Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:17 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote: Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things.
The default values don't install a desktop environment. The default package set is "Fedora Custom Operating System", which is very similar to a minimal installation.
You probably meant that the default filesystem layout is the same as when installing a desktop environment. That's true.
Yes, I meant the runtime environment, which is among others the filesystem.
But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e. CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora version that installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
...
You can make Everything netinst image behave as if it was a Server image by adding "inst.profile=fedora-server" to kernel params when booting it. I just tested that, it has Server branding, the correct Server layout and package set. Perhaps this is worth documenting?
Good to know. But part of branding is also that such "tricks" are not necessary.
There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
On one hand, if somebody is experienced enough to find alternative download images, they should kinda know what they're doing.
Yes and No. Obviously, many Fedora users are used to everything working reliably and predictably "out of the box". And that's exactly what our goal is (with Fedora Next) and what sets us apart from other distributions. So you click on the installation menu and everything runs as it is listed there.
On the other hand, it would be nice if anaconda provided more clarity about this. Either by allowing to pick one of available profiles right after selecting language (including a "generic" profile, which is the current behavior), or by asking the user whether to apply the profile values when they pick e.g. Server package set (acknowledging that e.g. partitioning might need to be re-done). File an RFE against anaconda?
I think the only acceptable way would be for Anaconda to automatically select the full Fedora Server profile, not just the file system type. From what has been said, this is currently not possible in Anaconda with reasonable effort.
And all the other options would also have to be revised. Why are "Web server" and „Infrastruktur server" mutually exclusive options, just one example from the list? And a "Fedora Server Edition" does not include a graphical user interface and certainly no "Games and Entertainment" or "VideoLan Client“. And non-applicable options do not belong in its option list for selection.
And honestly, I don't want to see "Fedora Server Edition" in such a "wild" and unsystematic list. That in no way reflects our professional aspirations.
And apart from that, who wants to go through all these options and test them?
Therefore, I think the easiest solution is to just remove the „Fedora Server Edition“. And make it very clear that this is not the Fedora corresponding to "Fedora NeXt", but Fedora DIY (for the adventurous user not asking for support).
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@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
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 10:24 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com: But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e. CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
"btrfs apologists wanted to enforce"
This is egregiously false.
First, there is the negative connotation of "btrfs apologists" versus "btrfs proponent" - it is unnecessarily adversarial to use the former rather than the latter.
Second, the btrfs proponents asked every SIG and working group their opinion on whether to use btrfs, and if they would like to opt in, before the change proposal was submitted.
Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora version that installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
This is an old debate. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org...
Have you asked some folks why they're using the "Everything" image instead of the one you're recommending on the Server website and in Server documentation?
On one hand, if somebody is experienced enough to find alternative download images, they should kinda know what they're doing.
Yes and No. Obviously, many Fedora users are used to everything working reliably and predictably "out of the box". And that's exactly what our goal is (with Fedora Next) and what sets us apart from other distributions. So you click on the installation menu and everything runs as it is listed there.
Only when following directions. That's really a thing still.
If you've done your best to encourage users, providers, downstreams to use the proper images - and they still use the wrong thing... I'm not sure what to say.
Therefore, I think the easiest solution is to just remove the „Fedora Server Edition“. And make it very clear that this is not the Fedora corresponding to "Fedora NeXt", but Fedora DIY (for the adventurous user not asking for support).
If it's truly easy then do it. Write up a change proposal. I think the significant impediment for the proposal that will need to be addressed is how to square the fact the media is titled "Everything" but the description is "everything but Server Edition".
Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.
Am 30.04.2024 um 17:42 schrieb Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 10:24 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com: But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e. CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
"btrfs apologists wanted to enforce"
This is egregiously false.
First, there is the negative connotation of "btrfs apologists" versus "btrfs proponent" - it is unnecessarily adversarial to use the former rather than the latter.
Well, both terms describe a person or a group of people who are highly committed to an idea or a goal and invest a lot of work in it. There is no negative connotation, rather the opposite, namely the concession to do something outstanding.
Second, the btrfs proponents asked every SIG and working group their opinion on whether to use btrfs, and if they would like to opt in, before the change proposal was submitted.
This is a very „abbreviated“ description of the discussion and your role. It took a special discussion to allow the CoreOS WG and the Server WG not to use btrfs as default (as an „exception“).
Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora version that installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
This is an old debate. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org...
That thread has nothing to do with this discussion. The naming of the repository as everything is correct. It is merely a collection of all rpms that Fedora produces and not an installation - as stated in the thread cited.
Have you asked some folks why they're using the "Everything" image instead of the one you're recommending on the Server website and in Server documentation?
No, why should I? Anyone who wants to is welcome to use Everything Netinstall and install a mix of its options to fulfill server tasks. It will just not install a "Fedora Server Edition“.
If you've done your best to encourage users, providers, downstreams to use the proper images - and they still use the wrong thing... I'm not sure what to say.
They argue on the official project page there is an „Everything“ medium which contains „Fedora Server Edition“. And now someone comes along and says it doesn't work that way. That's really difficult to argue.
That's why it's important to use precise and unambiguous terms on our website.
If it's truly easy then do it. Write up a change proposal. I think the significant impediment for the proposal that will need to be addressed is how to square the fact the media is titled "Everything" but the description is "everything but Server Edition“.
The correct description would be "everything but Server Edition, CoreOS Edition, Iot Edition, Silverblue, Kinoite and Asahi“. And I may even have missed something. Really a great ‚Everything‘.
The name „Everything“ is simply wrong and missleading.
Seems like making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's about branding, promoting and positioning Fedora in the chorus of distributions. It's about paying tribute to all the work of our maintainers, developers and infrastructure people, and making Fedora more widespread and usable. If you think that’s a molehill ...
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@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
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 16:24 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
And all the other options would also have to be revised. Why are "Web server" and „Infrastruktur server" mutually exclusive options, just one example from the list? And a "Fedora Server Edition" does not include a graphical user interface and certainly no "Games and Entertainment" or "VideoLan Client“. And non-applicable options do not belong in its option list for selection.
Basically: because nobody maintains this stuff.
It's not rocket science. It is all in https://pagure.io/fedora-comps . You can send pull requests. But people rarely do.
If I didn't go through it once a cycle and clean out stuff that's been retired it'd be even worse.
This applies to your issues 3 and 4. They are both controlled by the group and environment group definitions in comps.
You cannot have the same group listed as "Fedora Server Edition" on the Server netinst but not on the Everything netinst, because that's just...how the installer works. It reads the names out of the comps data.
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 2:49 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 16:24 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
And all the other options would also have to be revised. Why are "Web server" and „Infrastruktur server" mutually exclusive options, just one example from the list? And a "Fedora Server Edition" does not include a graphical user interface and certainly no "Games and Entertainment" or "VideoLan Client“. And non-applicable options do not belong in its option list for selection.
Basically: because nobody maintains this stuff.
It's not rocket science. It is all in https://pagure.io/fedora-comps . You can send pull requests. But people rarely do.
If I didn't go through it once a cycle and clean out stuff that's been retired it'd be even worse.
This applies to your issues 3 and 4. They are both controlled by the group and environment group definitions in comps.
You cannot have the same group listed as "Fedora Server Edition" on the Server netinst but not on the Everything netinst, because that's just...how the installer works. It reads the names out of the comps data.
The Installer opportunistically lists any entry from comps whose packages are satisfied by the media. Obviously, the Everything netinstall has access to the complete package set, so it lists all of the comps groups and environment groups. The Server edition ISO has a much smaller package set and so it only lists those that are satisfied. (And also we can explicitly trim down the list for that medium). We really DON'T want to do that for the Everything install because it's supposed to include everything.
I *do* think it's well past time to retire the "Web Server" and "Infrastructure Server" environment groups, though. They've been unmaintained for at least ten years and are no longer at all meaningful. Similarly, "Minimal Install" was meant to be replaced by "Fedora Custom Operating System" originally back in Fedora 20-ish, but I forgot about it. The "minimal install" is quite misleading, since it's not truly "minimal". It's just "a reasonably small set of things most people can't live without". That's better described by "Fedora Custom Operating System".
I'm submitting https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/962 to remove those three groups.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org