Hi folks,
We have a serious issue with the current Apache httpd package, which is an indispensable service for a server these days.
The issue is basically the default configuration as provided by the package:
- if you create just one server in den .conf directory, it results in a non-functional https configuration
- the configuration uses items, that are deprecated since version 2.4
- the default layout of the default configuration is currently not suitable
I wrote a bug report about it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258121
Unfortunately we are experiencing a common Fedora problem, nobody responds to it and the bug reports are left unprocessed and pile up. And because none of the maintainers respond at all, we have now also missed all the deadlines for improving something for f40.
Technically an improvement is more than simple. It’s just a change in the configuration files, as far as I see.
Any idea how to proceed with this?
- Would someone take the bug report and check my analyses?
- Is there any way to bring this forward?
- Should we create a new https-server package which takes the binaries and provides an alternative configuration? Probably similar to default-editor-vim / default-editor-nano?
As it currently stands, we are in no way competitive with, for example, Debian or ArchLinux.
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
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…
Now another attempt at a summary
What to manually test
=====================
A) regular QA tests
------------------
1. "Default boot and install“ tests on „USB“ and optimally „DVD“
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test
Currently it is divided into 2 tests: DVD (or local) and Netboot
But we have 4 ways per boot procedure
- local interactive
- local remote (via VNC)
- local automatic (via key file on OEMDRV USB)
- remote automatic
How do we want to deal with this?
There are some tests about Anaconda and VNC automatically. Do they work on hardware?
2. Additionally: running the install test with arm-imange-installer
There should already be a topic for this anywhere.
3. IPA Tests:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_freeipa_replication_advanced
B) Specific server-related special cases
————————————————————
1. "maybe we should test more storage operations post-install“
Integral part of our installation during post-installation is the expansion / addition of LVs
We may review the current tests regarding Custom storage configuration when we discuss to expand the current server related release criteria.
2. Another topic may be Virtualization, where we adopt a functioning internal network (virbr0) for internally protected communication and services such as database and IPA and including internal DNS (split DNS via systems-resolved, currently doesn’t work anyway).
We should postpone this for our discussion about adding server specific services according to our updated technical specifications.
C) Possible effects of individual changes specifically on Server
"A domain-specific review of the changes is a good idea“
Changeset available at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/{relnum}/ChangeSet <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/%7Brelnum%7D/ChangeSet>
We should manage this with a tracking issue for each new release.
How to organize manual testing
==============================
1. In the medium term, the current server-specific page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_RC_1.3_Server
should be supplemented and tailored more clearly to servers.
a) The download list filtered by Server
b) The subtitle „Key“ might be better expressed by „Examples how to fill in the results“
c) The section „Test Matrix“ should expanded by a table of links to the manual test cases that are Server related (currently it can be misinterpreted as „everything is done“ (by coconut).
2. In the medium term we should introduce a „test week“. That would include the manual tests and the review of the docs. (As an example see coreos test week).
--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast
A short summary of the current status as of October 23, 2034
We agreed upon a release candidate for the poll
https://mowest.limesurvey.net/778249
The only remaining question is about question "How are you using Fedora Server?“
Do we want do add a option „other“ and if, with or without an open answer possibility?
Without the “other” option, we avoid fragmenting the answers, where we may have many answers but only a few per option, which limits the statistical significance.
With the “other” option, we may discover usage scenarios that we haven't even thought of yet (if we include a open text field).
Please leave your preference here in a reply.
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast