Could we drop Active Directory requirements from Fedora release
criteria?
by Adam Williamson
Hi folks! I want to talk about the Active Directory requirements in the
release criteria.
Since Fedora Server was created, we've had this in the criteria:
"It must be possible to join the system to a FreeIPA or Active
Directory domain at install time and post-install, and the system must
respect the identity, authentication and access control configuration
provided by the domain."
...plus various further requirements at Beta and Final.
For FreeIPA we have this testing entirely automated, it's no problem at
all. For Active Directory we...don't. At every release point this does
not get tested until very late. Often Stephen Gallagher has to test it
manually at the very last minute, which is an unfair burden on him.
When we *do* find problems, there is a mad scramble to fix them or at
least find workarounds, because we find them way too late.
We've looked into automating it and still kinda intend to do so, but
it's not really simple. There's a legal side to it - it's not clear
what the licensing requirements involved would be - and a technical
side to it - we'd need a way to reliably and quite quickly deploy an AD
domain controller using openQA automation, which is not a trivial job.
When I estimate the time that's going to take and consider what *else*
I (or anyone else) could do with that time, I'm not certain that
"automating AD testing" is the best use of it. To me it doesn't feel
like a really key feature of Fedora to the point that would justify the
work involved, or justify continuing to throw Stephen and others under
the last-minute-manual-testing bus. But I'm not sure!
What do others think? Do you use the AD client support of Fedora
Server? Do you think it's a key feature that we should keep as a
release-blocking requirement, or no?
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw(a)fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net
2 months
Re: Plan / proposal: enable openQA update testing and potentially
gating on Rawhide updates
by Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 12:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> More significantly, I'd also propose that we turn on gating on openQA
> results for Rawhide updates. This would mean Rawhide updates would be
> held from going 'stable' (and included in the next compose) until the
> gating openQA tests had run and passed. We may want to do this a bit
> after turning on the tests; perhaps Fedora 37 branch point would be a
> natural time to do it.
Hi again folks! A quick update here. Now the Rawhide update testing has
been running in production for over a year - and Kevin and I have been
"shadow gating" Rawhide for several months, untagging updates where
openQA tests indicate genuine bugs - I think it's time to go ahead and
enable gating for Rawhide updates. I've worked to make sure the tests
are reliable and failures are promptly investigated, and that Bodhi
provides accurate information on test and gating status. I've proposed
this as a FESCo ticket just to get some visibility and sign-off on the
idea:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3011
thanks everyone!
--
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw(a)fosstodon.org
https://www.happyassassin.net
3 months, 2 weeks
Re: Work Project: F39 Story – Fedora Server on SBC
by Peter Boy
> Am 05.06.2023 um 21:08 schrieb J Beard <jas_beard(a)hotmail.com>:
>
> Seems like a lot of us use Pi's. I have 1 that runs my GitLab and another 1 is my util server. I just grabbed a pi 4 4g and currently deciding on its use.
> Thanks,
> Jason
Given the current price tag of that device (at least in Germany) you must be a rich man. :-)
Sorry, really OT
--
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST /UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
3 months, 3 weeks
Proposal to ask users about their experiences with VPS
by Peter Boy
Folks,
We decided for „Fedora Server in a virtualized runtime environment“ as our second priority work project. As a first step I consider to send a mail to user list and to "Ask Fedora“ and probably discussion #server-wg to collect experiences with this.
Maybe, a mail like:
> - - - - - - - - - - - <
Subj.: Who has experience with Fedora as VPS at a hosting provider?
Text Body:
The Server WG is looking for users who run or have run Fedora, especially Fedora Server, as a virtual private server (VPS/VDS) with hosting providers such as Contabo, netcup VPS, or AWS (Lightsail) and others. We are interested in providing/accepting custom images for installation as well as Fedora offerings by the host provider (Completeness, up-to-dateness).
Would you share with us your experiences? How can we make it easier? What were / are you missing in Fedora?
Please, reply to this mail or share your knowledge in the server-wg channel https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/tags/c/project/7/server-wg
> - - - - - - - - - - - <
Any ideas? Comments? Better ideas? Better wording? Objections?
What are the best locations to send such a message to?
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST /UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
3 months, 3 weeks
