5:22 p.m.
Again, for all of us lazy people, a brief summary right here.
For greater details see meetbot
Summary:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-05-19/fedora-server...
Full log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2021-05-19/fedora-server...
=== Planning for next Fedora release(s) ===
== Subitem: Improved support for off-premise Kickstart and pxe installation
* Longer discussion about different patterns and focal points
* We need a Wiki page to help to systematize the discussion
ACTION: pboy will set up a first version of subpage about "Improved support for
off-premise Kickstart and pxe installation“
== Subitem: Providing easy installation and pre-configuration for key services with
Ansible
* Longer discussion about how to facilitate installation and administration of central
services as application Server à la Wildfly / jBoss
** Helper rpms that only contain the systemd environment and an installation script do not
comply with Fedora policy
** Ansible collections and things should be referencing packages and leverage Fedora
content rather than external stuff
AGREED: Dedicate on of the next meeting to discuss Ansible in Fedora Server
ACTION: pboy, swefredde, jwhimpel set up a wiki page for further discussion
7:42 p.m.
* Peter Boy [20/05/2021 00:22] :
Again, for all of us lazy people, a brief summary right here.
Would it be possible to add the name of the channel to the call for
agenda items? It's not immediately obvious where the meeeting takes
place.
Putting the time of the meeting in the body of the email as well as
the subject line would be welcome too.
** Ansible collections and things should be referencing packages and
leverage Fedora content rather than external stuff
FTR, this is the reason I signed on to the mailing list. I'ld like to
make it as easy as possible for people to install and use the bugzilla
package Fedora ships.
Emmanuel
12:16 a.m.
Am 20.05.2021 um 02:42 schrieb Emmanuel Seyman
<emmanuel(a)seyman.fr>:
* Peter Boy [20/05/2021 00:22] :
>
> Again, for all of us lazy people, a brief summary right here.
Would it be possible to add the name of the channel to the call for
agenda items? It's not immediately obvious where the meeeting takes
place.
Putting the time of the meeting in the body of the email as well as
the subject line would be welcome too.
Very helpful tip!
Ultimately, by omission so far, I have sort of missed my own goal of making communication
in the highly idiosyncratic Fedora community so that everything is decipherable not just
to those who are already "initiated" into all the details anyway.
> ** Ansible collections and things should be referencing packages and
> leverage Fedora content rather than external stuff
FTR, this is the reason I signed on to the mailing list. I'ld like to
make it as easy as possible for people to install and use the bugzilla
package Fedora ships.
You are welcome.
Peter
7:43 a.m.
Providing easy installation and pre-configuration for key services
with Ansible> ** Helper rpms that only contain the systemd environment and an
installation script do not comply with Fedora policy
If we plan to do it in Ansible
why not do it in RPM? If it's policy holding us back why not recommend a change to
the policy before we go down the path of requiring Ansible on top of RPM. Packages are
one of the biggest benefits to application deployment.
My proposal is that there are two RPMs for each service daemon. One to enable and start
the service and another to open the firewall. I have built many of these for our own
deployments. The "{service}-on" package would enable/start the service where
the "{service}-on-firewall" package would open the firewall. Most are simple
wrapper RPMs that only need requires and post sections.
Having packages provide the correctly running service eliminates the need for yet another
layer/tool on top of RPM.
$ rpm -qa | grep --
-on-rabbitmq-server-on-0.08-1.el7.xxx.noarchmariadb-server-on-0.06-1.el7.xxx.noarchhttpd-on-0.23-1.el7.xxx.noarchmemcached-on-0.04-1.el7.xxx.noarchpostgis-on-0.08-1.el7.xxx.noarchpostgresql-server-on-0.11-1.el7.xxx.noarch
Michael R. Davis
10:10 a.m.
Am 20.05.2021 um 14:43 schrieb Michael R. Davis
<mrdvt92(a)yahoo.com>:
> Providing easy installation and pre-configuration for key services with Ansible
> ** Helper rpms that only contain the systemd environment and an installation script
do not comply with Fedora policy
If we plan to do it in Ansible why not do it in RPM? If it's policy holding us back
why not recommend a change to the policy before we go down the path of requiring Ansible
on top of RPM. Packages are one of the biggest benefits to application deployment.
I suppose, too, we need some rpm
And it could be advantagous to change policy. Please, join us at the upcoming IRC
meeting:
Every Wednesday, 17:00 UTC, #fedora-meeting
My proposal is that there are two RPMs for each service daemon. One
to enable and start the service and another to open the firewall. I have built many of
these for our own deployments. The "{service}-on" package would enable/start
the service where the "{service}-on-firewall" package would open the firewall.
Most are simple wrapper RPMs that only need requires and post sections.
I don’t understand why to have an rpm to open the firewall. But let us discuss that later
1065
days inactive
1072
days old
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Emmanuel Seyman -
Matthew Miller -
Michael R. Davis -
Peter Boy