Fedora Server PRD Draft and call for participation

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Fri Jan 10 21:07:07 UTC 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 01/10/2014 03:44 PM, Joerg Stephan wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> i guess i am late :-) so maybe caused by that, while reading
> through the document there are some basic questions in my mind, so
> sorry that i start with some clearification question:
> (you EQUAL all contributors so far)
> When you speak about "Server Roles" you mean the service which is 
> provided by the server? Like DNS, so you mean that we need an 
> easy/remote/api way of installing a service on an server? Like you 
> could do it with puppet or spacewalk or maybe WebYAST in SUSE?

Server Roles are a closer match to how Windows Server defines server
roles (i.e. This machine is a domain controller, that one is an
Exchange server, this other one is an IIS webserver, etc.) The idea
would be for us to be able to take some common deployment patterns and
turn them into pre-packaged roles. This would simultaneously make it
easier for more junior administrators to start deploying things while
also encouraging a level of uniformity in deployment that would be
easier to support and update.

> Were is the "base"? I mean the basic server, the naked
> installation like a minimal server. For me, as an administrator i
> like really tiny iso`s which provide a basic installation so that i
> can ran into the loud and noisy server room an install the system
> within some seconds and do the rest via ssh (or something else).

Well, there are three things in play here. The first is that the Base
Design Working Group is going to be defining what is the absolute
minimum "Fedora" base system (similar to the 'minimal' group in Fedora
today, but more constrained and with dependencies cleaned up so it's
smaller). The Fedora Server and Fedora Cloud will be building atop
this base.

One of the things we're proposing for the Fedora Server is to be less
of a build-it-yourself environment, though. What we want to install
(through whichever installation mechanism; DVD/netinstall/amazon
image, etc.) should always be the same: the platform that describes
the Fedora Server. This will be essentially the Base plus the
infrastructure pieces necessary to support Server Role deployment on
top of it. This will still be a small and tightly-controlled base
platform, but it may be a bit larger than today's 'minimal install
plus sshd'.

> Than (currently last), i am missing "security". Now a days i guess 
> security plays a big role. So maybe we should tell a bit about 
> security features we need in this set. Like pre configured
> firewalls, maybe installation sets which open there port on
> firewall side. Or maybe an preferrred backup solution, easy to
> install maybe api triggered like we got it in zabbix to bound
> client and server.

These are things that we have discussed and in most cases they will
fall into either of two categories: "Server Roles" and "Infrastructure
needed to support Server Roles".

These are implementation details and are (in my opinion) topics for
the execution planning rather than the high-level requirements
planning. The purpose of this document is to set out our vision and
goals, not to specify a specific implementation.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

> So far & Cheers
> Jörg
> Am 10.01.2014 21:05, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
>> The first deliverable that the Fedora Server Working Group was 
>> tasked with was the production of a Product Requirements
>> Document. This document is intended to provide a high-level view
>> of the goals and primary deliverables of the Fedora Server
>> distribution. A great deal of discussion has gone on during the
>> weekly Working Group meetings as well as on the mailing list.
>> At this time, the deadline for the delivery of the PRD is
>> rapidly approaching. Originally it was due to be delivered for
>> ratification on Monday, January 13th, but at the FESCo meeting on
>> Wednesday, it was agreed to delay this deadline by a single week.
>> The primary reason for this delay was so that the Fedora Cloud
>> and Fedora Server groups could have some last discussions about
>> overlap and respective areas of responsibility.
>> This past Tuesday, we had an all-day PRD hackfest in IRC and
>> have come up with a fairly strong draft[1]. It is not yet
>> complete (notably, there remains a FIXME under "Misc. Concerns"
>> and some ambiguity around the Use Cases), but I believe that it
>> is close enough to its final form (as envisioned by those people
>> that have contributed to it), that we should expose this document
>> to the wider world and ask for input before submitting it to the
>> Fedora Engineering Steering Committee and Fedora Advisory Board a
>> week from Monday.
>> Please read through the PRD draft and provide feedback of any
>> sort. If you see that we have missed or misrepresented any of
>> our statements, we would very much like to hear this soon.
>> [1] 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Server/Product_Requirements_Document_Draft
> _______________________________________________
>> server mailing list server at lists.fedoraproject.org 
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
> _______________________________________________ server mailing
> list server at lists.fedoraproject.org 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


More information about the server mailing list