server April 2018

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
9 discussions

Proposal: Changes to Fedora Server default partitioning scheme
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

The following proposal comes out of the discussion at this weeks Server SIG meeting[1] Fedora Server will have: * / (root) will be a minimum of 2 GiB and a maximum of 15 GiB * SWAP will continue to be calculated automatically based on available RAM on the system * All unused space will be assigned to a volume group and available to be assigned to new partitions or extend existing partitions. * Anaconda will continue to handle the appropriate EFI and /boot settings We also discussed during the meeting whether we should have a separate /var partition by default, but the general sense was that we might be better served by developing a mechanism to allow partitions to be split from existing mount points, which would be more flexible going forward. As we did not have quorum in the meeting by the point we got to this proposal, I'm taking it to the list for discussion and votes. For the record, the current behavior of the partitioning scheme is for / to be given up to 50 GiB of space and then any remaining space after that is assigned to a separate /home partition. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-15/serversig.201…

4 8

Fedora base snap for building Fedora-based snaps
by Neal Gompa 11 May '18

11 May '18

Hey all, As some of you may know, one of the upstream projects I work with is the Snappy/Snapcraft system. Recently, the Snappy system gained full support for having alternative base/runtimes used for the basis of snaps[1]. Given the design of the Snappy system, it makes it very easy for us to provide a model in which people can build applications and services using Fedora in a manner where it's available in a cross-distribution fashion. One of the key advantages here is that we do not need to rebuild RPMs to retrofit them for the snap model, they can be directly sourced and installed as components to build a snap. However, to be able to do this, Fedora needs to provide what is known as a "base snap". The base snap provides the foundation for applications and devices to be built using Fedora software with snaps. Historically, the only "base" supported for general application use has been the Ubuntu one shipped by Canonical, but snapd recently learned how to use different "base" runtimes for different snaps. I believe we have an opportunity to be a great enabler for offering the latest and greatest technologies for developers to consume for their software if they want to distribute it as a snap. While the Fedora Workstation WG has been primarily focused on Flatpaks for GUI applications, snaps are useful for more than desktop applications. Indeed, some of the most interesting uses are involved with server and embedded systems software. I've worked closely with the upstream developers (of which Zygmunt Krynicki is the main point of contact for Fedora with the Snappy team and is CC'd to this email) to ensure that this functionality is available to us in a way that allows us to leverage our software as effectively as possible. In addition, I've built a relatively trivial application[2] to build proof of concept core base snaps with Fedora, Mageia, and openSUSE packages. At least initially, some of these first application snaps will be produced in a rather simple manner as we would work with upstream on figuring out how to adapt Snapcraft to handle alternative bases. My eventual goal is to be able to produce a Modular Fedora variant that works off snaps, using our software packaged as RPMs as inputs, as a variation of the modularity work going on in Fedora as a whole. This work would be more or less similar to the efforts for producing the Cloud Base images that are used in cloud providers and for container systems to use (e.g. Docker/OpenShift/Kubernetes). I discussed this with Stephen Gallagher, and he seemed amenable to the idea of the Server WG producing the base snap as a deliverable and publishing it to the snap store so that it can be used to build applications. He suggested that I bring this to broader WG mailing list to solicit some feedback on this. So what do you all think? Best regards, Neal [1]: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/introducing-base-snaps/381 [2]: https://gitlab.com/Conan_Kudo/snapcore-mkrpmdistcoresnap -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

4 6

2018-04-23 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 20 Apr '18

20 Apr '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-04-23 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 2 proposed blockers, 5 proposed freeze exception issues and 4 accepted blockers for Final to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Chair needed: Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-04-17)
by Stephen Gallagher 16 Apr '18

16 Apr '18

I will be out of town tomorrow during the meeting and won't be able to attend. Can someone else volunteer to chair the meeting? Mostly I just want us to level-set on where we are as we enter Final Freeze.

2 1

2018-04-16 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 14 Apr '18

14 Apr '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-04-16 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 6 proposed blockers and 5 proposed freeze exception issues for Final to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Criteria proposal: cover Server roles in upgrade criteria
by Adam Williamson 10 Apr '18

10 Apr '18

Preamble: I know we're planning to throw rolekit out entirely, but I believe we're planning to continue to consider the actual functions behind the roles (FreeIPA and postgres) as blocking, so I'd like to get this done so we remember to include it in that change. Postamble: Back in F27 cycle, specifically in the 2017-10-23 blocker review meeting, we agreed to cover the release-blocking Server roles in the upgrade criteria. That is noted here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503321#c7 However, we never actually made the change. So, here I am proposing it! We should change the Beta criterion 'Upgrade requirements' as follows. Main text should go from: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed." to: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, and the package sets for each of the release-blocking Server roles, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed." I think that's actually all the change necessary, as the bullet point "The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" then requires that the upgraded roles actually work. Thoughts? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

3 2

Server SIG meeting (2018-04-10)
by Stephen Gallagher 10 Apr '18

10 Apr '18

I have a conflict today and won't be available to run the meeting. I think it would still be good to have some more live brainstorming, so if someone else could volunteer to start the meeting record and guide the conversation, I'd appreciate it.

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2018-04-03)
by Stephen Gallagher 09 Apr '18

09 Apr '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 ================================================================ #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-04-03) ================================================================ Meeting started by sgallagh at 20:00:17 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-04-03/serversig.2… . Meeting summary - --------------- * Roll Call (sgallagh, 20:00:18) * Agenda (sgallagh, 20:06:40) * Agenda Item: Brainstorming (sgallagh, 20:06:46) * Brainstorming (sgallagh, 20:07:36) * Feedback: Fedora Server has too short a lifecycle (sgallagh, 20:08:35) * Feedback: Fedora Server should be more minimalistic (sgallagh, 20:08:35) * Feedback: SELinux needs better usability (sgallagh, 20:08:35) * Feedback: Support OpenCL (sgallagh, 20:08:36) * Feedback: Easy "home media server" would be nice (sgallagh, 20:08:36) * Feedback: Cockpit should be able to control more of the system (sgallagh, 20:08:36) * Feedback: Focus on simplifying common task execution (sgallagh, 20:08:36) * Feedback: Support enterprise HBAs (sgallagh, 20:08:37) * We will go through the list individually (sgallagh, 20:11:46) * Fedora Server has too short a lifecycle (sgallagh, 20:12:01) * The core problem that people want to solve generally is "I don't want my applications to break, because I rely on them" (sgallagh, 20:14:16) * Rephrased: Core problem is "I want to be able to keep my system up-to-date wrt bug and security fixes without my applications breaking" (sgallagh, 20:16:35) * Users automatically assume that the classic solution to this problem is the only one: longer compatibility lifecycle for the whole OS. (sgallagh, 20:17:34) * Fedora Server attempts to solve the core problem with Modules and reliable OS release upgrades. (sgallagh, 20:18:25) * Enhancement proposal: automatically upgrade when release is EOL (sgallagh, 20:22:03) * Enhancement proposal supplement: Cockpit UI for scheduling the automatic update after EOL (sgallagh, 20:23:11) * Fedora Server should be more minimalistic (sgallagh, 20:27:38) * This topic is really easy to get rat-holed on. Will revisit later. (sgallagh, 20:40:44) * SELinux needs better usability (sgallagh, 20:40:52) * Cockpit SELinux Troubleshooter improvements would be ideal for this (sgallagh, 20:43:59) * Support OpenCL (sgallagh, 20:46:42) * This task would require specialized expertise that isn't readily available (sgallagh, 20:48:40) * Easy "home media server" (sgallagh, 20:48:56) * Server Focus (sgallagh, 20:55:07) * Q: Is there a customer story similar to our previous OLPC effort that we could get behind? (sgallagh, 20:55:41) * LINK: https://freedombox.org/ ? (nirik, 20:56:01) * ACTION: Homework assignment: Think of an OLPC-style initiative that Server could back and present it next week. (sgallagh, 21:00:24) Meeting ended at 21:04:33 UTC. Action Items - ------------ * Homework assignment: Think of an OLPC-style initiative that Server could back and present it next week. Action Items, by person - ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * Homework assignment: Think of an OLPC-style initiative that Server could back and present it next week. People Present (lines said) - --------------------------- * sgallagh (129) * dperpeet (46) * nirik (39) * smooge (13) * bowlofeggs (11) * orc_fedo_ (8) * zodbot (7) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v2.2.0 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wkYEAREIABAFAlrD7H0JEHolVWI2uqOjAABNHQCfcqkENOdc+3GL6IDtztb/ 7uDD4GYAniSTQYmDy5RGNkZqFZU/lWWzOxjq =uiPJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 8

2018-04-09 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 08 Apr '18

08 Apr '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-04-09 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 6 proposed blockers and 2 proposed freeze exception issues for Final to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you tomorrow! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server April 2018