#meeting:fedoraproject.org log

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:00:38

!startmeeting fedora-server

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:40

Meeting started at 2024-08-21 17:00:38 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:00:40

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server'

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:00:53

!topic Welcome / roll call

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:01:02

Let's wait a moment. I'll post the agenda in 2-3 minutes with a new business to deal with in addition to the agenda as sent earlier today.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:01:42

!hello

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:01:44

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

<@blackwell:fedora.im>

17:02:09

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:02:10

Jason Blackwell (blackwell)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:03:16

Welcome Emmanuel, Welcome Jason. Let's still wait a bit and hoping for John :-)

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:03:45

!hello

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:46

Steve Daley (mowest)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:04:17

Steve, welcome!

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:04:43

OK, we meet our quorum. Let's start

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:04:52

!topic Agenda

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:02

!info Follow-up actions & announcements

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:12

!info Follow-up, findings and conclusions from Flock 2024

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:20

!info Ansible assisted installation and configuration of NFS service

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:31

!info Optimizing NFS service documentation

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:39

!info Open Floor

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:05:50

Any comment on this?

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:06:04

no, I think we're good

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:06:14

OK, Let's start

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:06:25

!topic 1. Follow-up actions & announcements

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:06:56

Follow-up actions are basically the same as last meeting. So I would skip it today.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:07:04

Any announsment?

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:07:24

I have one

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:07:32

OK, go on

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:09:09

OpenWRT created their own ARM SBC board (OpenWRT One) a while back. They're now working on a second model (which will not be called OpenWRT Two) which aims for support for more distributions.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:09:37

This would seem to target the homelab use-case

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:10:19

That's pretty much it.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:10:48

Very interesting. And it would be good if we had a better offer on the Hardwafre side than we currently have.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:11:13

yes, the current offerings all have at least one thing wanting

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:11:14

Do you know which ARM processor etc they are using?

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:11:34

They are currently looking at the mediatek mt7988

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:11:51

OH, never heard of this :-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:12:33

Seems to be speciallized on routers

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:12:56

Banana Pi has some models with this.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:13:20

I'm following the whole discussion although OpenWRT are pretty focused on OpenWRT One for the time being

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:14:14

OK, if I oversee the Fedora support for ARM, this hardware is not supported yet.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:14:24

It looks like the OpenWRT One is based on a Banana Pi board.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:15:00

Or "designed in partnership with"

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:15:25

OK, let's keep a look on this. Perhaps it opens an additional opportunity.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:15:38

a look -> to look

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:16:28

I think we can go on for now.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:16:43

!topic 3. Ansible assisted installation and configuration of NFS service

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:16:54

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/138

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:17:03

!undo

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:17:23

!topic 2. Follow-up, findings and conclusions from Flock 2024

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:17:44

!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZFEQZHECF4DNJA3VH4UIGGITRLFCXKFH/

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:18:01

No issue yet, but mail from Emmanuel (eseyman)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:18:21

The floor is open.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:19:04

I think it would be a big step forward if one of us became an Ansible maintainer.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:19:29

as in maintainer of the Ansible package ?

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:19:58

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:20:00

John Himpel (jwhimpel)

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:20:09

Sorry that I am late

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:20:23

Better late than never :-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:21:27

Emmanuel Seyman: Yes, as I understood you are considering to step in to maintain the collection?

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:21:29

I believe, I would like to see us follow through on: 1. Survey to community to learn more about: a. audience we are currently serving with Fedora Server b. enhancements the community would like to see. and 2. Completing 2-3 Ansible server roles defined with a RPM packaged Playbook and supporting documentation.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:22:56

mowest: Regarding the survey part: I still have to complete my proposal about the content. I plan to do that this week, so we can discuss it next meeting.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:23:22

I've run into issues with the robertdebock roles and filed an issue upstream : https://github.com/robertdebock/ansible-collection-roles/issues/9

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:24:07

During the BOF we had the suggestion of being able to install Fedora Server and use it as your router OS complete with a webUI, but I don't believe we can do this because there doesn't exist the supporting technology that would give the user an webUI that would allow them to configure their firewall and other common router tasks.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:24:44

Emmanuel Seyman: And didn't you also want to get involved in maintaining the current Fedora collection?

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:25:12

the linux-server-roles looks already well maintained

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:26:19

mowest: With Cockpit, we would at least have a good basis. But it would need a lot of development. Or we would have to import existing software as a stand-alone module.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:27:08

Emmanuel Seyman: OK, then I missunderstood Neil in the mail exchange linked to above

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:28:02

The second suggestion at the BOF was to explore creating a Fedora Server "bootc" version. I noticed in the Flock Matrix channel, that someone posted a YouTube video of a Red Hat engineer who transitioned his Fedora Server NAS to a "bootc" server NAS, but from what I have learned about "bootc" I think it is just too early yet for Fedora Server (the slowest moving most backwards compatible arm of the Fedora Project) to consider at this time.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:28:09

mowest: I'm also not sure whether it wouldn't be better to strictly separate the router and server.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:30:23

Hm "the slowest moving most backwards compatible arm of the Fedora Project" that's a wide spread and most welcome characteristic of a server :-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:31:07

and we are highly backwards compatible with always current versions of the server software bits.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:31:51

Peter Boy: I just don't think that in the Open Source ecosystem that we have the rest of the tech developed that we could pull in. Although I would love to run Fedora on my router, I just don't think that is even close to being feasible at this time. Fedora pulls together developed software from the free software world to create a solid end user experience, and the capable webUI front end to control all of the little aspects of a router including supporting things like VPN in the interface just don't exist as far as I can tell.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:32:35

Before we dedicate ourselves to Bootc, perhaps we should first put together a home server and NAS replacement, perhaps as a spin off.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:32:52

Peter Boy: Someone at Flock described Fedora Server in this way, and they meant it as a compliment. I don't think I got the quote exactly right, but it is close :-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:33:28

OK, I was not sure about the "compliment" part. Good to know that.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:33:44

guys, let's let the bootc people make their tech user-ready and concentrate on the ansible bits

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:35:04

Emmanuel Seyman: ++1

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:35:07

pboy has already given cookies to eseyman during the F40 timeframe

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:35:27

I agree with Emmanuel Seyman about the "bootc" tech, and I also would like us to focus on the ansible bits, I think that has most potential to open up new ways of using Fedora Server easily in the homelab and in other business use cases.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:35:51

OK, so let''s go to our next topic.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:36:12

!topic 3. Ansible assisted installation and configuration of NFS service

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:36:27

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/138

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:36:37

Continuing our discussion at last week's meeting about how we want to distribute the service specific Ansible playbooks.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:36:55

I'm still waiting on the necessary "ansible" directories to be added to stg.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:37:05

I still haven't finished my review of John's ansible playbooks

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:37:58

John Himpel: I understood our discussion last meeting, that I shouldn't synchronize. Sorry. I'll do it just after out meeting.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:38:58

I'll try to work on adding content to the README.md and working with the various "docs" templates this week.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:40:49

I would like to begin thinking about automated testing, but I have no idea what I should test and how to go about creating the testbed in pagure.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:40:49

Well, the docs template, i.e. empty docs for installation and configuratrion are already in stg. I add the ansible part so it is ready for work later today of tomorrow.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:41:09

Peter Boy: Thanks!

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:42:20

Robert de Bock's roles depend upon Github for testing. Is that the same framework available in pagure?

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:43:18

Regarding testing: Perhaps we should first try a manual way. E.g. download the Ansible playbook on a Fedora workstations (or server) ans use it to install on sisyphos? Or in a nspawn developent container?

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:44:02

John Himpel: I don't know much about pagure capabilities.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:44:46

I don't think so and I don't know that ansible roles should with CI be tested once they are released

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:47:25

Maybe, we should add to the README.md some hints how to manually test the current state?

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:47:31

So far I've relied upon running the playbook on my workstation, using another host in my network as the target for server and sisyphos as a target for the client. It's all manually run.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:48:24

John Himpel: Do we have any information anywhere so I could read how to use / test it?

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:49:38

Peter Boy: Let me do the commit to "stg" and finish my work on README.md. I should have all that done by Monday.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:50:17

I will send a note to the mailing list when it's ready for widespread testing.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:50:34

Would someone explain what "sisyphos" is? Just brief enough so I can google it and not get a reference to Greek myths.

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:51:11

I may need to write another role to "clean up after" on sisyphos when an individual is through testing.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:51:36

sisyphos is a public accessible test server for use by the server wg. I provide this on one of my hardware boxes.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:52:01

Oh, thanks Peter Boy

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:52:09

sisyphos.resdigita.eu – I'll send you login data

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:54:04

Well, I think, the next step is to add ansible dirs to stg and to provide some info how we could try out what we have now.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:54:41

So, can we proceed with the next topic?

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:54:57

yes, please. I won't be able to stay for much longer

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:09

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:12

!topic 4. Optimizing NFS service documentation

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:26

!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/138

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:37

!link https://docs.stg.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/services/filesharing-nfs-installation/

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:48

Current status so far:

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:48

- We want to split the current NFS draft in 2 parts: Installation and (Basic) Configuration.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:55:48

I prepared 2 corresponding empty documents.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:56:10

How will we proceed?

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:56:29

documents in stg

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

17:56:56

I'll try to begin adding content to these two drafts before our next meeting.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:57:15

John Himpel: ++1

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:57:17

pboy has already given cookies to jwhimpel during the F40 timeframe

<@mowest:fedora.im>

17:58:36

I just took a quick glance. Are we considering removing the current "configuration" section, and replacing it with a different document that is Ansible based?

<@pboy:fedora.im>

17:59:53

mowest: We decided to keep documentation about how to do it manually and add sections about how to do it with Ansible. both should result in the same outcome.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

17:59:54

This was the question AdamW asked me at Flock. Whichever one we're going to test with AutoQA should be the one we docuement

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

18:00:18

I thought we agreed to document two methods: a) Ansible base and b) Cli based.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:00:54

John Himpel: Yes, we did that!

<@mowest:fedora.im>

18:01:01

I can see reasons to have both, but I understand AdamW's concerns about AutoQA should only have to test one method.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

18:01:36

If we document both, we still have to chose the one we do AutoQA with

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:01:39

Yes, probably autoQA should use the Ansible way.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

18:01:46

Agreed

<@jwhimpel:fedora.im>

18:02:13

Is AdamW expecting us to write the QA tests?

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:02:32

According to your technical document, Ansible is out main focus for "specifically supported services"

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:03:19

John Himpel: I don't think so. It's quite complex and there are some guys specialized on this tasks.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

18:03:36

I kind of envisioned a separate area of Fedora Server docs that would document how to use the RPM package supplied Ansible Playbooks to easily set up a Fedora Server with a specific role kind of like "Quick Docs" are kind of separate from "Workstation" docs but ours would still be under the Fedora Server docs namespace.

<@eseyman:fedora.im>

18:03:52

No, The QA team will write the tests

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:05:00

Oh, I just see, we are out of time already. Time went fast today ;.-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:05:25

We should stop now and continue next week and on mailing list.

<@mowest:fedora.im>

18:06:05

Since we are all on Matrix we could use our Fedora Server room for quick check ins too.

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:06:39

mowest: Indeed, we could start to use it more regularly

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:06:55

Alltough, I'm a fan of mailing lists :-)

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:07:35

Well, let's stop and continue on our channels and next week.!

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:07:39

Bye bye

<@pboy:fedora.im>

18:07:53

!endmeeting