Call for votes: Server Technical Specification

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

OK, great.

> 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.

Sheepishly, I was unaware of that until very recently.  It admittedly
clears a few conversations up, while complicated some of the thoughts
I had around defaults.  I guess that's what I get for not installing
every release.  I mean, I had no reason to install from a live image
either, but still.  Oh well.

josh