Call for votes: Server Technical Specification

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 20:02 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 13:55 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Technical_Specification
> >>
> >> This document follows the format of the Workstation Technical
> >> Specification. We have discussed many of the points here at length on
> >> the various mailing lists as well as in two IRC working sessions over
> >> the last two days.
> >>
> >> FESCo has requested that we submit this document for review by the end
> >> of the day on Monday, March 03rd (to give FESCo time to review it
> >> before the meeting on Wednesday, March 05th).
> >>
> >> I have made two additional modifications to the document aside from
> >> what was discussed in the meetings:
> >>
> >> 1. Based on other conversations on the mailing list and in other IRC
> >>    channels, I propose we punt on the question of supported container
> >>    technology (particularly since our first set of Roles will not use
> >>    containers). We will probably want to revisit a Container Host Role
> >>    for Fedora 22.
> >>
> >> 2. I have added a first pass at defining the API for the Server Roles
> >>    that will be implemented by the Server SIG alongside the Cockpit
> >>    Project.
> >>
> >>
> >> What we need right now is a vote of the Server Working Group
> >> membership whether we feel this document is in sufficiently good shape
> >> to send to FESCo, who intends to use it to gauge estimates for the
> >> Fedora 21 schedule. Please cast your votes as soon as possible (I
> >> realize this may mean giving up an hour of your weekend to read the
> >> document). If you have serious concerns, please raise them immediately.
> >
> > I'd like to see if we can at least reach a consensus with the Desktop WG
> > on the filesystem question before I vote +1 on this. Josh has said he's
> > going to take another look at the situation.
> 
> To be clear, the Workstation WG is looking at delivering a live image
> by default.  The live image itself is ext4 on top of a raw DM device.
> I am not sure if that can be changed to use XFS instead of ext4, but I
> don't think LVM makes sense on the live image itself.  I will be
> mostly asking about the "install to hard disk" default path when I
> bring it up.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about: the installation path, not the
format used on the deliverable.

In case anyone's not aware, the association between the format used for
the live image itself and the formats allowed for the installed /
partition no longer exists, that was broken back around F18.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net