20:01:17 #startmeeting Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-07-17) 20:01:17 Meeting started Tue Jul 17 20:01:17 2018 UTC. 20:01:17 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 20:01:17 The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:01:17 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_server_sig_weekly_meeting_(2018-07-17)' 20:01:17 #meetingname serversig 20:01:17 #topic Roll Call 20:01:17 The meeting name has been set to 'serversig' 20:01:17 .hello2 20:01:18 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 20:01:46 .hello2 mjwolf 20:01:47 mjwolf: mjwolf 'Michael Wolf' 20:03:35 ... not much of a turnout so far 20:03:43 nirik, smooge, adamw ? 20:03:50 yo 20:03:54 .hello adamwill 20:03:55 adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' 20:05:09 OK, I guess we're not getting anyone else today. 20:05:23 #topic What is the meaning of life? (For Server Edition) 20:05:37 nirik is probably away fighting all the fires 20:05:46 So, at our last meeting we had something of an existential crisis 20:06:13 To briefly summarize: 20:06:14 * adamw still does not know the meaning of life. sorry. 20:06:26 The world has moved on from where it was when we created Server Edition. 20:07:25 At the time, we envisioned a future where we established de-facto standards for how popular services were deployed and would build them on each other, using FreeIPA as a base and core feature. 20:07:52 * nirik arrives late 20:08:24 This was all going to be tied together by rolekit and Cockpit and be sunshine and rainbows forever. 20:09:08 rainbows++ 20:09:08 Funny thing about rainbows... you only see them after you've gotten rained on 20:10:05 So the questions before us today are to figure out what market segment Server should target and how. 20:12:27 well, if we look at the area(s) that containers are taking on... that leaves us to 'traditional' deployments... and pets and such 20:12:53 but what other areas aren't served by containers or the like? 20:13:05 Which is a market segment that we can pretty much guarantee we won't be able to make significant headway into 20:13:19 That segment is owned pretty much entirely by RHEL/CentOS. 20:13:37 * adamw has no ideas. 20:13:46 And while we *are* the upstream for their next versions, we don't have a particularly good story for why someone should pick us instead 20:14:14 * tachoknight raises his hand 20:14:17 and less so with modules. ;) 20:14:26 tachoknight: You don't need to ask to speak. Go ahead :) 20:14:58 hi, i'd like to say that i like fedora server as it's the closest to a blank canvas i've found in terms of working with linux 20:15:01 no containers 20:15:06 no preconceived notions 20:15:08 no guis 20:15:21 just a straight-up nice environment to do whatever i want 20:15:26 nirik: That's one place we should be looking: maybe we basically merge with EPEL and become a source of high-quality containers for future RHEL releases 20:15:36 that sounds like you mostly like the minimal install environment, though, right? 20:15:51 tachoknight: We do have a GUI, actually. Cockpit is installed with Server Edition. 20:16:04 sgallagh: true, but i never use it 20:16:21 i just ssh in, configure my jobs, custom servers, whatever 20:16:48 at the very least, it'd be great if fedora maintained some sort of vanilla server spin that could be used for literally anything 20:17:21 tachoknight: The "Fedora Custom OS" is never going away, but that's not the same thing as Server Edition. 20:17:50 hm 20:18:06 to be fair, as a Centos/RHEL user, there is a few time where I really like having Fedora, because at least, I can have a influence on the packages in a reasonable time frame 20:18:08 The original idea behind Server Edition was (to be indelicate) to provide a way to make it easier for Windows admins to switch to Linux 20:18:41 misc: Right, but if we make modules a real thing in EPEL, that's probably the best of both worlds 20:18:43 sgallagh: well, modules also may be nice for inside containers... fedora:latest and install module foo... or would that be more something that just overlaps with atomic/whatever workgroup? 20:19:09 nirik: I think the Modularity WG is kind of responsible for that. 20:19:16 sgallagh: my personal pet peeve is fixing selinux, doubt modules are gonna fix that one :) 20:20:02 misc: ISTR the SELinux folks talking about making SELinux more modular (not the same meaning of the word) such that EPEL and the like could add supplementary rules. 20:20:13 (more easily) 20:20:25 and on epel, you can never be sure that something will not suddenly be stuck in amber, like it almost happened with ansible 20:20:55 but yeah, having high quality module/containers would be a good story 20:20:56 misc: That's EPEL today. But we're working on getting modularity ported to work with RHEL (hopefully 7) 20:21:29 So you wouldn't have to worry about the frozen-in-amber situation, because you can build additional streams with newer versions 20:21:37 And switch to them at will 20:22:46 Support on RHEL 7 would probably require using 'dnf' rather than the supported 'yum' package manager, but we're trying to figure it out. 20:23:26 All of those are definitely things that *Fedora* should and will be doing. 20:23:40 But it still leaves a big question mark next to "what is Fedora Server Edition"? 20:23:56 * nirik doesn't think epel7 is a good target, but ok. 20:25:16 Last week we questioned whether a specific Fedora Server Edition is still meaningful as a monolithic thing. 20:25:17 I think we only have areas underserved by modularity and cloud... and not sure thats enough to really work with 20:25:56 One idea that was brought up was whether we should consider dropping the Server Edition and instead considering building a set of appliances under the Fedora Server banner 20:26:09 e.g. Fedora Domain Controller, Fedora Home Media Server, etc. 20:26:56 do we have resources for that? ;) it's hard to make appliances that are foolproof. 20:27:09 But I'm not sure that's functionally more interesting than the Spins... and we know how well they work. 20:27:49 yeah, I think what is interesting is more "making sure the feature work and is tested" than having a iso, IMHO 20:28:12 To address the obvious elephant in the room: our esteemed primary sponsor wants the Server Edition to continue and gain support because it's directly beneficial to our downstream. 20:28:13 * nirik is reminded he needs to write up his blog on mpd + pulseaudio system mode + bluetooth speakers 20:28:30 But they have thus far provided no guidance around how that would work or what, specifically, they want from us. 20:28:37 cause as soon as you restrict people, they will ask to change stuff, and then, here go the foolproofness :) 20:29:00 misc: Make something foolproof and the world builds a better fool :) 20:29:12 sgallagh: yup 20:29:29 does our primary sponsor have any idea what it wants server to be? 20:29:47 oh, overtaken by events. 20:29:49 we talked at one point about taking over the cloud image, is that still something we want to do? or did we do it? or ? 20:30:26 nirik: It's in limbo while we figure out what we are. 20:30:32 adamw: our Primary Sponsor move in mysterious ways 20:30:53 The general agreement is that cloud image will be Server Edition, not a separate thing. 20:31:12 But since we don't yet know what Server Edition is, we can't proceed there. 20:31:15 I think the cloud image is and continues to be useful to lots of people... 20:31:21 right, true 20:31:58 IMHO for cloud purposes it's best to have very small base that whooever is running it can do what they like with. 20:32:09 And maybe tachoknight had the right of it: maybe our answer is Server Edition is just-enough-OS for bootstrapping a custom environment 20:32:16 like just enough to have dnf so you can install other stuff. 20:32:17 It's not *interesting* on its own, but it's necessary 20:32:43 nirik: possibly microdnf, but sure :) 20:33:10 i think we need that, and we need it to somehow have equal or near prominence to Workstation and Atomic (or CoreOS or whatever)... 20:33:12 my fedora server image i clone is called 'canvas' on my machine :) 20:33:17 but is Server the right name/vehicle for it? 20:33:23 on it i shall paint my pretty picture 20:33:25 :) 20:33:35 maybe this is something we should ask council about, even. 20:33:37 how about "Base" 20:33:40 adamw: I'm willing to paint that shed, sure 20:33:41 Fedora Base 20:33:45 mauve! 20:33:56 more the 'vehicle' question than the 'name 20:34:27 Maybe we could finally have a "Fedora Foundation" :-P 20:34:27 does it make sense for the Server SIG and all its associated existing baggage of docs and so on to be the place where that happens 20:34:29 Fedora Core? 20:34:33 .fire nirik 20:34:33 adamw fires nirik 20:34:34 * nirik runs and hides 20:34:35 .fire sgallagh 20:34:38 adamw fires sgallagh 20:34:43 .fire adamw 20:34:43 adamw fires adamw 20:35:06 adamw: What exactly do you mean by "vehicle"? 20:36:27 well, i mean, we are the Fedora Server SIG, we're having the Fedora Server meeting, we have the server@ mailing list, we have a Server PRD and tech spec and all the rest of it: if the 'need' we identify the project as still having is 'some kind of small base install for building stuff on top of', do those two things...match up? is it sensible for the former to produce/caretake/maintain/whatever the latter? 20:36:46 but if this is all too beardy-weardy, ignore me 20:38:21 No, it's a fair question. 20:38:33 And arguably bordering on the old "Base WG" territory. 20:38:37 Though I think that group disbanded 20:40:14 yep. 20:40:32 I think it still does line up, though. We're still primarily looking to support the "pets" of the world. 20:40:52 We're just talking about going back to our roots, rather than our more recent attempts at being something new. 20:41:14 I still think Fedora needs a place where things like Cockpit can gestate; that was definitely a big win for Fedora. 20:41:55 yeah 20:42:01 We also have folks working on Fedora Server as a base for Snaps, which will hopefully increase Fedora's presence in new places. 20:42:38 Also, once Weldr gets further along, I think we will want a partnership to simplify its setup and deployment. 20:43:17 does the WG need to produce something (like a artefact), or shouldn't it be more like docs, trainings, or just test days around specific workload ? 20:43:38 misc: That's actually a Council-level decision 20:43:50 Right now, the answer is "yes". The purpose of an Edition is to have a deliverable. 20:44:44 yeah, so maye indeed dropping the edition, keeping the WG to do get folks doing servers things on Fedora might be a way forward, or isn't what was tried in the past ? 20:45:37 i have to leave, but let me say how awesome Fedora server has served me and thanks to everyone for making it work so well 20:45:46 Right now, the delta between Fedora (non-Edition) and Fedora Server is basically "Fedora Server has Cockpit enabled by default" 20:46:02 Which means some changes to the default firewall, but little else 20:46:04 * misc is also happy of using Fedora on prod servers 20:46:20 tachoknight: Thanks for joining us 20:46:34 tachoknight: thanks! 20:46:41 Oh, absolutely some people use Fedora in production. 20:46:44 sgallagh: also xfs by default. 20:46:44 thanks tachoknight 20:46:52 adamw: Ah, true 20:47:27 adamw: I was basically leading up to: we could ask FESCo to migrate that delta to Fedora non-Edition if we decided to drop Server Edition 20:47:52 Workstation already overrides both the firewall and default FS in their deliverable 20:48:03 Though it does still impact Spins, of course 20:48:59 so, basically, if cockpit package is installed it gets enabled? 20:49:27 adamw: In what circumstance? 20:49:40 In Server at least, it is also installed by default. 20:49:52 i was interpreting your suggestion to "migrate that delta to Fedora non-Edition" 20:49:57 But yes, we would fix up the default firewall and systemd preset 20:49:59 presumably we wouldn't want to just stick cockpit in @core 20:50:07 <.< 20:50:09 >.> 20:50:12 ... of course not? 20:50:13 .fire sgallagh again 20:50:13 adamw fires sgallagh again 20:50:58 Honestly, cockpit-ws is pretty lightweight. It might be worth putting in @core... but that's a debate for another day 20:52:23 I think we'd have a harder time with the XFS default, but we could see how that plays out 20:53:27 OK, we're running pretty close to the top of the hour. 20:53:38 wouldn't xfs be needed for stratos testing ? 20:53:59 I think my main action item here is to talk with the Council and our Primary Sponsor and see if they have requests. 20:54:28 misc: Maybe, but that probably doesn't impact the *default* 20:55:02 that seems reasonable. 20:55:20 * nirik nods 20:55:36 #action sgallagh to talk with Fedora Council and Red Hat management about requests for Server WG 20:57:17 I won't be available next week, so shall we reconvene on the 31st? 20:59:27 sounds good we can talk flock plans if any 20:59:44 ack 20:59:52 ok, if there's nothing else, I'll close out the meeting 21:00:03 Thanks for the brainstorming today, folks! 21:01:05 yw 21:02:05 #endmeeting