20:00:39 #startmeeting Fedora Server SIG (2017-09-05) 20:00:39 Meeting started Tue Sep 5 20:00:39 2017 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:39 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:00:39 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_server_sig_(2017-09-05)' 20:00:39 #meetingname serversig 20:00:39 The meeting name has been set to 'serversig' 20:00:50 #topic Roll Call 20:00:55 .hello dperpeet 20:00:55 .hello2 20:00:58 * nirik is sort of here, but also sort of busy 20:00:58 .hello mhayden 20:01:14 dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' 20:01:17 sgallagh: Something blew up, please try again 20:01:20 mhayden: Something blew up, please try again 20:01:42 I anticipate this to be a fairly short meeting, as many folks are still post-processing Flock 20:01:45 .hello2 20:01:47 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 20:01:51 better 20:01:57 .hello2 20:01:58 .hello mjwolf 20:01:59 imcleod: imcleod 'Ian McLeod' 20:02:02 mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' 20:03:31 #topic Post-Flock discussion 20:03:45 First off, thanks everyone who participated in Flock this year! 20:04:36 I'm sure it will come as a complete surprise to everyone here that the main theme of Flock this year focused around efforts to get Modularity out the door for F27 20:05:20 #info The Module Build Service has been activated and is now available for use by anyone in the 'packager' group. 20:05:39 So if you've got a favorite service you'd like to see modularized, now's your chance! 20:06:26 Progress is also moving along quite well in terms of the modules necessary to meet the Fedora Server requirements for F27 20:06:49 That's great 20:06:54 I need to double-check, but I *think* as of last week we had at least a testable module for all of the official (blocking) Server components 20:07:30 (I don't promise that they *work*, but they should at least exist) 20:08:28 During the State of Fedora Server talk, I made it clear that we have decided to abandon 'rolekit' (and the concept of Server Roles in general) from Fedora Server in favor of Modules and Server Applications. 20:09:03 did we decide a hard eol date for rolekit? 20:09:03 The latter of which I heard from Marius Vollmer and Alexander Bokovoy were moving ahead well. I'll ask dperpeet to give us a status update from the Cockpit side. 20:09:08 was there feedback regarding that? 20:09:20 dperpeet: "When can we have it?" 20:09:35 and "Can you do it sooner than that?" ;-) 20:09:51 mvollmer is working on packaging it properly 20:09:51 nirik: We haven't, and I was going to bring that up today. 20:10:09 that coincides with ongoing work on the cockpit starter kit 20:10:37 I believe the current status is at https://github.com/mvollmer/cockpit-app-freeipa 20:11:17 Yes. I'm also glad to see that the Cockpit team isn't developing this in a vacuum. 20:11:40 I think progress is steady at this point 20:11:45 As previously mentioned, Alexander Bokovoy of the FreeIPA team is collaborating (and I've volunteered to do package reviews when needed to move it along) 20:12:25 oh, one thing: the spec addition mvollmer was waiting on has been approved 20:12:27 dperpeet: So the $1,000,000 question: Is F28 a reasonable target and if so, will you get a Change Proposal ready soon? 20:12:30 cockpit PR for this work is https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/pull/7076 20:12:36 Spec addition? 20:12:43 appstream 20:12:49 to make everything a bit more user friendly 20:12:55 and discoverable 20:12:55 ah 20:13:00 Sounds good 20:13:08 in that pr you can see a huge checklist with todo items 20:13:19 and all of them checked :) 20:13:38 this will go through some review, but land soon-ish 20:13:58 sgallagh, what has to change in F28? 20:14:29 dperpeet: A "Change Proposal" is a formal request to FESCo to allow a major new feature into Fedora. 20:14:45 In this case, it'll be a formality, but the Change Proposals are also culled for use in marketing materials 20:14:51 So it's a good way to get publicity 20:15:09 I will forward that question to mvollmer 20:15:14 dperpeet: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy 20:15:32 (It also helps FESCo plan the release) 20:15:52 right, I'll forward that question to the Cockpit team 20:16:16 the change in question is the capability to install apps? 20:16:25 or to automatically pick up apps that expose this? 20:16:34 dperpeet: Yes, with the Acceptance Criteria being FreeIPA for this pass. 20:16:41 ok 20:16:53 Automatically picking up arbitrary apps could be a separate proposal (possibly for a future Fedora) 20:17:46 #action dperpeet to discuss the Server Apps plan with Cockpit upstream and plan a Change Proposal for the appropriate Fedora release. 20:17:53 (Hopefully F28...) 20:17:57 :) 20:18:23 #topic Rolekit gallops off into the sunset 20:18:42 We announced our intentions to retire rolekit, but haven't firmed up the plan for it. 20:18:53 I want this dead and gone by F28 20:19:22 However, as it's being consumed by Fedora QA testing at the moment, this is a non-trivial task. 20:19:58 (I mean, I *could* just retire the package and make adamw angry at me for breaking the tests, but I try not to antagonize my friends... too much) 20:20:19 * adamw sharpens knives 20:20:21 * nirik nods 20:21:07 I spoke with adamw about this briefly at Flock. Our current plan (correct me if I'm wrong) is to just swap out the places where `rolectl` is called with the `ipa-server-install` command that rolekit would be calling under the hood 20:21:39 This is probably not a huge job, but it's one I've managed to fail to find time to accomplish 20:21:44 ...and somehow adjust all of the PRD, release criteria, and test case bits that involve rolekit. you forgot that bit. 20:21:59 Well, strictly speaking they never mention rolekit. 20:22:06 the automated tests are based on the manual test cases, which cover the release criteria, which are based on the PRD. 20:22:08 sure they do. 20:22:10 They refer to a *concept* of server roles :) 20:22:17 *fry eyes* 20:22:36 What I mean is that the criteria define an end-state, not an implementation 20:22:45 (There may be small exceptions to this) 20:23:04 The end-state should remain the same, but yes we'll need to fix the manual test cases 20:23:05 well, yes, but the end state the server criteria describe was pretty specifically written around the rolekit design 20:23:15 and not just some abstract idea of a 'server role' 20:23:17 * adamw goes to read 'em again 20:23:47 OK, we don't need to solve it here. Suffice to say there is a documentation component to this as well. 20:24:00 yeah. 20:24:06 i just want to make sure you're not underestimating it. 20:24:23 i mean, large chunks of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document#Featured_Server_Roles can't plausibly be held to be implemented by 'oh just run ipa-server-install'. 20:24:28 I'll help where I can, but is there anyone who is itching for something to do (or has an unaccompanied intern lying around in a corner) that would like to help with this? 20:24:46 * adamw is not really dying for more todo list items, no. 20:24:53 currently too busy trying to make freeipa actually work. 20:25:03 Yes, understood 20:27:51 OK, we will figure something out, but I'll state for the record that the worst-case scenario here is that I retire it from F29 the moment that F28 branches off, so we WILL have a hard break. 20:27:55 * linuxmodder super late 20:28:03 (Assuming that we don't sort it out before that) 20:28:10 reading scrollback 20:29:16 sure. i just like to keep the process in mind; we did do this whole 'build it out from the PRD' thing for fedora.next for good reasons. 20:29:26 Yes 20:29:50 It's probably worth updating that document with the new Server App ideas 20:30:11 In any case, this is mostly informational at the moment; I'm not in a position to make changes right now. 20:30:25 sure 20:30:27 sgallagh, need help with the docs update/rewrite? 20:30:43 linuxmodder: I certainly will 20:31:06 sgallagh, feel free to ping me via irc/email etc when that happens to come to life 20:31:31 #action linuxmodder to rewrite all of Server SIGs documentation 20:31:32 ;-) 20:31:49 that escalated quick :=) 20:32:18 more like help not solely rewrite :) 20:32:39 #topic Open Floor 20:32:43 #action linuxmodder to rewrite the entire wiki 20:32:45 That's all I had for today. Anyone else? 20:32:59 linuxmodder: start with /wiki/Aardvark, we'll see you back here next week 20:33:02 adamw, that is totally not cool that is a self torture 20:33:19 i have other projects too you know 20:33:26 not any more you don't 20:33:26 :P 20:33:54 we'll be monitoring your from your webcam to make sure you never leave your desk 20:33:59 where are the present set of 26 server builder kickstarts? been having requests of late for server based kickstarts installs 20:34:08 * sgallagh wonders if we should just assign him to rewrite readthedocs.org too 20:34:32 why did this become linuxmodder becomes docs dude ? 20:35:15 you should know never to volunteer by now 20:35:15 :P 20:35:29 to help not be point man 20:35:43 oh, we stop reading at 'i volunteer' 20:35:44 nirik: Where are the new server definitions again? I can never remember where they went when we stopped using fedora-kickstarts 20:35:52 pungi-fedora, isn't it? 20:35:56 AH, thanks 20:36:14 https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/tree/master 20:36:14 https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/variants-fedora.xml#_52 20:36:19 the kickstarts there too sgallagh ? 20:36:20 (for the non-modular server) 20:36:21 definitions? you mean whats on the server dvd? 20:36:24 also variante-modular 20:36:27 linuxmodder: it doesn't use kickstarts exactly any more. 20:38:02 I leave for a few weeks and lost all track so all server builds are modularity based now? 20:39:08 linuxmodder: The DVD is no longer constructed by kickstart 20:39:16 It's built from pungi configs like those linked above 20:39:45 The default install is what is included in the "Fedora Server Edition" comps group 20:39:58 Anyway, this is getting a bit off-topic. 20:40:08 Anything else for the meeting or shall I close it out? 20:42:30 #endmeeting