For a long time, the Fedora Server Edition has provided a fairly lightweight default installation, but a fairly heavyweight DVD. This is because we opted to include a lot of infrastructure-related content on the disk, such as BIND, FreeIPA, MariaDB and PostgreSQL, among others.
The reality these days is that this is probably more or less unnecessary. There's no such thing as a server that is not connected to a network and since we aren't shipping the entirety of the Fedora package collection on this disk, inevitably anyone installing from it is going to need to have access to package mirrors anyway.
So I'd like to propose that we get rid of nearly the entirety of the <optionlist> section from comps.xml[1][2] and variants-fedora.xml[3]. The result will be a far smaller install DVD, less space wasted on the mirrors (both for the DVD and the install tree) and very little difference in user experience.
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/master/f/comps-f30.xml.in [2] With the exception of the "server-hardware-support" and "guest-agents" which may be needed for proper installation, depending on the hardware. [3] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/variants-fedora.xml
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:49:00AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So I'd like to propose that we get rid of nearly the entirety of the <optionlist> section from comps.xml[1][2] and variants-fedora.xml[3]. The result will be a far smaller install DVD, less space wasted on the mirrors (both for the DVD and the install tree) and very little difference in user experience.
+1
+1 here... it's hard to imagine a network isolated setup that can't just mirror things in this day and age.
kevin
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
I agree with the proposal.
I'd rather see a 'how to create a private mirror' step by step recipe, to incentivize more people to have a local mirror. I've read this, but almost immediately get lost: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mirroring#How_can_someone_make...
I could help do some of the technical writing and testing; and once there's ready to go content I'm willing to bet we can get someone from Docs Team to put it in an appropriate format and venue for consumption.
-- Chris Murphy
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
I agree with the proposal.
I'd rather see a 'how to create a private mirror' step by step recipe, to incentivize more people to have a local mirror. I've read this, but almost immediately get lost: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mirroring#How_can_someone_make...
That's the guide I used to set up my mirror. Didn't really have any problems following it.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
I agree with the proposal.
I'd rather see a 'how to create a private mirror' step by step recipe, to incentivize more people to have a local mirror. I've read this, but almost immediately get lost: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mirroring#How_can_someone_make...
That's the guide I used to set up my mirror. Didn't really have any problems following it.
Haha, that's not really helpful. You wanna go fly planes sometime? I'll take off and land, and you can not drink away your grub2-mkconfig memories. :P
I will try again, and when I face plant, I'll ask if you have any suggestions for extracting myself from contortion. But I still think landing planes is much more straightforward.
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 11:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
I agree with the proposal.
I'd rather see a 'how to create a private mirror' step by step recipe, to incentivize more people to have a local mirror. I've read this, but almost immediately get lost: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mirroring#How_can_someone_make...
That's the guide I used to set up my mirror. Didn't really have any problems following it.
Haha, that's not really helpful. You wanna go fly planes sometime? I'll take off and land, and you can not drink away your grub2-mkconfig memories. :P
I will try again, and when I face plant, I'll ask if you have any suggestions for extracting myself from contortion. But I still think landing planes is much more straightforward.
I mean, it basically says "sign up with the mirror system so it can put your server address at the top of the list for systems in your specified IP range, then use this script to do the actual mirroring". Is that really that hard?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 11:54 AM Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 11:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:33 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2019-02-15 at 10:20 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 8:49 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.=
com> wrote:
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all =
on
one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I thi=
nk
this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
I agree with the proposal.
I'd rather see a 'how to create a private mirror' step by step reci=
pe,
to incentivize more people to have a local mirror. I've read this, =
but
almost immediately get lost: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Mirroring#How_can_som=
eone_make_a_private_mirror.3F
That's the guide I used to set up my mirror. Didn't really have any problems following it.
Haha, that's not really helpful. You wanna go fly planes sometime? I'll take off and land, and you can not drink away your grub2-mkconfig memories. :P
I will try again, and when I face plant, I'll ask if you have any suggestions for extracting myself from contortion. But I still think landing planes is much more straightforward.
I mean, it basically says "sign up with the mirror system so it can put your server address at the top of the list for systems in your specified IP range, then use this script to do the actual mirroring". Is that really that hard?
Yep.
Before you decide to become a mirror What are the size estimates? Please read the DIRECTORY_SIZES.txt text file carefully. If you can allocate the required amount of space for mirroring Fedora, read on.
Read it carefully? Over 76000 lines? How about no. First line:
2.9T /pub/alt/
I don't have that much space, and the guide literally says not to read on. But it also said read this file carefully which is obviously not necessary. So I'm gonna not trust this guide and read on...
This script uses rsync and some informational files on the mirrors to allow you to only sync those files you need and saves lots of time and file seeking.
So which is it? I need 3TB of space or no? The guide is contradicting itself.
I click on the quick-fedora-mirror link and oh my god more words, why so many words? This is a lot of words for what you claim is basically two steps and not hard.
The client is quick-fedora-mirror. It is currently written in zsh but should be portable to bash.
That is not helpful. What does that mean? I have no idea how that translates into an action I need to take and if I don't need to take action why even write that?
Installation: Copy quick-fedora-mirror somewhere.
OK quick-fedora-mirror is a python file, but above it says it's written in zsh. There's both python and zsh, which one am I using?
As I continue, I keep reading conditional language, passive voice, unstated assumptions, this is really hard to parse. I keep running into traps.
#### Required settings # Required: The the directory holding your copy of all of the modules you # mirror. Does not include any module name DESTD=
What is a module? This is required but I can't figure out what a module is or why I care or what I'm supposed to do. Clearly a lot of assumptions are being made that do not at all apply to me which is why I keep getting stuck, which brings me right back to the very thing I said at the start: a how to or step by step guide would be better if we're really trying to incentivize people to have local mirrors.
--- Chris Murphy
Hi,
I suggest to keep the both : local mirroring is sometimes not possible to deploy (educational context for example, or nearly full datastore), and even if minimal is cool, it could be not very user-friendly for beginners...
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:50 PM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
For a long time, the Fedora Server Edition has provided a fairly lightweight default installation, but a fairly heavyweight DVD. This is because we opted to include a lot of infrastructure-related content on the disk, such as BIND, FreeIPA, MariaDB and PostgreSQL, among others.
The reality these days is that this is probably more or less unnecessary. There's no such thing as a server that is not connected to a network and since we aren't shipping the entirety of the Fedora package collection on this disk, inevitably anyone installing from it is going to need to have access to package mirrors anyway.
So I'd like to propose that we get rid of nearly the entirety of the <optionlist> section from comps.xml[1][2] and variants-fedora.xml[3]. The result will be a far smaller install DVD, less space wasted on the mirrors (both for the DVD and the install tree) and very little difference in user experience.
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
Makes sense to me.
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/master/f/comps-f30.xml.in
To be exact, you mean adjusting just "<id>server-product-environment</id>" section, right?
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/611004df1857f118f1d25ab1218124dd6144994d...
[2] With the exception of the "server-hardware-support" and "guest-agents" which may be needed for proper installation, depending on the hardware. [3] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/variants-fedora.xml _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Yes, I agree with the proposal. I also agree that most servers will be connected to the Internet, however, I can think of some use cases where Internet connection is not wanted and an intranet is sufficient, such as:
- a file server - a print server - a router - a web server (for intranet)
So, my expectations would be that the package selection on DVD should enable to set up any of those above scenarios via at least the most standard way, so there should be at least: - one database - one http server - one file serving program - etc.
Do you plan something like a detailed case study or how do you want to decide which packages to delete?
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:09 AM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:50 PM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
For a long time, the Fedora Server Edition has provided a fairly lightweight default installation, but a fairly heavyweight DVD. This is because we opted to include a lot of infrastructure-related content on the disk, such as BIND, FreeIPA, MariaDB and PostgreSQL, among others.
The reality these days is that this is probably more or less unnecessary. There's no such thing as a server that is not connected to a network and since we aren't shipping the entirety of the Fedora package collection on this disk, inevitably anyone installing from it is going to need to have access to package mirrors anyway.
So I'd like to propose that we get rid of nearly the entirety of the <optionlist> section from comps.xml[1][2] and variants-fedora.xml[3]. The result will be a far smaller install DVD, less space wasted on the mirrors (both for the DVD and the install tree) and very little difference in user experience.
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most real-world scenarios.
Makes sense to me.
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/master/f/comps-f30.xml.in
To be exact, you mean adjusting just "<id>server-product-environment</id>" section, right?
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/611004df1857f118f1d25ab1218124dd6144994d...
[2] With the exception of the "server-hardware-support" and "guest-agents" which may be needed for proper installation, depending on the hardware. [3] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/variants-fedora.xml _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
+1 --Florian On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 11:43 +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
Yes, I agree with the proposal. I also agree that most servers will be connected to the Internet, however, I can think of some use cases where Internet connection is not wanted and an intranet is sufficient, such as:
- a file server
- a print server
- a router
- a web server (for intranet)
So, my expectations would be that the package selection on DVD should enable to set up any of those above scenarios via at least the most standard way, so there should be at least:
- one database
- one http server
- one file serving program
- etc.
Do you plan something like a detailed case study or how do you want to decide which packages to delete?
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:09 AM Kamil Paral kparal@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:50 PM Stephen Gallagher < sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
For a long time, the Fedora Server Edition has provided a fairly
lightweight default installation, but a fairly heavyweight DVD. This
is because we opted to include a lot of infrastructure-related content
on the disk, such as BIND, FreeIPA, MariaDB and PostgreSQL, among
others.
The reality these days is that this is probably more or less
unnecessary. There's no such thing as a server that is not connected
to a network and since we aren't shipping the entirety of the Fedora
package collection on this disk, inevitably anyone installing from it
is going to need to have access to package mirrors anyway.
So I'd like to propose that we get rid of nearly the entirety of the
<optionlist> section from comps.xml[1][2] and variants- fedora.xml[3].
The result will be a far smaller install DVD, less space wasted on the
mirrors (both for the DVD and the install tree) and very little
difference in user experience.
Arguments against this have historically been that having it all on
one disk is better for network-constrained environments to avoid
downloading content multiple times. Realistically, however, I think
this is generally going to be solved by local mirroring in most
real-world scenarios.
Makes sense to me.
[1] https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/master/f/comps-f30.xml.in
To be exact, you mean adjusting just "<id>server-product- environment</id>" section, right? https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/611004df1857f118f1d25ab1218124dd6144994d...
[2] With the exception of the "server-hardware-support" and
"guest-agents" which may be needed for proper installation, depending
on the hardware.
[3] https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/blob/master/f/variants-fedora.xml
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:43:46 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, I agree with the proposal. I also agree that most servers will be connected to the Internet, however, I can think of some use cases where Internet connection is not wanted and an intranet is sufficient, such as:
- a file server
- a print server
- a router
- a web server (for intranet)
Even if the server doesn't directly need Internet access the OS and even those limited applications need to be updated periodically for security fixes if nothing else - thus the encouragement (with easy to follow instructions perhaps) to set up a mirror that can be used to install whatever software you want to use.
So, my expectations would be that the package selection on DVD should enable to set up any of those above scenarios via at least the most standard way, so there should be at least:
- one database
- one http server
- one file serving program
- etc.
Ignoring the battle to make a decision, you end up making the wrong choice for a significant number of users. Thus all or nothing is really a better set of options.
Even if the server doesn't directly need Internet access the OS and even those limited applications need to be updated periodically for security fixes if nothing else - thus the encouragement (with easy to follow instructions perhaps) to set up a mirror that can be used to install whatever software you want to use.
If your server will never be connected to the Internet, then you might not need security fixes and updates. However, this is not a topic of the discussion.
Ignoring the battle to make a decision, you end up making the wrong
choice for a significant number of users. Thus all or nothing is really a better set of options.
I thought that this was about making the server DVD leaner. So, if there should be a lean Server Dvd, it still should have some applications on it, right? If not, then why not delete the whole Server DVD ISO, if we can only provide a Netinst ISO and all are welcome to download and install anything they need from the Internet or a local repository?
server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:19:19 +0100, you wrote:
I thought that this was about making the server DVD leaner. So, if there should be a lean Server Dvd, it still should have some applications on it, right? If not, then why not delete the whole Server DVD ISO, if we can only provide a Netinst ISO and all are welcome to download and install anything they need from the Internet or a local repository?
Well Cockpit may well be included as it seems to be an important part of the server offering, and thus anything it depends on will be brought in.
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:43:46AM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
Yes, I agree with the proposal. I also agree that most servers will be connected to the Internet, however, I can think of some use cases where Internet connection is not wanted and an intranet is sufficient, such as:
In this case, I would expect that intranet to have a local mirror. Intranet servers also need security and bug fixes.
In this case, I would expect that intranet to have a local mirror. Intranet
servers also need security and bug fixes.
If so and local repository is always needed ... why keep a server spin then? Why not install from Everything netinst?
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
servers also need security and bug fixes.
If so and local repository is always needed ... why keep a server spin then? Why not install from Everything netinst?
Lots of people use Fedora in a server context. If we don't have a server-focused deliverable, it's really easy for overall project decisions to lean too far towards desktop use cases and not provide a balanced venue. (See historical discussions on value of LVM in Fedora, for example.)
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:34 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
servers also need security and bug fixes.
If so and local repository is always needed ... why keep a server spin then? Why not install from Everything netinst?
Lots of people use Fedora in a server context. If we don't have a server-focused deliverable, it's really easy for overall project decisions to lean too far towards desktop use cases and not provide a balanced venue. (See historical discussions on value of LVM in Fedora, for example.)
Lukas' question can be rephrased, though, to "why keep Server DVD at all, and not just Server netinst"?
I personally see the difference in the fact that Server DVD, even when pruned down, still provides a functional system to install completely offline. That doesn't mean you want to run it offline for a long term, but at least for experimenting or familiarizing, you can. It's also great for creating kickstarts and similar, because you can re-run it constantly and fine tune it with each iteration, without getting slowed down by the network.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 13:36, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 05:48:15PM +0100, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
servers also need security and bug fixes.
If so and local repository is always needed ... why keep a server spin then? Why not install from Everything netinst?
Lots of people use Fedora in a server context. If we don't have a server-focused deliverable, it's really easy for overall project decisions to lean too far towards desktop use cases and not provide a balanced venue. (See historical discussions on value of LVM in Fedora, for example.)
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
a file server - a print server - a router - a web server (for intranet)
So, my expectations would be that the package selection on DVD should enable to set up any of those above scenarios via at least the most standard way, so there should be at least: - one database - one http server - one file serving program - etc
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
[...]
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled services.
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:30, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
[...]
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled services.
I am not saying that package set is the only distinguishing thing. A net install would still chose those defaults. All I am trying to find out is if we have a minimal set of services we plan to support from the installation or not. If we don't need a minimal set of user stories, then we can go with a netinstall which has those choices.
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:30, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
[...]
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled services.
I am not saying that package set is the only distinguishing thing. A net install would still chose those defaults. All I am trying to find out is if we have a minimal set of services we plan to support from the installation or not. If we don't need a minimal set of user stories, then we can go with a netinstall which has those choices.
We definitely have a minimal set of services. Server WG agreed long ago that Cockpit, NetworkManager, PackageKit and storaged are minimal viable functionality. I still think there's value in having a DVD ISO, if only for the simplicity of trying it out without the added hassles of network connectivity. (And consider those cases where the hardware could potentially not have the right network driver available at install-time).
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:28 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:30, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
[...]
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled services.
I am not saying that package set is the only distinguishing thing. A net install would still chose those defaults. All I am trying to find out is if we have a minimal set of services we plan to support from the installation or not. If we don't need a minimal set of user stories, then we can go with a netinstall which has those choices.
We definitely have a minimal set of services. Server WG agreed long ago that Cockpit, NetworkManager, PackageKit and storaged are minimal viable functionality. I still think there's value in having a DVD ISO, if only for the simplicity of trying it out without the added hassles of network connectivity. (And consider those cases where the hardware could potentially not have the right network driver available at install-time).
I've submitted https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/492 https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/376
To make these changes.
On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 10:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 7:42 PM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 15:30, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 02:02:34PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Then we are back to what Lukas brought up. What is the Server going to have on it? I think the items he had were the ones most likely needed out of the box:
[...]
Otherwise we are back to 'nothing' as making more sense because clearly they can get those from the internet and we don't need to ship them.
Package set isn't the only distinguishing thing, though. We also have install defaults (xfs vs ext4, for example) and presets for enabled services.
I am not saying that package set is the only distinguishing thing. A net install would still chose those defaults. All I am trying to find out is if we have a minimal set of services we plan to support from the installation or not. If we don't need a minimal set of user stories, then we can go with a netinstall which has those choices.
We definitely have a minimal set of services. Server WG agreed long ago that Cockpit, NetworkManager, PackageKit and storaged are minimal viable functionality. I still think there's value in having a DVD ISO, if only for the simplicity of trying it out without the added hassles of network connectivity. (And consider those cases where the hardware could potentially not have the right network driver available at install-time).
This! It happened to me more than once, just the netinst is not viable. A minimal DVD/USB image is really needed.
Simo.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Adam Williamson -
Chris Murphy -
Florian Dubourg -
Gerald Henriksen -
Kamil Paral -
Kevin Fenzi -
Lukas Ruzicka -
Matthew Miller -
Simo Sorce -
Stephen Gallagher -
Stephen John Smoogen