Trimming down the package set
by Stephen Gallagher
So, at DevConf over the weekend, I had a conversation with several
people around the package set that we should include on the Fedora
Server install media in Fedora 22.
When we put together the install media for Fedora 21, we basically took
the old Fedora 20 DVD install and stripped out some of the things we
didn't feel were necessary for the Server. However, I suspect that we
may have missed numerous things that are not *strictly* important for
Server.
In particular, the Fedora Server DVD includes the package groups for
many of the Fedora development tools (particularly those useful for
developing Fedora *itself*, such as the @fedora-packager group.
I don't currently have statistics on how much space this would save on
the installation DVD (since I would pretty much have to build one
without these packages to verify it), but I can get an approximate idea
of the difference by installing the minimal set of Server packages on
one VM and a set that includes the devel packages on another.
The result I see is:
== Standard Server Install ==
* 614 packages
* 1,097 MB on the installed system
== Server Install Plus Development Tools ==
* 716 packages
* 1496 MB on the installed system.
Even if we assume a (very) generous assumption that the RPM compression
reduces the size difference by 50%, we still see a probable savings of
200 MB on the install DVD.
So, my questions to the Server SIG:
1) Is this savings in the DVD ISO download size sufficiently significant
to continue this conversation?
2) Does anyone see any value in keeping this material *on the DVD*?
Obviously, all of these packages will remain available to the network
install or post-installation environments.
For those who are interested in minutiae, I am attaching the current
fedora-install-server.ks file that is used to generate the DVD. If you
see anything else there that might be worth including in this
discussion, I'm all ears.
8 years, 5 months
Late call for agenda for 2015-02-24 meeting
by Stephen Gallagher
Sorry for not sending the call for agenda out yesterday.
I think we basically just want a short check-in on where we are as of
Alpha Freeze and then ask Adam Williamson to discuss whatever he needs
for help with Alpha validation.
Any other topics?
8 years, 7 months
Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2015-02-17)
by Stephen Gallagher
=========================================================
#fedora-meeting-1: Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2015-02-17)
=========================================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:04:58 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-02-17/fedora-meeti...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* roll call (sgallagh, 16:04:58)
* Agenda (sgallagh, 16:06:35)
* Agenda Item: Fedora 22 Alpha (sgallagh, 16:06:44)
* Agenda Item: Database Server Role (sgallagh, 16:06:48)
* Agenda Item: Cockpit Domain Controller Support (sgallagh, 16:06:48)
* Fedora 22 Alpha (sgallagh, 16:08:15)
* LINK:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/server/2015-February/001734.html
(sgallagh, 16:10:40)
* AGREED: Cockpit support of the Domain Controller Role is deferred to
Fedora 23 (sgallagh, 16:21:29)
* ACTION: sgallagh, twoerner and danofsatx to work on finishing the DB
role for Fedora 22 Alpha Freeze (sgallagh, 16:22:12)
* Database Server Role (sgallagh, 16:23:14)
* The Database Server Role will be open on all interfaces upon
deployment, but can be constrained using port/service configuration
in rolekit. (sgallagh, 16:46:46)
* It will also be configured to use password-based authentication
(sgallagh, 16:47:04)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 16:47:20)
* ACTION: danofsatx and junland to create database server role
requirements document modeled on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Domain_controller_role_requirements
(sgallagh, 16:51:43)
* LINK:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_22_Alpha_Release_Criteria#Role_func...
(and same URL for beta/final) (adamw, 16:55:02)
Meeting ended at 17:00:00 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* sgallagh, twoerner and danofsatx to work on finishing the DB role for
Fedora 22 Alpha Freeze
* danofsatx and junland to create database server role requirements
document modeled on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Domain_controller_role_requirements
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* danofsatx
* sgallagh, twoerner and danofsatx to work on finishing the DB role
for Fedora 22 Alpha Freeze
* danofsatx and junland to create database server role requirements
document modeled on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Domain_controller_role_requirements
* junland
* danofsatx and junland to create database server role requirements
document modeled on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Domain_controller_role_requirements
* sgallagh
* sgallagh, twoerner and danofsatx to work on finishing the DB role
for Fedora 22 Alpha Freeze
* twoerner
* sgallagh, twoerner and danofsatx to work on finishing the DB role
for Fedora 22 Alpha Freeze
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* sgallagh (93)
* adamw (33)
* mitr (16)
* junland (14)
* nirik (12)
* twoerner (7)
* zodbot (5)
* stefw (0)
* danofsatx (0)
* tuanta (0)
* simo (0)
* mizmo (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
8 years, 7 months
[Help Needed] Cockpit Domain Controller or Database Server Role
by Stephen Gallagher
So, as the subject implies, I'm currently the only person known to be
working on either of these two big features for Fedora 22 Server. With
only 12 calendar days remaining until Alpha Freeze, I am going to state
unequivocally that I cannot deliver both in that time. I *should* be
able to manage one or the other, but if we want these features in F22,
someone is going to need to step up and help, please.
Barring that, I'm going to have to defer one or the other (likely the
Cockpit UI features, since they're not as far along) until Fedora 23.
== Cockpit Domain Controller ==
This is being written in JavaScript (specifically a jQuery dialect).
I've gotten some early work done on this over the weekend at DevConf,
thanks to some very patient help by the Cockpit developers there. I am
by no means well-versed in JavaScript, so it would be my preference to
have someone with some greater knowledge take this over from me. My
current WIP is pushed to https://github.com/sgallagher/cockpit/tree/dc
(branch is "dc"). It's little more than a proof-of-concept at this
point, with some basic functionality for interacting with the rolekit
D-BUS interface. Andreas Nilsson also put together some UI bits that can
be integrated, but I forget where he pushed them, so I'm CCing him for
comment.
It would be my preference that someone take over this effort from me, as
it will be the more difficult one for me to finish in the time available
given that I am learning JavaScript on the fly while working on it.
=== Remaining Work (Alpha) ===
* Finish the deployment D-BUS glue
* Merge with andreasn's UI work
=== Remaining Work (Beta) ===
* Generate links for FreeIPA UI in the Cockpit display
* Implement decommission
== Database Server Role ==
I've made some reasonable progress on this. I have a proof-of-concept
that can install the packages, do the initial setup and create a new
database with an owner account and password. The roles are written in
Python and my current WIP is pushed to
https://github.com/sgallagher/rolekit/tree/database (branch is
"database").
=== DB Remaining Work (Alpha) ===
* Deployment needs to edit postgresql.conf to add listen_addresses
* Deployment needs to edit pg_hba.conf to allow password-access
* Deployment needs to restart the service to accept the new config
=== DB Remaining Work (Beta) ===
* Deployment needs to handle multiple instances on the same machine
8 years, 7 months
Draft separation of Server Role requirements from criteria
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks!
For F21 we stuffed the functional requirements for the sole Role
(domain controller) into the release criteria. But we all agreed this
was kinda sucky and wouldn't scale, and they should be split out
somehow.
Here's my proposal for 'somehow'.
At first I was thinking of a sort of general 'role definition' wiki
page, but when I sat down to draft one I couldn't really think of much
that would go on one *besides* the functional requirements, so I
figured I'd keep it simple and just draft a template for requirements.
So, my draft consists of a template:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_role_requirements_temp...
an example implementation:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_domain_controller_role...
a category page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Server_role_requirements
which also acts as a short overall explanation of the 'requirements'
system, and a proposal for the release criteria. We'd drop all the
domain controller stuff, and add the following criteria:
Alpha
-----
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|core requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, but it is acceptable if moderate
workarounds are necessary to achieve this
footnote #1: Featured roles - [[FIXME|this page]] contains the list of
Featured server roles
footnote #2: Moderate workarounds? - For instance, if a service needs
to be manually enabled or a configuration file minimally tweaked, this
is acceptable.
Beta
----
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|core requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being
necessary
* The [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|other requirements]] for
all Featured Server Roles must be met, but it is acceptable if
moderate workarounds are necessary to achieve this
footnote #1: Workarounds - This means the role must meet its core
requirements, i.e. be broadly usable for its intended purpose, after
correct deployment and configuration via the role mechanism, but
moderate workarounds as described in the [[BLAH|Alpha criterion]] are
acceptable if necessary to fulfill the full set of requirements.
Final
-----
* All [[:Category:Server_role_requirements|requirements]] for all
Featured Server Roles must be met, without any workarounds being
necessary
The FIXME indicates we also need some kind of place where we define
which server roles are 'Featured', which AFAIK we don't at present.
In case anyone's wondering why I didn't simply have Alpha, Beta and
Final requirements for each role, I considered that, but it seemed a
bit too tightly couple to a particular release process, when we've
discussed changing the Server release process in future. I quite like
the way this proposal puts the things together; all the concepts make
sense separately, for me. It makes sense just thinking about a Server
product, whatever its release process, that Roles would have the two
levels of requirements specified in the proposal ("Core" and regular).
And then as a separate matter it makes sense (to me) to enforce them
at the Alpha, Beta and Final points of our *current* release process
in the way proposed above.
What do folks think of this general proposal? Thanks! We can also
discuss it at the meeting next week if folks want to.
Note, the actual requirements listed on the domain controller page are
copy/pasted straight out of the F21 criteria; we can certainly tweak
and extend those, but please if you want to discuss that make it a
separate thread, the intent here is for us to discuss this *framework*
for role requirements and hooking them into the release criteria.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
8 years, 7 months