On 11/07/2017 08:12 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:08 AM, Andrea Bolognani
> Hi there!
> According to Langdon this topic has not really been discussed
> properly yet, so I'd like to bring it up now. I know it's kinda late,
> but hopefully not quite *too* late :)
> Long story short, I'm not sure releasing the output of the Modularity
> effort as Fedora Server, which seems to be the current plan, is
> necessarily the best idea.
> The Fedora Server moniker has been used for a pretty long while now,
> and in that time users have come to expect certain things from it.
> Modularity causes some of those expectations not to be met in its
> current form. Quick example:
> # dnf install screen
> No match for argument: screen
> Error: Unable to find a match
For what it is worth, I would really like to see this as a bug we might
be able to fix. I would like to try and bring back the "system-tools"
module and include any obvious leaf packages that we are currently
However, that said, I am in agreement with your argument. Especially, as
mattdm says later in the thread, we couldn't make the everything else
module "work." We actually do have an idea for how we might have the
traditional rpms "back up" the modules but it has its own problems.
so, in short:
a) please file a bug against fedora-modular-release :)
b) +1 on renaming (esp. as Mo doesn't seem to think it would be a lot of
> For users who have not been paying close attention to recent Fedora
> development, and are just downloading the Fedora Server 27 .iso
> expecting it to be "Fedora Server 26, but with newer software",
> installing the new OS and hitting something like that right away
> could lead to some frustration. Looking up more information about
> Modularity would certainly explain things in a satisfactory manner,
> but the importance of first impressions should not be underestimated.
> At the same time, calling the output of the Modularity effort Fedora
> Server doesn't do much to highlight just how much of a reimagining
> of the traditional server OS it is.
> Based on the above, my proposal is to drop the Fedora Server moniker
> entirely and release as Fedora Modular Server instead.
> The advantage of doing so is that using a different name signals a
> clear break from previous Fedora Server releases: it's a new product,
> one that you shouldn't expect to be a drop-in replacement. It's also
> a name that you haven't heard before, which might pique your interest
> even if you haven't been using Fedora up until now. I think it would
> have a positive outcome on the way this release is received.
> Moreover, the repositories themselves are already named like that!
> So it would be just a matter of doubling down on that name and
> making sure it's being used consistently everywhere.
> Looking forward to your feedback :)
I think you make a pretty good case for this. I'd be interested to
see what the Server group thinks.
>  Note that I have no idea how much actual work that would entail
> Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
> server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
server mailing list -- server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org