17:01:11 <pboy> #startmeeting fedora-server
17:01:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 19 17:01:11 2022 UTC.
17:01:12 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:01:12 <zodbot> The chair is pboy. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
17:01:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-server'
17:01:21 <pboy> #topic Welcome / roll call
17:01:31 <pboy> A happy new year and Welcome to our first Server WG IRC meeting this year!
17:01:39 <pboy> „Same procedure as every year“ We'll give a few minutes for folks to show up
17:01:46 <pboy> Please, everybody who is lurking, say either .hello2 or .hello <fasname>
17:01:54 <pboy> I’ll post the agenda in a few minutes.
17:02:17 <salimma> .hi
17:02:18 <zodbot> salimma: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
17:02:24 <eseyman> .hello2
17:02:25 <zodbot> eseyman: eseyman 'Emmanuel Seyman' <emmanuel@seyman.fr>
17:02:32 <pboy> Welcome Michel!
17:02:42 <eseyman> happy 2022 to all!
17:02:46 <salimma> Happy New Year everyone!
17:04:20 <pboy> #topic Agenda
17:04:27 <pboy> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting
17:04:34 <pboy> 1. Follow up actions
17:04:40 <pboy> 2. Current status of Fedora Server User Docs Update
17:04:47 <pboy> 3.  Current changeset F36, possible specific impacts on Server
17:04:55 <pboy> 4.  Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification
17:05:01 <pboy> 5. Open Floor
17:05:10 <pboy> Any additional topic ?
17:06:15 <pboy> Obviously none. Let's start
17:06:28 <pboy> #topic Follow up actions
17:06:37 <pboy> #info Nothing new to report
17:06:49 <pboy> I would have exected to be able to announce here that we have a change proposal for the cockpit file-sharing update.
17:07:04 <dcavalca> .hi
17:07:05 <zodbot> dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <dcavalca@fb.com>
17:07:11 <pboy> Unfortunately, that didn't work out.
17:07:26 <pboy> Ho Davide
17:07:33 <eseyman> I'm wary of having change proposals being carried by people not associated with the change
17:08:22 <pboy> Well, Matthew asked vor someone. So it should be possible.
17:08:53 <pboy> Anyway, the apporunitiy is closed for this release, I think
17:09:03 <pboy> What can we do now?
17:09:15 <salimma> did we discuss that at the last meeting? I somehow don't recall
17:09:16 <eseyman> possible, yes; good idea, probably not
17:09:47 <pboy> salimma: No we didn't. It came after our last meeting.
17:10:03 <pboy> And I was on vacation after new year
17:10:28 <pboy> And I woulndn't have known how to do.
17:11:50 <pboy> But a mnemonic for the next release. We should check the available options before the deadline.
17:11:52 <salimma> ahh. yeah. I made a joke at work for a similar situation - the even-numbered Fedora releases are tough on those that take traditional end-of-year vacations
17:12:05 <salimma> or have performance evaluations due in January :(
17:12:26 <salimma> we can draft something for F37 though, there's no requirement that we wait until F36 lands
17:12:39 <pboy> Yes, the timing for the deadline is inconvenient.
17:13:41 <pboy> salimma: a good idea to do it now, so have something ready when by surprise we have the next deadline.  :-)
17:14:42 <pboy> salimma: Can we do it together, so I learn about it?
17:15:00 <StephenGallagher> I can help with the File-Sharing Change
17:15:10 <StephenGallagher> I did the implementation already :)
17:15:21 <StephenGallagher> I've just been so busy lately I haven't had time for the paperwork side
17:15:53 <StephenGallagher> FESCo will generally accept a late Self-Contained Change if the implementation is already in place
17:15:55 <pboy> paperwork side is no problem for me, if I know what to do
17:16:03 * StephenGallagher speaks with his FESCo hat on.
17:16:15 <pboy> Very good!  action now!
17:16:17 <StephenGallagher> It's not too complicated.
17:17:13 <pboy> If nobody else will do it: Stephen, can I make a draft and you have a look onto it?
17:17:29 <salimma> pboy: sure, I can help
17:17:38 <StephenGallagher> Absolutely. Let me get you a link
17:17:44 <salimma> sorry, AFK for a while, baby emergency
17:18:13 <StephenGallagher> The overall Change process is described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/
17:18:40 <pboy> OK. I'll have a look at it and make a draft.
17:18:43 <StephenGallagher> The specific thing you need to do is copy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EmptyTemplate to a new location on the Wiki and fill it out
17:19:07 <pboy> #action: We prepare a late change proposal.
17:19:28 <StephenGallagher> If you have questions, ping me and I'll help.
17:19:33 <pboy> I'll start with it later to day, so we hopefully not to late.
17:19:37 <StephenGallagher> (And thanks for preparing the draft)
17:20:01 <StephenGallagher> I'll let bcotton know to expect it as well
17:20:22 <pboy> ++1
17:20:33 <pboy> #topic Current status of Fedora Server User Docs Update
17:20:43 <pboy> #link  https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/69
17:21:02 <pboy> Well, It's quite simple, we need reviewer.!
17:21:40 <pboy> It would be good, to be able to publish the work that is ready, in the next 14 days.
17:21:41 <eseyman> sorry, still reviewing 08
17:22:03 <pboy> eseyman: +1
17:22:25 <pboy> eseyman: I know, it takes some time to do it right.
17:23:18 <eseyman> that plus I've had health-related issues these past weeks and it's slowed me down quite a bit
17:23:29 <pboy> Can someone take one of the articles without an associated reviewer, please?
17:23:34 <salimma> hope you're feeling better eseyman
17:23:46 <pboy> I hoe too!
17:24:14 <salimma> I owe pboy a review of 07, so I might as well take 06 too as it's related
17:24:31 <pboy> salimma: +1
17:24:53 <pboy> salimma: But you don't owe it to me, but to us. :-)
17:25:15 <pboy> It's our project.
17:25:35 <salimma> right
17:25:51 <pboy> OK, let look how far we are in 14 days.
17:26:02 <pboy> #topic Current changeset F36, possible specific impacts on Server
17:26:12 <pboy> #link  https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/72
17:26:21 <pboy> We had agreed some time ago to review the list to see if we need to prepare or keep in mind specific tests for some of the changes.
17:26:24 <salimma> oh, woops, I added mine to the wrong issue
17:26:35 <pboy> I have listed 5 changes that I noticed in the ticket.
17:26:42 <pboy> Can we delete any of them?
17:26:50 <pboy> Should we also observe and (manually) test some of the other changes?
17:26:56 <pboy> Floor is open
17:27:29 <salimma> I commented with the ones I think might be worth looking at
17:27:49 <pboy> salimma: OK. thanks
17:27:55 <salimma> on the 5 you listed, to note: I'm 100% sure DIGLIM won't make it in F36, and fs-verity is likely to be punted
17:28:41 <salimma> for DIGLIM, the consensus seems to be that even if accepted, the implementation will be pending the kernel changes getting upstreamed, so that won't happen for F36.
17:29:29 <salimma> RPM db relocation will affect every variant, so I expect we won't have anything special to care about. oh, good call on user admin by default + ifcfg
17:30:09 <pboy> I'm a bit unhappy with the rpm move because of FHS compliance.  But it is decided now.
17:30:45 <salimma> I sincerely wish FHS is actually more active, and would happily join an effort to revive it
17:30:54 <pboy> the noif
17:31:19 <pboy> The nocfg (!) my affect some administrive routines and some configurations.
17:31:30 <pboy> my -> may
17:31:59 <salimma> yeah, do we want to try it, or do we want to just add the optional subpackage to the server install?
17:32:15 <pboy> salimma: Agreed. We need some modernisation.
17:32:36 <pboy> salimma: What to try?
17:32:36 <salimma> ack. if we're planning a test day, might be worth giving a try first and re-ship it if we have a need
17:33:05 <salimma> oh, basically 'hey, ifcfg is no longer installed by default. give it a spin and report on any use cases that no longer works'?
17:34:04 <salimma> re-reading the proposal, looks like a migration tool will be provided
17:34:23 <salimma> so that's definitely something we should ask people to test, as I suspect some server users will have a more complicated setup
17:34:25 <pboy> Yes. It was said.
17:35:34 <pboy> #agreed special attention to the ifcfg migration guide
17:35:58 <salimma> I should note that ifcfg hasn't been accepted, but yeah it's good to have a plan early in case it does
17:36:25 <salimma> how about OpenJDK? IIRC when migrating from 8->11 it was a bit painful
17:36:31 <pboy> Yes, we have to check again when everything is fixed.
17:37:23 <pboy> Yes, I remember too. The good side is, it it update-alternatives aware.
17:38:47 <pboy> OK, I thine we should spend the remaining time to our Technical Specification.
17:38:48 <salimma> so that leaves users are admin by default, openldap, and Ansible
17:39:33 <pboy> Yes, Ansible will be interesting.
17:39:57 <pboy> Next topic?
17:40:04 <pboy> 3
17:40:09 <pboy> 2
17:40:13 <pboy> 1
17:40:23 <pboy> #topic Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification
17:40:32 <pboy> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/58
17:40:39 <pboy> #link https://hackmd.io/qBGmKuZPQ5OloAec3_Nh3w
17:40:46 <pboy> The floor is open
17:41:33 <bytehackr> \o
17:42:47 <mowest> Do the sizes for the network install and local installation still fall in line with what is needed. I thought I remember with the release of 35 that we had issues with a size limit bug.
17:43:12 <salimma> "An option will be provided in the Fedora Server installer to enable disk encryption" -- an option '/is/ provided' maybe? it's been in Anaconda for ages
17:43:27 <salimma> looks like netinstall size is OK now
17:43:58 <pboy> mowest: Yes, but it is a wider issue. Not just us.  Adam is working on it.
17:43:59 <salimma> 602MB for arm64, 646 for x86_64
17:44:17 <pboy> OK, then Adam was successful.
17:44:21 <salimma> the F35 issue was mostly for Workstation IIRC? the live media
17:44:37 <salimma> maybe I remember wrong and netinst was affected too.
17:44:59 <pboy> Unfortunately, I don't  know.
17:45:13 <salimma> our DVD seems to be 2G, and the docs says our budget is 4 so we're good there too
17:45:32 <pboy> I'm just lucky that Adam takes everything in his hand!
17:46:04 <salimma> aha, found it - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2009730
17:46:16 <pboy> But regarding the DVD we still have the issue with not installing recommended rpms.
17:46:39 <pboy> I'm looking at it, but nor finished.
17:47:13 <salimma> speaking of Adam, I wonder if he can help write a QA test for that
17:48:03 <pboy> I think he can. But he is overloaded, too. So we should perpare the issue.
17:48:48 <pboy> We still have to check, how much the dvd would grow and wether we want to accept that.
17:49:17 <pboy> (dkeeping in mind weak internet connections in various part of the world)
17:50:17 <pboy> speaking of technical specification: I suppose we need a kind of replacement for. server roles.
17:50:43 <salimma> related to that, Cloud is putting up its own: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CloudBase/Technical_Specification
17:50:49 <mowest> "Supported Services" is there some additional editing that needs to happen. What is there looks like it goes back to server roles which I believe aren't in the installer anymore.
17:50:56 <salimma> so ignore what I said about future tense, I guess that's the standard language for this
17:51:12 <salimma> Linux Server Role is the replacement for the old ones, right?
17:51:27 <salimma> Linux System Roles, sorry. https://linux-system-roles.github.io/%7CLinux
17:51:44 <pboy> salimma: No, i think there a no Server roles at all, now
17:52:12 <pboy> We should replace it by somethine, e.g. required services.
17:52:31 <eseyman> I think we need something akin to roles
17:53:11 <eseyman> you don't setup a server to setup a server; you do it to have a git server or to handle email or host a web app, ...
17:53:17 <pboy> mowest: Yes, editing is needed. Beforehand we have to decide, if we want to spedify something like supported servides
17:54:12 <pboy> eseyman: agreed. But is is not just installing rpms. It is configuration and support e.g. of our storage concept using LVs
17:54:40 <pboy> E.G. with an LV per service we could support transactional backup.
17:54:49 <mowest> So we need to change it to a list of things you can do with Fedora server like: run containers with Podman, run databases with PostgresSQL and MariaDB, run a file server with Samba...
17:55:20 <eseyman> indeed
17:55:36 <pboy> mowest: Yes, including to guarantee a working configuration.
17:56:09 <pboy> including e.g. backups and restore in case of failing,
17:56:42 <pboy> jsut a reminder: 4 min left!
17:56:57 <salimma> but... that's what Linux System Roles is, right?
17:57:10 <salimma> do we have a specific concern with it?
17:57:12 <pboy> salimna: I think so
17:57:59 <pboy> But there maybe was something additional. I don't know which role had dbus in that roles.
17:59:08 <pboy> salimma: Well, the "old" server roles are gone.
17:59:16 <mowest> I guess that is interesting, we would need to set up a working configuration and backup scheme, we wouldn't just expect an admin to install PostgreSQL and set it up themselves, and then set up a back up and restore if their database gets corrupted? We want to have that in place out of the box. Or is that going too far with the "working configuration"
17:59:37 <pboy> Question is: will we introduce a replacement? I think wie should.
18:01:06 <salimma> LSR seems rather undocumented right now, and.. yeah to mowest's concern, I don't see anything for databases
18:01:09 <mowest> I kind of thought that such "server roles" could be covered with a Server Doc Tutorial, that updates with whatever the latest tech that is available in Fedora.
18:01:11 <pboy> mowest: Regarding Postgres: it stores in /var/lib/pgsql using our rpm. As server we should setup /var/lib/psql as a logical volume, enabling lvm snapshots as backup that way.
18:01:36 <salimma> short of contributing upstream to LSR though, I don't think there's anything we can do here?
18:01:54 <pboy> salimma: LSR?
18:02:06 <salimma> +1 on documenting the use cases that used to be covered by server roles
18:02:13 <salimma> pboy: oh I get tired of typing Linux System Roles
18:02:26 <pboy> Oh, OK!
18:02:32 <salimma> and... we're out of time
18:03:00 <pboy> salimma: I did that for postgres in a new article for our documentation.
18:03:10 <pboy> indeed, out of time.
18:03:36 <pboy> So, Ill close and we continure with LSR recplacement / documentation next time.
18:03:42 <mowest> Thanks for another great meeting, sorry I missed the first half.
18:03:45 <pboy> Please: Add your ideas as comment.
18:04:00 <pboy> Bye bye!
18:04:05 <eseyman> bye, folks
18:04:08 <salimma> thanks pboy and all
18:04:17 <pboy> #endmeeting