Re: Fixing the "Everything" installation medium problem
by Peter Boy
> Am 29.04.2024 um 14:48 schrieb Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com>:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:17 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
>
> 1.
> The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things.
>
> The default values don't install a desktop environment. The default package set is "Fedora Custom Operating System", which is very similar to a minimal installation.
>
> You probably meant that the default filesystem layout is the same as when installing a desktop environment. That's true.
Yes, I meant the runtime environment, which is among others the filesystem.
> But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout.
Well, in fact, there is no Fedora Default filesystem. The term dates back to the time when the btrfs apologists wanted to enforce the file system for all editions distribution-wide. All server variants, i.e. CoreOS and Server, rejected this.
Also, "Fedora Server Edition" is not just any Fedora version that installs some server software. According to the goals set with Fedora Next in 2024/2016 (I don't remember the exact year), it's not just something DIY cobbled together, but a branding with well-defined features, defined in the Product Requirement Document and Technical Specifications, thoroughly tested and assured reliable operation.
But that is precisely what is not feasible with the "Everything" medium.
> ...
>
> You can make Everything netinst image behave as if it was a Server image by adding "inst.profile=fedora-server" to kernel params when booting it. I just tested that, it has Server branding, the correct Server layout and package set. Perhaps this is worth documenting?
Good to know. But part of branding is also that such "tricks" are not necessary.
>
> 2.
> There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
>
> On one hand, if somebody is experienced enough to find alternative download images, they should kinda know what they're doing.
Yes and No. Obviously, many Fedora users are used to everything working reliably and predictably "out of the box". And that's exactly what our goal is (with Fedora Next) and what sets us apart from other distributions. So you click on the installation menu and everything runs as it is listed there.
> On the other hand, it would be nice if anaconda provided more clarity about this. Either by allowing to pick one of available profiles right after selecting language (including a "generic" profile, which is the current behavior), or by asking the user whether to apply the profile values when they pick e.g. Server package set (acknowledging that e.g. partitioning might need to be re-done). File an RFE against anaconda?
I think the only acceptable way would be for Anaconda to automatically select the full Fedora Server profile, not just the file system type. From what has been said, this is currently not possible in Anaconda with reasonable effort.
And all the other options would also have to be revised. Why are "Web server" and „Infrastruktur server" mutually exclusive options, just one example from the list? And a "Fedora Server Edition" does not include a graphical user interface and certainly no "Games and Entertainment" or "VideoLan Client“. And non-applicable options do not belong in its option list for selection.
And honestly, I don't want to see "Fedora Server Edition" in such a "wild" and unsystematic list. That in no way reflects our professional aspirations.
And apart from that, who wants to go through all these options and test them?
Therefore, I think the easiest solution is to just remove the „Fedora Server Edition“. And make it very clear that this is not the Fedora corresponding to "Fedora NeXt", but Fedora DIY (for the adventurous user not asking for support).
--
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
2 weeks, 5 days
Fixing the "Everything" installation medium problem
by Peter Boy
Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
1.
The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things. This violates pretty much all of the lower technical specifications for the Fedora Server Edition.
2.
There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
3.
Funnily enough, a "wild collection" of groups is offered as sub-options for the server installation, ranging from various graphical user interfaces to special configurations such as video editing. All of this certainly has no place on a "Fedora Server Edition".
4.
The compilation of options and sub-options does not give the impression that anyone has seriously considered their meaningfulness recently.
(See image in https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/136)
5.
And even worse, a major provider of rentable ROOT servers (Hetzner), which has just managed to bring Fedora back into its supported OS options, uses "Everything" because it's the best for customers. And thus produces user disappointment at a critical point. This thwarts our efforts to make Fedora Server Edition available on other platforms.
The minimum solution is to remove the option „Fedora Server Edition“ from the installation options and to rename the medium to „Fedora Selection“ or something similar.
In addition, it would certainly be beneficial to thoroughly revise the options. For example, if I select the "Fedora Cloud Server“ installation option and perform an installation, I get the following after booting the installation:
----------
Unexpected return from initial read: Device Error, buffer size 0
Failed to load image : Device Error
Start_image() returned Device Error
StartImage failed: Device Error
----------
I don't think that's the intention of Cloud Working Group.
Best
Peter
--
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
1 month
Agenda Items on 2024-04-17 17:00 ==UTC== meeting
by Peter Boy
The upcoming meeting will be held on
==========================================================================
Fedora Server MATRIX meeting Wednesday, Apr 17 17:00 ==UTC==
https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org?web-instance[element.io]=c...
==========================================================================
Please, check your local time using date -d '2024-04-17 17:00UTC'
As a reminder
=============
We decided to continue our meetings on MATRIX!
The above link lets you choose which app to use: web browser, elements, and a lot of others, including some CLI tools, and redirects you to the meeting romm.
==== Agenda ====
#link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting
To be able to discuss all topics on the agenda and to prevent us from repeatedly putting off topics that have not been dealt with, we should set time limits for the individual items on the agenda. If we need more time, we should continue on the mailing list.
=== 1. Follow up actions and announcements ===
=== 2. Review installation media ===
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/88
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/130
!link https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/main/f/variants-fedora.xml
!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject....
We have to discuss how to proceed. About 15 mins
=== 3. LVM2 default configuration change
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247872
Mainly informational today. About 5 mins
The fix works, but but - as Vojtech Trefny put it - "unfortunately not thanks to the changes that I made"
=== 4. Testing F40 ===
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/125
link https://hackmd.io/NtO4O9vRT3a71UMZMkceoA?both
Max. about 10 mins
=== 5. Revisiting Server installation media naming convention
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/126
!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject....
Max. about 5 mins.
Can we decide today or do we need more time to consider possible alternatives?
=== 6. Our "story" for F40
!https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/101
Max. about 5 mins.
This includes a Server entry to the Release Notes!
=== 7. Fedora Server goal(s) and "story" for F41 / F42
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/134
!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject....
Max. about 20 mins.
=== 8. Open Floor
For any additions or changes, please reply to this email.
For an overview about current tasks look at:
https://pagure.io/fedora-server/boards/Works%20in%20progress
===== Pending Topics for Follow-Up Meetings =====
=== Revisiting Fedora Server release criteria
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/61
=== Using Ansible to install and configure Wildfly
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/60
--
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
1 month
Updated some Doku
by Peter Boy
Folks,
Just updated:
* our Docs landing page
* pur Installation overview
* our local interactive Installation guide
* our Virtualization overview
* our Virtualization installation guide („Add Virtualization“).
I added some minor information to the installation guide and to the Add Virtualization guide. It’s all minor, so I already published everything to our main docs.
While making updated screenshots I noticed a problem with Anaconda.
Until F37 you could use <shift>+<print> in any screen and Anaconda made a screenshot in /root/anaconda-screenshots/ (/tmp/anaconda-screenshots). With F40 I couldn’t make a screenshot anymore. Does get someone this issue, too? Without that feature it’s a mess to produce documentation.
Best
Peter
--
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
1 month
Re: Review Installation Media
by Peter Boy
Hi Folks,
Here is my attempt at an updated brief summary of the current status as a first impetus for our discussion at the upcoming meeting on May 1.
1.
Our initial information that Kiwi can also be used for the generation of iso files is currently not applicable in this form. We will create the iso files in unchanged form for at least a few more releases.
If we don't want to spend another number of releases with the current outdated iso files (and that seems very bad to me), then we should start tackling the issues now, starting with the oldest one.
!proposed:
So I suggest starting now with the oldest issue (#32, https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/32) and doing another video meeting soon.
2.
We don't have to decide at the moment which tool we will use to create our images in the future. We would be busy with the iso files for the time being.
Instead, we could discuss with RelEng what tools are available and which is best. And in what timeframe the changeover needs to take place.
Kiwi may not be optimal for us as we would have to maintain another set of configuration files instead of using Kickstart files throughout. Therefore, our situation differs from Cloud, which does not need to create iso files for Cloud VMs. But there may be no other solution that is better for us. And in the end, it also comes down to choosing a solution that can be managed with the resources available to Fedora (i.e. releng).
!proposed:
So I propose to postpone the decision about image generation for now.
--
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
1 month
Elevating Fedora Server VM distribution image
by Peter Boy
Currently, our VM distribution image is not a fully-fledged distribution medium like our iso media. It is merely a "nice to have“.
This means, for example, that even a serious bug cannot become a "release blocker", as an iso file could. Fedora then launches a new release with a (on purpose) faulty Server VM image. This is already the case with release 40. Our VM image still contains the LVM error, which happens to be not immediately noticeable in a standard VM creation. And for the SBC image, the error will be corrected, although we do not currently know how.
This no longer fits into today's world, where virtual machines are a common working model. To rectify this, we need to achieve a corresponding qualification with FESCo.
We need to appoint someone to initiate and oversee this process.
--
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
1 month
Revisiting Server installation media naming convention
by Peter Boy
See: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/126
We want to pursue this topic for F41, so we should start now.
There is a new initiative from GLB in the Fedora Server Matrix Channel.
> • Server WG: The websites and apps team is thinking about adding/promoting links to the "Everything" network installer on fp.o. I'm wondering if we should consider renaming "network installer" to "online installer" because I've seen people confused about what is meant by "network". I've encountered people who think it is for PXE booting. I guess, to be consistent, such a rename would also translate the "Server network installer" to the "Server online installer". Otherwise, I don't think any other groups would be affected.
> • 22:36
> Would the Server WG be OK with such a rename? Or do you have other ideas? (Leaving it be as it is is also fine. I'm just trying to help with a point of confusion.) 🙂
So, an idea is to use something like:
Fedora-Server-40-offline-x.y.-<arch>.iso long name: Fedora Server Edition release 40 local fully offline installation
Fedora-Server-40-online-x.y.-<arch>.iso long name: Fedora Server Edition release 40 local online installation
We had a releng ticket once ago:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11089
It’s resolved regarding the Checksum file naming for F40 (didn’t test it yet).
So we should aim to modify the name and get rid of DVD and unify the naming structure:
Fedora-Server-<rel>-<method>-<x.y>-arch.<filetyp>
40 offline x64_86 iso
online arch qcow2
kvm raw.xz
Image checksum
--
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
1 month
Review Installation Media
by Peter Boy
Hi folks,
Here is my attempt at a brief summary as a starting point for our further discussion.
At our first video meeting, we arrived at an approach to create all installation media with one tool if possible. Kiwi is obviously the tool of choice at the moment.
I think there are several steps to be taken now:
1.
We should try Kiwi, preferably with our VM image. There is already a template from the Cloud WG. Here's what came to mind:
(a) Apparently Kiwi does not use kickstart files. How does this work with Anaconda?
b) What happens to our PXE network installation?
c) Do we have a "playing field" on Koji where we can experiment, or should we install our own Kiwi instance, e.g. on the server where I had developed our VM with ImageFactory (and where we can all have access, as with the Wildfly server)?
2.
We should contact the other editions, and especially RelEng, to coordinate the course of action. RelEng is currently busy with F40. We can only start with it after its release.
3.
Another consideration is time. Currently, F41 is built in Rawhide as before, so it will certainly be released that way. The question is whether we want to continue publishing our iso files unchanged (and with errors). One possibility would be to at least remove the difference between DVD and netboot. We have to look at their build steps anyway, whether with the current tools or with Kiwi. The logic should be the same.
This leads to at least 3 alternatives for the next steps we take.
1. we wait until F40 is published and then contact RelEng about the options for the best way forward.
2. we meet for another video meeting, e.g. next week, and spend some time trying out Kiwi and looking at it in detail.
3. we wait with Kiwi for the discussion with RelEng and the other editions and try in a next meeting specifically to determine the differences between DVD and netbook and to test how big a modified DVD file would become (this would be our issue #32 [1], 2 years old.
Can anyone think of any other ways?
We should decide what we want to do next and when. One option would be another video session on Wednesday, April 24.
Best
Peter
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/32
--
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
1 month, 2 weeks
