Server Admins: Why not Fedora?

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Wed Nov 6 14:44:58 UTC 2013


On 11/06/2013 02:25 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:18 +1000, David Strauss wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Container support is one of the topics that the Environments/Stacks
>>> people are being tasked with investigating. The other thing is the
>>> option for *limited* bundling of dependencies with something like
>>> Software Collections.
>> I'm frustrated with how poorly these working group tasks were defined
>> before and during working group formation. Why are we finding out only
>> now what each group is supposed to do? I was clear in my
>> self-nomination that containerization is a key priority for me.
> I have the same problem here.
>
> I came into this thinking we wee going to build a Server oriented
> distribution on top of the core,

As didi I but what does that mean to you?

> but since yesterday's meeting I am not
> so sure that is the goal anymore, it seem people want to do specialized
> sub-server 'products' (whatever that means,)

That means from my point of view that we come up with a Fedora Server 
Platform or Fedora common server infrastructure essentially the "server 
layer" on top of the core/baseOS, installable as such ( without any 
application on it or "product" ready for server application or 
application stacks to be run on top of it ( or products )


I really would like some more clarity of goals for each WG.


I think we need to be able to define our own before we can expect to get 
one from the other WG's

JBG


More information about the server mailing list