F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Wed Apr 9 12:45:57 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 04/09/2014 06:02 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2014 07:22 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik 
>>> <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role 
>>>> Deployment = 
>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
Change owner(s): Miloslav Trma─Ź <mitr AT volny DOT cz>, Fedora Server
>> Working
>>>> Group <server AT lists DOT fedoraproject DOT org >
>>>> Responsible WG: Server
>>>> A new D-Bus service, and associated command-line tools, to
>>>> deploy and manage Server Roles.
>>>> == Detailed Description == A new D-Bus service will be made 
>>>> available, exposing available server roles, making it
>>>> possible to deploy, configure and manage them. Appropriate
>>>> functionality will also be exposed as a command-line
>>>> utility.
>>>> == Scope == * Proposal owners: Write, document, package and
>>>> test the D-Bus API. * Other developers: Possibly use the
>>>> framework for development of new server roles. * Release
>>>> engineering: Nothing * Policies and guidelines: Nothing
>>> "Contingency mechanism: Do not ship the Server product with
>>> Fedora 21. "
>>> What? That's not a contingency plan thats a "nuke clause" ..
>>> we could simply not ship any roles and add it in f21 (given
>>> that we don't have many roles to begin with).
>> Yes, it's a nuke clause. This Change Proposal is a blocker for 
>> shipping the Fedora Server. Without completing this Change,
>> Fedora Server is not meaningful.
> I am not sure I agree with that  ... you can still install the
> server packages you need which probably is necessary even with this
> feature because ...

Sorry, you misunderstand (and I wasn't terribly clear). Fedora is
still useful as a server, but the Fedora Server *product* has no
meaningful differentiation from "Fedora with server packages" without
this. So if we don't deliver this, we may as well not ship specialized
install media.

> Which roles are we going to ship with F21?

The two we're working for in F21 are "Domain Controller" (powered by
FreeIPA) and "Database Server" (powered by PostgreSQL).

> Database server and ? This feature is not "meaningful" if common
> roles are not present. Like file server, web server, application
> server, could / virt server etc.

Well, a complete Domain Controller is certainly meaningful.

Also, please understand that the focus of Roles is to provide turn-key
*infrastructure*, not abitrary applications. So we looked at what we
could provide that would benefit the most potential use-cases. We
acknowledged that nearly any application that an end-user would want
to build would need access to a database server and that in real-world
deployments, databases are generally kept distinctly separate from the
server (or VM) providing the application. So it makes sense to provide
this as a Serevr Role with easy set-up in order to support all the
other things people want to do.

> Also if I enable / install / activate the database server role
> which database do I get?

We selected PostgreSQL by overwhelming majority vote among the Server
WG. A MariaDB Role may come in the future, but we're only building one
right now.

> What if my applications need to talk to another database? Same for 
> application server etc.

If your applications cannot use PostgreSQL, then you can always
manually set up a different database. You just lose access to the
simplicity of doing so via the role mechanism. This is additive; it
doesn't replace the traditional way of doing things, but for the
common use-cases we support it will make them vastly easier.
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the devel mailing list