Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu
Tue Jan 28 18:06:11 UTC 2014

On 28/01/14 17:33, Matthew Miller wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
>> Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
>> sense as a thing.
> Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
> what the Fedora Server working group is coming up with?

The roles stuff? I have, though I'm not sure if I just failing to get it 
or something but I don't see anything there that looks especially useful 
to a server administrator.

Other than pulling in a group of packages it's not really clear to me 
what a role does for me, and I suspect that defining roles that are 
generally useful without pulling in more than people really want will be 
hard - the classic example being the "database server" role that was 
included in the examples and which was going to pull in both postgres 
and mysql. Well normally I want one or the other, but not both...

Obviously that can be fixed by having "mysql server" and "postgres 
server" roles but at one point do you wind up with one role per package 
and basically back where you started?

If I recall correctly there was also some talk of having each role 
provide some sort of configuration/management interface that plugged 
into a web console but frankly that's the last thing I want on a server 
I'm looking after.


Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)

More information about the devel mailing list