14:04:49 #startmeeting Fedora Atomic Workstation 14:04:49 Meeting started Mon Mar 5 14:04:49 2018 UTC. The chair is otaylor. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:04:49 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:04:49 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_atomic_workstation' 14:04:59 .hello jlebon 14:05:00 jlebon: jlebon 'None' 14:05:03 .hello2 14:05:04 lorbus: lorbus 'Christian Glombek' 14:05:08 .hello walters 14:05:09 walters1: walters 'Colin Walters' 14:05:20 .hello miabbott 14:05:21 miabbott: miabbott 'Micah Abbott' 14:05:30 .hello2 14:05:31 sanja: sanja 'Sanja Bonic' 14:05:55 .hello otaylor 14:05:56 otaylor: otaylor 'Owen Taylor' 14:06:43 .hello2 14:06:44 dustymabe: dustymabe 'Dusty Mabe' 14:07:02 We don't have a well-assembled agenda today. I thought we'd start by going back to the topic of F28 release goals - then have an open floor for anything else people want to discuss 14:07:17 #topic F28 release goals for Fedora Atomic Workstation 14:07:33 .hello kalev 14:07:34 kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' 14:07:37 sounds good 14:07:47 my topic is perhaps related to that 14:08:03 Agenda: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/AtomicWorkstation/SIG/Agenda 14:08:04 so i know not many people follow PRs on the repo 14:08:14 but I had one more I wanted to do today: https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/Rq42tH16KQFa0UQyZW4QbA 14:08:35 big picture goals: slim down the base, but include newer container tech (podman/buildah) 14:08:54 dropping the virt stack by default feels perhaps aggressive but I think it's the right long term move; if you want it you can install it, but virt-in-container is sane too 14:09:06 walters: sounds good, we'll get to that next - maybe we can discuss the base/main split then. 14:09:38 I found out `origin-clients` is now "just" 40MB instead of 270MB 14:09:38 sanja: Thanks - looks like we also have the bootloader spec questoin 14:10:08 OK - on f28 release gaols - it seems like we should have a "works" goal to start with 14:10:41 I guess a question here is how much we want to differ from a regular Workstation install -- I believe an original goal was to have Workstation and Atomic Workstation as close in the package set as possible 14:10:43 I think that means installs, runs, updates - on F28 release day 14:11:13 kalev: that's the next topic, I think :-) 14:11:15 * kalev nods. 14:11:50 Do we think we "work" by that definition now - are there things to fix before f28? 14:12:22 kalev: there's lots of aspects to that, such as whether FW installs container tools by default 14:12:46 to me though it's not FAW if you have e.g. `fpaste` on your root filesystem by default 14:12:56 you're not doing FAW if you're not living in containers 😃 14:13:44 Should we move on to that topic then? :-) 14:13:56 sure :) 14:14:04 otaylor: i think there's a ton of stuff to fix but no...blockers? 14:14:05 #topic Package set composition 14:14:50 walters: let's tag anything that looks like a F28 blocker as such on the FAW pagure 14:16:11 I think I'd prefer a slightly larger default package set (similar to regular Workstation) until we have a working app install in gnome-software 14:16:13 I'm definitely of the opinion that the default set for FAW and FW should be *very* similar. I would expect differences for update-tooling - no PackageKit on FAW or whatever, and for things that you specifically need do differently... but I don't think FAW should be more stripped down from the user point of view. 14:16:19 SGTM 14:16:30 right now we don't support layered packages in gnome-software, and we don't have flatpaks in fedora infrastructure, so we can't show them in gnome-software either 14:16:37 #link https://pagure.io/workstation-ostree-config/pull-requests?status=0 14:17:01 otaylor: is that arguing for stripping down FW too or you disagree with the PRs so far? 14:17:04 I would be happy to reconsider this once we have working app install in FAW gnome-software 14:17:36 walters: I think I've voiced objections once or twice on the PR's, but I haven't had time to do full reviews :-( 14:17:56 I definitely strongly objected in one of them to the idea of removing graphical applications 14:17:57 i think there's a much bigger question to answer around how much we promote this 14:18:31 i was originally closer to where you feel, but now I live in containers a lot more 14:18:58 is the eventual goal that we replace FW with FAW? 14:19:02 I don't mind *minor* stripping down of FW if there are things that seem just spurious ... and as we get a better container based devel story. 14:19:58 jlebon: yes, but only when we don't feel like we're alienating significant amounts of users that way. I don't want it to be a "our way or the highway" situation 14:20:24 let me outline a simple vision: FAW is like https://blog.lessonslearned.org/building-a-more-secure-development-chromebook/ but with container tools on the host by default, and the ability to install packages where you want it and flatpak for non-web-apps 14:20:27 otaylor: right, that makes sense 14:21:05 (and you have full control over the system implicitly, not just what google signs) 14:21:45 so then, we need to figure out which workflows that we have right now on FW we want to transparently port to newer technologie 14:22:26 and which ones we're comfortable with expecting users to learn 14:23:30 My feeling is that from a non-developer end-user point of view, FW and FAW should feel pretty similar. I don't think we have resources to maintain two things long term. 14:23:46 another thread running through this is my expectation is people who want anything beyond the "chromebook experience" should be comfortable with the command line and learning new things 14:24:33 i'm not sure that e.g. "gnome boxes installed by default vs not" is a huge maintenance burden compared to e.g. PackageKit vs not 14:24:38 walters: I certainly don't think that we're trying to provide the *same* developer experience - that doesn't really make sense. 14:25:06 otaylor: yeah, i think that's probably the right barometer to adhere to 14:25:18 i think an out-of-the-box 'chromebook experience' is a reasonable goal for FAW 14:25:27 I would be perfectly fine with dropping gnome-boxes from the default FW install and FAW install both, but I think I'd like to have the same decision across the two products right now 14:25:27 same non-developer workflows, vastly different developer workflows 14:25:34 walters: to me, the question is partly simply whether the FAW SIG wants to be deciding about Simple Scan or whatever separately from the FW working group - I think not. 14:26:04 +1 14:26:08 less burden 14:26:42 so on that topic the starting point for my PR series was scripting keeping comps in sync 14:27:10 so by default then we'll pick up FW (comps) changes 14:27:13 but on top of that we now have a "blacklist" 14:28:00 i think though in general baking apps in by default conflicts with flatpak and sends the wrong long term message 14:28:03 Yeah- I agre ewith that, but I disagree with about half the contents of the blacklist 14:28:20 Things are a lot more baked in if they are in people's layer list... 14:28:44 (of course this intersects rather strongly with the "what if we preloaded flatpaks" thread) 14:28:54 hmm, why do you say that? 14:29:14 in that the package names are like an ABI? 14:29:55 :) - we lost him 14:30:19 this thread may be better as a mailing list thread? 14:30:50 (sorry, chat client crashed) 14:31:21 I think it's good here ... though actually I'm going to have to run very soon - I managed to double book myself. :-( 14:31:31 i was just saying this may be better as a mailing list discussion 14:31:44 walters: we can continue it there, yes. 14:32:34 what's the mailing list for Atomic Workstation? desktop@ list, same as for regular Workstation? 14:32:37 Can someone take over chairing the meeting? 14:32:52 kalev: yes 14:33:10 quick question - should I send meeting reminders to the fedora atomic list as well? 14:33:33 otaylor: atomic-devel@projectatomic.io should be good 14:33:33 yes please 14:33:44 that'd be nice 14:33:47 otaylor: yes please 14:35:19 #action walters to start a thread on desktop@ about these PRs 14:36:17 hmm, i think only otaylor is chair right now 14:38:16 ok, anyone have any other topics? 14:39:26 the agenda has a question of switching to the bootloader spec and its implications for FAW 14:42:50 i'd need to learn more about that, it'll probably mostly be for me to sort out wrt ostree/grubby 14:42:56 offhand i think it'll improve the install-inside-existing flow 14:44:29 ok then let's be done with the meeting for today - in 2 weeks we might know more after discussions on the list if we do them and more information on other fronts 14:44:41 good plan 14:45:16 sgtm 14:45:31 if otaylor is gone, can we eve end the meeting 14:45:35 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:45:39 s/eve/even/ 14:46:22 well then, thanks for being here everyone and have a nice week 14:46:58 thanks everyone! :) 14:47:08 #endmeeting