14:03:14 #startmeeting Weekly cockpit meeting 2015-11-30 14:03:14 Meeting started Mon Nov 30 14:03:14 2015 UTC. The chair is andreasn. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:03:14 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:03:14 The meeting name has been set to 'weekly_cockpit_meeting_2015-11-30' 14:03:14 did that work I wonder 14:03:27 .hello mvo 14:03:28 .hello stefw 14:03:30 mvollmer: mvo 'Marius Vollmer' 14:03:30 yup, just slow bot 14:03:30 .hello andreasn 14:03:33 stefw: stefw 'Stef Walter' 14:03:36 andreasn: andreasn 'Andreas Nilsson' 14:04:28 .hello dperpeet 14:04:28 dperpeet: dperpeet 'None' 14:04:43 yay! 14:04:53 #topic Agenda 14:05:15 * External channels 14:05:18 * SOSReport 14:05:21 * Debian 14:05:35 * OpenSCAP container support 14:06:00 * Javascript dependencies 14:06:59 all right 14:07:18 #topic External Channels 14:07:42 stef has been doing great work on the "external channels" 14:08:02 propmted by the sosreport download feature 14:08:19 yay 14:08:24 now we can open channels just from a GET request with a special URL 14:08:56 stefw, would you like to add? 14:09:07 the GET request uses a CSRF token 14:09:14 which is sent via the WebSocket in the "init" message 14:09:21 i tried different approaches for these external channels 14:09:25 and this one ended up making the most sense 14:10:30 i have changes the sosreport code to use this, and it works great 14:10:34 cool 14:10:35 *changed 14:10:39 nice 14:10:47 anything else on that subject? 14:11:05 review is ongoing, hopefully can be merged very soon. 14:11:28 nice 14:11:28 #topic SOSReport 14:11:32 right 14:11:41 so I changed sosreport to use external channels. :-) 14:11:56 the removes the need to add a file server 14:12:07 now we just open a superuser fsread1 channel 14:12:41 works very well after stefw helped me remember the "binary" option for a channel 14:12:55 should that be the default for external channels? 14:12:59 it would be a bit unexpected 14:13:03 but may help things go better? 14:13:09 i don't know... 14:13:23 maybe 14:13:32 or depending on the content-type? 14:14:06 yeah, could be 14:14:11 if content type is set, then make it binary 14:14:15 what other uses do we have for the external channels? 14:14:37 well all the resource loading is actually external channels 14:14:40 and they do set binary by default 14:14:45 right 14:15:24 hmm, we should decide this before merging 14:15:43 changing the default later is nasty 14:16:13 or culd it be a per-payload default? 14:16:30 fsread1 is binary 14:16:34 fslist1 is not 14:16:41 let's discuss later 14:16:45 ok 14:17:00 andreasn, sosreport has "needsdesign" 14:17:11 I would say, let's not do profiles 14:17:31 they are already inconsistent between f22 and f23 I think. 14:17:42 or rather, don't work on f23 14:17:51 all right 14:17:51 so regarding profiles, I looked into that 14:17:51 and made some mockups https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cockpit-project/cockpit-design/master/sos-reports/create-sos-report-v3.png 14:17:51 but I ran into the hurdle that Fedora doesn't ship any profiles(?!) 14:17:51 let's bother about that later 14:18:01 but I could have gotten that backwards 14:18:09 ok! 14:18:12 yes, I think it would make sense as a version 2 14:18:15 I'll look into this then. 14:18:19 okay. 14:18:29 I'll remove the label for now 14:18:56 yep 14:19:09 and I'll keep investigating this situation with profiles 14:19:23 all right, next up 14:19:30 i have to check the integration test and make new images, then sosreport should be ready again 14:19:32 #topic OpenSCAP container support 14:20:12 so I went back to researching Atomic SCAP scanning a bit, sketching things out and such 14:20:40 but I wonder when and when we need to develop that, if it's urgent and such 14:21:07 or if some other fire is more urgent 14:21:49 not a fire, but what about rolekit? 14:22:04 is that in good shape from your point of view? 14:22:30 I have a lot of design done on rolekit already, but I'm revisiting those a bit as well 14:22:35 it's in like a half-good state maybe 14:22:49 okay 14:23:03 so it would work, but could be better 14:23:04 I am thinking that I start with that towards the end of the week, maybe 14:23:14 I'll do some more work on rolekit as well during this week 14:23:23 okay 14:23:23 sounds good 14:24:12 #topic Debian 14:24:14 * stefw has to go in 6 minutes 14:24:29 let's do stef's topic 14:24:41 sure, what was that? 14:24:49 #topic Javascript dependencies 14:24:50 javascript dependencies 14:24:55 #topic Javascript dependencies 14:25:06 because some distros are complaining about us bundling javascript dependencies 14:25:13 right 14:25:20 i'm trying to make progress in the direction of having them replacable at *build* time 14:25:21 hehehe 14:25:22 this old fight 14:25:25 not at *runtime* 14:25:33 yes, that makes sense 14:25:47 so as a first step, i'm trying to move all deps into a sane place (rather than copying them around our tree) 14:25:53 and trying to use unmodified upstream files 14:26:01 this is also interesting for the image registry package i'm working on 14:26:05 so that a distro could ship a certain patternfly version and have us pick up that? 14:26:05 (maybe a bad example) 14:26:07 lets see how far we get 14:26:17 andreasn, well i would suggest we lock down the versions very specifically 14:26:29 and the distro needs to ship that version (perhaps the dotted point version can vary) 14:26:35 i think we should still ship 'known good' versions in the tarball 14:26:42 mvollmer, yes, we could do that 14:26:45 right 14:26:46 but allow them to be replaced 14:26:49 and i'm going to do that for the bower dependencies 14:26:53 so that we can point fingers 14:26:57 so there are broadly two types of javascript dependencies: 14:27:08 1. the nodejs devel dependencies listed in package.json 14:27:20 2. the bower runtime dependencies currently controlled via 'make update-lib' 14:27:27 i would like to continue to ship known good versions of the latter 14:27:31 in our git repo 14:27:32 yes 14:27:35 newer patternfly could break an older cockpit theoretically 14:27:38 especially because then it makes development so much easier 14:27:41 andreasn, yes, and it has 14:27:47 we can be less stringent about the nodejs deps 14:27:54 even though those have broken our build in the past 14:28:10 but for the runtime bower dependencies we need to be quite strict about versions, or we'll have a mess on our hands 14:28:13 so anyway, just a step in this direction 14:28:16 disentangling things 14:28:20 hopefully there will be a pull request soon 14:28:22 nice 14:28:46 cool 14:29:05 it's more or less equivalent to patching configure.ac, no? 14:29:21 if you do it, you need to run some extra steps and need more builddeps 14:29:24 yes, distros will need to place symlinks in the right places 14:29:29 so our build can find them 14:29:45 and then yes, many mor ebuild deps are need.ed 14:29:54 our goal should still be that no javascript is needed to build the tarball 14:29:58 but if distros want to meddle 14:30:00 then they need everything 14:30:14 yes 14:30:15 the open question becomes 14:30:24 how can we guarantee that our tests catch the bugs? 14:30:30 likely we'll have to upstream their meddling ... in some way 14:30:33 so it's not a handsoff thing 14:30:44 lets see how it goes 14:30:45 right 14:30:49 yes 14:30:59 they can run our tests with their packages 14:31:07 it should be drop-in, basically 14:31:47 * stefw has got to go 14:31:53 our tests only expect cockpit running on the system, they don't care where it comes from 14:32:57 let's see 14:33:13 stefw, see you! 14:33:53 Debian? 14:33:59 later! 14:34:26 mvollmer, go ahead with Debian 14:34:31 sure 14:34:33 #topic Debian 14:34:38 ok 14:34:46 I have been making good progress 14:35:03 some status here: 14:35:05 https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/pull/3202#issuecomment-160580658 14:35:35 I'll continue with this 14:35:46 have to figure out network-manager and FreeIPA 14:35:57 and user synching might be a challenge 14:36:14 but it looks good 14:36:21 nice work 14:36:23 5 tests failing 14:36:25 a lot of work still to be done, of course 14:36:28 storaged 14:36:42 and SELinux 14:36:49 but we need help with that, I'd say 14:37:00 I think we can leave storaged out of the picture for now 14:37:07 yeah 14:37:11 and pick up the work when someone has it running on debian 14:37:17 we still don't have a maintainer in Debian, right? 14:37:23 not that I know of 14:37:37 it's a good chunk of work 14:37:47 for a volunteer 14:38:45 about the PR itself 14:38:55 there is one big commit that adds support for Debian 8 14:39:07 and many small ones that tweak the tests and Cockpit in small ways 14:39:30 I would appreciate it if you could have a look at the PR 14:39:39 looks like a lot, but really isn't 14:39:57 https://github.com/cockpit-project/cockpit/pull/3202 14:40:09 ok 14:40:16 petervo, still here? 14:40:26 yes 14:40:40 petervo, Debian doesn't have ssh_set_agent_port 14:40:42 (or similar) 14:41:01 it's essential for ssh public key stuff, right? 14:41:14 right so no key auth support 14:41:18 can we do something about getting it into Debian? 14:41:34 newer version? patch against upstream? 14:41:51 it's probably a matter of upgrading libshh i can look into it 14:42:06 libssh* 14:42:09 okay 14:42:53 so, I don't feel like spendin 100% on Debian for much longer 14:43:02 probably makes sense 14:43:24 but network-manager and freeipa need to be tackled 14:43:38 I should talk more to mbiebl etc 14:43:42 what was up with networkmanager? 14:44:00 the tests fail, and I haven't bothered to check 14:44:09 also, the tests are pretty fedora specific 14:44:26 fedora and debian have different ways to configure the network 14:44:32 ah, but networkmanager itself is functional? 14:44:40 yes 14:45:14 ahh, one more thing 14:45:26 installiong build dependencies during vm-create 14:45:37 right now, they are installed during vm-install 14:45:46 but I think I know how to do it 14:46:29 that's it 14:46:38 nice 14:46:43 #topic open floor 14:47:18 since mvollmer is going to start looking at rolekit at the end of the week, should we move it up one point on the roadmap? 14:47:27 above NFS 14:47:40 (NFS client that is) 14:47:41 I'd say yes 14:47:52 cool, I'll do that then 14:48:00 thanks 14:48:21 anything else? 14:49:44 did I go offline? 14:50:40 i think we are done 14:51:13 hups, seems I dropped off 14:51:19 cool 14:51:23 #endmeeting