server March 2018

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

4 participants
14 discussions

Proposal: Changes to Fedora Server default partitioning scheme
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

The following proposal comes out of the discussion at this weeks Server SIG meeting[1] Fedora Server will have: * / (root) will be a minimum of 2 GiB and a maximum of 15 GiB * SWAP will continue to be calculated automatically based on available RAM on the system * All unused space will be assigned to a volume group and available to be assigned to new partitions or extend existing partitions. * Anaconda will continue to handle the appropriate EFI and /boot settings We also discussed during the meeting whether we should have a separate /var partition by default, but the general sense was that we might be better served by developing a mechanism to allow partitions to be split from existing mount points, which would be more flexible going forward. As we did not have quorum in the meeting by the point we got to this proposal, I'm taking it to the list for discussion and votes. For the record, the current behavior of the partitioning scheme is for / to be given up to 50 GiB of space and then any remaining space after that is assigned to a separate /home partition. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-15/serversig.201…

4 8

Criteria proposal: cover Server roles in upgrade criteria
by Adam Williamson 10 Apr '18

10 Apr '18

Preamble: I know we're planning to throw rolekit out entirely, but I believe we're planning to continue to consider the actual functions behind the roles (FreeIPA and postgres) as blocking, so I'd like to get this done so we remember to include it in that change. Postamble: Back in F27 cycle, specifically in the 2017-10-23 blocker review meeting, we agreed to cover the release-blocking Server roles in the upgrade criteria. That is noted here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503321#c7 However, we never actually made the change. So, here I am proposing it! We should change the Beta criterion 'Upgrade requirements' as follows. Main text should go from: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed." to: "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, and the package sets for each of the release-blocking Server roles, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from fully updated installations of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed." I think that's actually all the change necessary, as the bullet point "The upgraded system must meet all release criteria" then requires that the upgraded roles actually work. Thoughts? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

3 2

2018-04-02 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 30 Mar '18

30 Mar '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-04-02 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 3 proposed blockers and 4 proposed freeze exception issues for Final to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

[Fwd: [Test-Announce] Fedora 28 Candidate Beta-1.1 Available Now!]
by Adam Williamson 27 Mar '18

27 Mar '18

I really should make the robot send these announcements to more lists, but until I remember to do that, here's a forward! Please help us test this compose in your areas, folks. This is Beta RC1. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

[Help Needed] Fedora Server's Mission and Goals
by Stephen Gallagher 26 Mar '18

26 Mar '18

During today's Server SIG IRC meeting[1], we discussed plans for Fedora 29 and onwards. In particular, we've decided that we're probably going to retire the concept of "server roles" from our overall goals. Adam Williamson -- representing Fedora QA -- raised the point that the related release criteria and test goals come directly from the Fedora Server Product Requirements Document (PRD) [2]. He correctly pointed out that we should start by revising the PRD and have that filter down ultimately into the release criteria. Looking at the Fedora Wiki, the Fedora Server PRD is now over four years old and thus is ripe for an update. To that end, we're going to start with a brainstorming exercise to update our Mission Statement. The current statement reads: Fedora Server is a common base platform with "featured server roles" built on top of it. We commit to produce, test, and distribute these server roles. Clearly, this is no longer going to work for us, since we're planning to retire the server role concept. So what I'd like is this: If you are reading this, I'd like you to send me your view of what the purpose/goals/efforts of Fedora Server should be over the next 2-3 years (or even longer). I would ask that you send your thoughts directly to me, not as a reply on the list. This is so as not to influence anyone else's answers or to start a debate before the brainstorming is concluded. I will gather the responses and send them back out to the list as a complete set on Monday. The floodgates should then open to try to find the common elements and start turning them into an actionable strategy (the discussion will also continue at the Server SIG meeting on Tuesday). Once that discussion settles down, I will take the major points we come to agreement on and start putting together a draft of a new Products Requirement Document. We can then discuss and tweak the PRD up to the Fedora 29 System-Wide Change Proposal deadline, at which point the Server SIG will submit its F29 Changes to FESCo. Thank you all in advance for your help with this. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-03-20/serversig.201… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document

1 2

2018-03-26 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 24 Mar '18

24 Mar '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-03-26 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have several proposed blockers and freeze exception issues to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2018-03-20)
by Stephen Gallagher 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 ================================================================ #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-03-20) ================================================================ Meeting started by sgallagh at 20:00:24 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-03-20/serversig.2… . Meeting summary - --------------- * Roll Call (sgallagh, 20:00:24) * Agenda (sgallagh, 20:03:23) * Agenda Item: Server Roles (sgallagh, 20:03:28) * Fedora 28 Beta and Server (sgallagh, 20:07:31) * "we have nothing server specific that's unaddressed" -- adamw (sgallagh, 20:09:21) * aarch64 test status is presently indeterminate (sgallagh, 20:11:50) * Server SIG members are politely asked to make themselves available for testing and fire-fighting (sgallagh, 20:12:47) * Server Roles (sgallagh, 20:22:02) * ACTION: sgallagh to ask the Server SIG to privately send to him their picture of what should be the goal of the next 2-3 year of the Server Edition. (sgallagh, 20:39:59) * Next week's Server SIG meeting will be a brainstorming discussion to kick off a PRD revision. (sgallagh, 20:40:34) * Open Floor (sgallagh, 20:40:49) Meeting ended at 20:44:23 UTC. Action Items - ------------ * sgallagh to ask the Server SIG to privately send to him their picture of what should be the goal of the next 2-3 year of the Server Edition. Action Items, by person - ----------------------- * sgallagh * sgallagh to ask the Server SIG to privately send to him their picture of what should be the goal of the next 2-3 year of the Server Edition. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) - --------------------------- * sgallagh (75) * adamw (24) * zodbot (12) * smooge (11) * nirik (8) * dperpeet (7) * mjwolf (7) * jwb (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v2.2.0 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wkYEAREIABAFAlqxcsoJEHolVWI2uqOjAABAJACgl4B1WYSILdr+IVNlZc1F RMi0mdcAoJjs2f2kUR37u1JA4aK+SefoXFFS =cdfz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Agenda (2018-03-20)
by Stephen Gallagher 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Primary topic: Ending the "Server Roles" concept and replacing it Other topics welcome

1 0

Call for testing: more Fedora 28 Beta blocker-fixing updates
by Adam Williamson 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hey folks! Just a note that there are some more F28 Beta blocker-fixing updates that could use some testing and feedback: 1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2c066076a2 This is an anaconda update that fixes a bug in recent versions: if you did a live install and both created a user account and set a root password, the root account wound up locked. You couldn't get into it. Testing is quite easy: boot a recent live image (KDE live from a recent F28 nightly is good), update all the anaconda packages, then run an install, and during install, create a user account and set the root password. Then check you can log in to the installed system as root. 2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8cff0f34f6 This FreeIPA update fixes logging into the web UI as a regular user. Again, you can only really test this if you have or can set up a testing FreeIPA deployment, we do not recommend upgrading production deployments at this time. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

2018-03-19 @ ** 16:00 ** UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting
by Adam Williamson 17 Mar '18

17 Mar '18

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2018-03-19 # Time: ** 16:00 ** UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have several proposed blockers and freeze exception issues to review, so let's have a review meeting on Monday. Remember that DST started last week, so we're at 1600 UTC now! If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or accepted blockers before the meeting - the full lists can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ . We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F28 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting Have a good weekend and see you on Monday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server March 2018