rolekit D-Bus API
by Thomas Woerner
rolekit D-Bus API
=================
org.fedoraproject.rolekit1
--------------------------
Properties
version:i # server role manager version
roles:ao # role objects list
Methods
getNamedRole(name:s)→o # get role by name
getRolesByState(state:i)→ao # get all roles with the given state
org.fedoraproject.rolekit1.roles.$name
--------------------------------------
Properties (general) # role settings
name:s (ro) # role name
version:i (ro) # role implementation version
state:i (ro) # deployed/started/inactive/dead?
packages:as (ro) # package list: packages and @groups
(similar to kickstart)
services:as (ro) # service list: services to be enabled and
started
firewall:a{sas} (ro) # firewall settings: ports and services
dict {
"ports" => array (
portid:s["-"portid:s]"/"protocol:s ),
"services" => array( name:s ),
}
ports are similar to firewalld port
definitions
firewall_zones:as (rw) # firewall zones to apply the firewall
settings to
custom_firewall:b (rw) # custom firewall: firewall settings will
not be applied if set to true
errorlog:s (ro) # errorlog string
#backup_paths:as (ro) # backup paths (files and directories)
# ... # role specific settings
Methods
start() # start the role (startServices,
installFirewall), fails if not deployed
stop() # stop the role (stopServices,
uninstallFirewall), fails if not started
restart() # stop and start
deploy() # deploy role (i.e. running initial setup
post-package-install, ipa-server-install)
decommission() # decommision (example: moved to another
machine, ipa-server-install -u ), stop if started
updateRole() # update role: yum update; restartServices;
updateFirewall
getFirewallZones() # get firewall zone list from firewalld, add
used ones to firewall_zones
Role States
===========
Nascent 0
Deploying 1
ReadyToStart 2
Starting 3
Running 4
Stopping 5
Decomissioning 6
Error 255
8 years, 8 months
Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work
by Chris Murphy
This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below.
I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide.
The WorkstationTechnical Spec says:
"One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework."
1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)?
1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken?
2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI?
3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable?
4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be?
The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful.
References:
"grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal"
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html
Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704
Thanks,
Chris Murphy
8 years, 9 months
Server WG Meeting Minutes (2014-07-29)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
===================================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-07-29)
===================================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:00:51 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-07-29/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
- ---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 15:00:51)
* adamw and tuanta will not be in attendance today (sgallagh,
15:04:00)
* Quorum not met (sgallagh, 15:10:40)
* Status of Fedora Websites and branding (sgallagh, 15:10:55)
* LINK: http://stg.fedoraproject.org/en/get-prerelease (sgallagh,
15:18:15)
* mizmo is great (sgallagh, 15:21:04)
Meeting ended at 15:23:18 UTC.
Action Items
- ------------
Action Items, by person
- -----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
- ---------------------------
* sgallagh (39)
* mizmo (19)
* zodbot (3)
* danofsatx-work (2)
* adamw (0)
* tuanta (0)
* nirik (0)
* mitr (0)
* stefw (0)
* davidstrauss (0)
* simo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlPXvJcACgkQeiVVYja6o6NBBQCgqvM/GJvCb6bvu8GWtTRw0rec
Mk4AnimafodBWry03Wv0trzv+VH0wqZ5
=UchI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8 years, 10 months
Call for agenda for Server WG Meeting (2014-07-29)
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We need to do a readiness check, identify blockers and get them assigned.
Please reply with specific topics to discuss.
I have:
* Three week Alpha slip
* Status of rolekit
* Status of Cockpit
* Status of fedora-release-server packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlPWXQwACgkQeiVVYja6o6PPpACfYqb96TD5c7QWyoBSTrgwHGS0
OlEAniGTBfYg6XGj5eDxpvXEZvk/30EO
=4nyb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8 years, 10 months
New Fedora 22 Change Proposal: Fedora Atomic
by Colin Walters
Hi,
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =)
I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more
appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal
installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the
clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server
personally)
I started a Change page here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server
Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated.
8 years, 10 months