17:00:11 #startmeeting fedora-server 17:00:11 Meeting started Wed Jul 20 17:00:11 2022 UTC. 17:00:11 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:11 The chair is pboy. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 17:00:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:11 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-server' 17:00:23 #topic Welcome / roll call 17:00:33 Welcome to our Server WG IRC meeting today! 17:00:50 „Same procedure as every year“ We'll give a few minutes for folks to show up 17:01:03 I’ll post the agenda in a few minutes. 17:02:17 .hello 17:02:17 jwhimpel: (hello ) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1". 17:02:27 .hi 17:02:28 cooltshirtguy: cooltshirtguy 'Jason Beard' 17:03:38 .hello dcavalca 17:03:39 davide: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' 17:05:26 Welcome. We are quite afew today, but we meet our quorum, so we can get started. 17:05:37 #topic Agenda 17:05:45 #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting 17:05:54 #info Follow up actions 17:06:03 #info Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification 17:06:11 #info Using Ansible to install and configure Wildfly 17:06:25 #info Open Floor 17:06:45 Any additional topiv for today? 17:06:59 * nirik waves. Prepping the mass rebuild, but trying to follow along as time permits. :) 17:07:18 nirik Good luck! 17:07:55 #topic Follow up actions 17:08:05 No outstanding action items at the moment as far as I know. 17:08:13 Does anyone have anything to add here? 17:09:01 Obviously not. Then our main course today 17:09:14 #topic Review current Fedora Server Technical Specification 17:09:24 #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/58 17:09:35 Draft: 17:09:44 #link https://hackmd.io/9or6pDs3Qq6DzzgVzXgmeQ 17:09:57 How should we proceed? 17:10:17 From comment to comment or one chapter after the other? 17:11:56 If no one has a preference, let's get the comments started. 17:12:05 That might get us through the whole text once today. 17:13:10 First comment: about mentioning the API. Proposal: ditch it. currently we don't use API. 17:13:54 .hello 17:13:54 jonathanspw: (hello ) -- Alias for "hellomynameis $1". 17:14:16 Welcome jonathanspw 17:14:39 I see no objection. 17:14:46 i say ditch it. 17:14:57 #agreed 1st paragraph, omit API. 17:15:35 second comment about Server Roles, supported services, etc - our Ansibleproject. 17:16:19 Proposal: we keep Server Roles, but now with Ansible instead of API / Cockpit programming 17:17:28 See no objections. so: 17:17:41 #agreed Term for Core Services: We retain Server Roles 17:18:05 Third comment about Fedora Base Server Group. 17:18:22 Does anyone know if it still exist and is working? 17:18:47 I've never seen anything from them. 17:19:11 I'd drop that paragraph. 17:19:20 OK. 17:19:31 #agreed drop that paragraph. 17:19:42 agreed 17:19:49 paragraph about Base Working Groujp I mean 17:20:38 Forth comment, cmurf about omitting an exact limit of DVD 17:21:03 I think, it may be better in the release criteria 17:21:10 s/of data/the system and it's data/ 17:22:08 s/of data/of the system and it's data/ 17:22:17 I don't see something about data in that paragraph ? 17:22:48 sorry, I jumped the gun and was looking at 1.2 17:23:15 OK. 17:23:35 So we omit the number as proposed? 17:24:11 lol i just finally figured out the comments 17:24:11 +1 17:24:21 #agreed We omit a definite number of DVD size 17:24:28 agreed 17:24:54 Well fifth comment, cmurf about den installation defaults 17:25:43 This seems to me to be the most difficult part. 17:26:49 I would just cut out all the extraneous stuff and leave in the facts of what you have. 17:26:51 Anyone with a better / another idea? 17:26:59 Until such time you're ready to revisit the defaults 17:27:33 Welcome cmurf! 17:27:46 For what it's worth, there is a non-obvious and suboptimal side-effect to significantly growing XFS file systems 17:28:16 so it's best to set the size of the `/` LV+XFS to the intended size at the time of installation 17:28:31 The proposed omissions in the first paragraph of the sequence ("Fedora Server gives .) should fitt your proposal? 17:28:42 rather than depending on growing the LV and resizing the XFS later on 17:29:30 It's just my opinion that it's wordy to say "Fedora Server gives the highest priority to maximum reliability and security" I don't know what that means 17:30:18 OK, so the first paragraph is: Fedora Server gives the highest priority to maximum reliability and security of data with a maximum of possible performance. 17:31:03 #agreed 1. paragraph in 1.2: Fedora Server gives the highest priority to maximum reliability and security of data with a maximum of possible performance. 17:31:04 But also it's an addition from the previous tech spec, so adding this section suggests a purpose. So what's the purpose? 17:31:37 I don't think it is an addition. 17:32:00 It describes out default installation. 17:32:15 this is what's in the original 17:32:16 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Technical_Specification#File_system 17:32:34 The purpose is to describe the rationale für out default installation 17:33:25 I don't think you need a rationale beyond what's in the original iteration until you've decided you might want to change it 17:33:55 That text is outdated. It describes the situation before designing a default installation. 17:33:58 i'm not sure it makes sense to reinforce what you have because it sounds to me like it'll make it harder to change your default down the road 17:34:47 I don't think we'll make it harder. It is just a description of the current state. 17:34:57 The one part of the text that's outdated is swap. 17:35:01 There is now swap on zram, for Server, same as all the other Fedora variants. 17:35:10 hello 17:35:39 Outdated is: File-system layout will be discussed with the Anaconda team and reasonable defaults will be selected based o 17:36:16 Presumably you would have that conversation with them if/when considering a change. 17:36:18 The reasonable default were decided and we currently use it 17:36:48 Yeah that was in around 2014, I was part of those discussions that lead to the current layout. 17:37:41 Anyway, I think the original is (a) less wordy, and (b) more flexible for the future. 17:38:27 You don't need to say /boot is 1G in the tech spec for example, or that the root file system is 15G 17:38:41 Yes fewer words, but more non-specific. 17:38:44 you don't want to have to change this doc to make trivial changes to the size of partitions and volumes 17:39:03 OK but what problem is being solved by being more specific? 17:39:23 agreed, we should omit the size specifications. 17:40:19 Otherwise: We explain and justify the current concept. This is the purpose of a technical specification. 17:40:53 Well, how to proceed? 17:41:10 Lets try to find an agreeable wording on the mailing list? 17:41:33 Or lets try 2 alternatives we can vote about. 17:43:03 I see no other suggestion. So let's discuss 1.2 on mailing list. 17:43:27 #action Discuss details of section 1.2 on mailing list. 17:44:26 Next comment is just editorial: we use Server Role . 17:44:59 #agreed Section 1.4 We use Server Role 17:45:31 Section 1.6 Is the same. Any other ideas? 17:46:12 #agreed Section 1.6 (Firewall) we use Server Role here, too 17:46:51 Comment/Question about 1.7 Account handling: Any idea here? 17:47:52 OK no objection. 17:48:09 #agreed section 1.7 remains as it is 17:48:50 Section 1.8 Logging, Proposal to take cmurfs wording. 17:49:45 I see no ojjections 17:50:22 #agreed section 1.8: 1. paragraph as proposed by cmurf, 2. paragraph as is, 3. paragraph omitted. 17:51:05 Section 1.10 System Installer comments? 17:52:36 Suggestion: leave as is and change after scheduled review of our installation medium. 17:52:46 if needed. 17:53:21 I see no objections. 17:53:22 agreed to leave as is 17:54:02 #agreed we leave 1.10 as is and change after scheduled review of our installation medium if required. 17:54:45 .hello2 17:54:46 x3mboy: x3mboy 'Eduard Lucena' 17:55:06 Comments in section 4: Most are editorial. Any comments? 17:57:14 Proposal: we do not add more details as some comments are asking for. 17:57:46 I see no objections. 17:57:51 nope 17:58:30 #agreed: Section 4: We do not add more details here for now. 17:58:47 So, we have one complete pass, now. 17:58:56 And our time is up. 17:59:39 I'll make a next version containing out agreements today. 18:00:30 #action pboy will create a next version of the techn. spec. containing our agreements today. 18:00:53 Any comments and additions, before we close? 18:00:57 no 18:02:33 Thanks for comming and for discussion. We made good progress on an important, long outstanding issue. 18:02:47 thank you! 18:02:53 #endmeeting