Am 03.04.2024 um 18:56 schrieb Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com>:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 01:33:22PM +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
> 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.
>
>> ...
>
> 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
The offline / online idea is an interesting one.
I'm not sure how well it translates to non english language areas.
But I suppose 'DVD' and 'network' aren't any more clear there.
At least for the most languages online/offline has the best understanding of all ideas so
far. And we will never find something that is inherently equally suitable in any language.
. . .
I know we use kvm, but perhaps we should call this 'virt' ?
Yeas, virt is much better I think. This makes it much clearer that it is an image for
libvirt based environments. I guess for e.g. Xen we would need a slightly different image.
To make it clear, in _future_ we wood have the naming convention
Fedora-Server-<rel>-<method>-<arch>-<version>.<filetyp>
Which spells out to
Released:
Fedora-Server-41-img-aarch64-1.5.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-img-x86_64-1.5.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-iso-aarch64-1.5.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-iso-x86_64-1.5.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-offline-aarch64-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-41-offline-x86_64-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-41-online-aarch64-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-41-online-x86_64-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-41-rawsbc-aarch64-1.5.raw.xz
Fedora-Server-41-virt-aarch64-1.5.qcow2
Fedora-Server-41-virt-x86_64-1.5.qcow2
And e.g. branched would just replace the version part:
Fedora-Server-41-img-aarch64-20240408.n.0.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-img-x86_64-20240408.n.0.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-iso-aarch64-20240408.n.0.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-iso-x86_64-20240408.n.0.CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-41-offline-aarch64-20240408.n.0.iso
Fedora-Server-41-offline-x86_64-20240408.n.0.iso
Fedora-Server-41-online-aarch64-20240408.n.0.iso
Fedora-Server-41-online-x86_64-20240408.n.0.iso
Fedora-Server-41-rawsbc-aarch64-20240408.n.0.raw.xz
Fedora-Server-41-virt-aarch64-20240408.n.0.qcow2
Fedora-Server-41-virt-x86_64-20240408.n.0.qcow2
The same with beta and rawhide respectively.
Fedora-Server-41-offline-aarch64-Beta-1.10.iso
Fedora-Server-41-offline-aarch64-Rawhide-20240403.n.0.iso
For comparison, the current situation:
Fedora-Server-39-1.5-aarch64-CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-39-1.5-aarch64-CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-39-1.5.aarch64.raw.xz
Fedora-Server-39-1.5-x86_64-CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-39-1.5-x86_64-CHECKSUM
Fedora-Server-dvd-aarch64-39-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-39-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-KVM-39-1.5.aarch64.qcow2
Fedora-Server-KVM-39-1.5.x86_64.qcow2
Fedora-Server-netinst-aarch64-39-1.5.iso
Fedora-Server-netinst-x86_64-39-1.5.iso
The checksum name duplication really does exist for f39, but is already resolved for f40.
> . . .
IMHO, it's too late for this for f40... we are already in final freeze.
But we should make any F41 changes/plans as soon as we can in rawhide so
it could make the f41 release.
Yes, we can probably decide next meeting and then f41 or f42 would be fine, I think.
--
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