I don't have anything on the agenda for this week. I had asked
Jan Lieskovsky if he wanted to give his presentation on SCAP this week,
but I've received no reply.
If anyone has anything they would like to discuss today, let me know.
Otherwise, we'll consider the meeting canceled for this week.
Last week I returned from vacation and am currently catching up on some
work related items so I wont be able to make this weeks meeting. However
I'll be available next week. Also wanted to confirm the meeting time, I
recall it's 2 PM UTC?
(not sure this is the expected way how to propose a new meeting agenda item
for some of the future WG meetings. If not, kindly point me to the right way.
Would like to propose item -- explore the possibilities of SCAP for the
benefits of Fedora Server WG
Purpose of the meeting:
* we would like to introduce the SCAP Security Guide project / OpenSCAP ecosystem
to the WG (the set of packages we are currently working at),
* issues (related with functionality provided by the WG) we see
right now when developing SCAP content,
* proposal for possible cooperation -- in order to be able to enhance
the list of rules applicable for the Server product, we would like to:
* hear Fedora Server WG expectations on the content,
* share our expectations on the content && get feedback on them,
* maybe set up a way for more close cooperation
Our expectation is to present short slides (introduce SCAP to the WG,
what's already done, what we would like to implemented yet, would like
to hear your feedback on those, and areas where we need input from the
WG in order to progress better / more quickly [mainly related with which
tasks to prioritize etc.]).
Thank you && Regards, Jan.
Jan iankko Lieskovsky / Red Hat Security Technologies Team
I’m afraid I haven’t had much time for the Server WG recently, and my
activity was basically limited to attending the meetings.
I would therefore like to relinquish my seat per
There are quite a few members of the community who have been greatly
influencing the Fedora Server product through their work, and the formal
voting seat would be better served by any one of them.
#fedora-meeting-1: Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2015-09-15)
Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:00:26 UTC. The full logs are
* roll call (sgallagh, 15:00:27)
* Agenda (sgallagh, 15:04:13)
* Agenda Item: Reducing the F24 package set (sgallagh, 15:04:24)
* Reducing the F24 package set (sgallagh, 15:06:12)
* AGREED: Remove everything from the DVD that isn't part of the
default installation or optional hardware enablement (+5, 0, -1)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 15:58:35)
Meeting ended at 16:00:50 UTC.
Action Items, by person
People Present (lines said)
* sgallagh (103)
* stefw (25)
* mizmo (24)
* nirik (23)
* adamw (14)
* simo (11)
* zodbot (10)
* tuanta (8)
* mitr (0)
* danofsatx (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
I realized this morning that we never actually came to a resolution on
the plans for reducing the package set in Fedora 24 (it's too late
to make changes for Fedora 23).
The set of package groups that are installed by default for Fedora
* Hardware and virtualization guest support
* @server-product (individual packages we've decided we need, like
* @headless-management (cockpit, openssh, rolekit, tog-pegasus)
* @container-management (Docker)
* @domain-client (realmd, freeipa-client, winbind)
The complete selection of available packages on the Server DVD is
much larger and basically includes everything from the "Infrastructure
Server" environment group on the old DVD, most of which is probably
*not* useful on the install media, in my opinion.
I'd like to propose that we make one of the following changes for
Option A) Remove everything from the DVD that isn't part of the
default installation, then add back in individual options that have
Option B) Remove everything from the DVD that isn't part of the
default installation or one of the supported rolekit roles, then add
back in individual options that have demonstrable value.
From the discussion on the mailing list, the most common argument was
"But what about disconnected operation?", but the fact of the matter
seemed to be that even with our current large (and eclectic) package
set, there are still packages that some people want that aren't on the
image. Since this set varies wildly between deployments, I personally
don't feel that it makes sense to try to accommodate all of this on
the image. Instead, I think we should be more straight-up in defining
that the DVD ISO carries the Fedora Server Operating System and that
add-on capabilities require a network repository (local or internet).
If we go with either of these choices, I'm personally more highly in
favor of Option A) than Option B). The mechanism for rolekit involves
always grabbing the latest stable version of the roles from the
network anyway, so carrying them on the disk is of limited use outside
of the completely disconnected case. See also my original email on
the subject for how avoiding these on the images can also help us
avoid release slippage in some situations.
 This was in place to support OpenLMI, but we're not actually doing
this, so we should probably drop it.