zWb4zMBV6GYGG1IswebFxVpoKGGkg4OVlHDRNm
8bAq+T5HcnlzeP6u1ANA
=Mscm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 3 months