Soliciting Agenda for Weekly Server SIG Agenda (2015-11-10)

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at
Tue Nov 10 14:17:09 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA1

On 11/10/2015 09:14 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh at> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2015 08:38 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:14 AM, Major Hayden <major at> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2015 05:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>>>> Lastly, I want to open a new topic: Should the Server SIG
>>>>> be responsible for the "minimal" environment group in
>>>>> comps.xml? Technically, it is available on the Server
>>>>> install media, so we should decide if that makes sense for
>>>>> us to own in an official capacity. Many people already
>>>>> assume that we do, but as of right now, minimal installs
>>>>> report themselves as non-productized installations.
>>>> As someone who uses the minimal environment quite regularly,
>>>> this is definitely something I'm interested to discuss. ;)
>>> Isn't this something that we've repeatedly asked the Base WG
>>> to define and maintain?
>> That is and always has been unclear. I had a conversation with
>> some of the Base WG during the systemd conference last week and
>> they weren't sure if that was their duty either.
>> My understanding of the division is that it's the Edition SIGs 
>> responsibility to be defining actual deliverable artifacts (which
>> in
> Yes, for _their_ Edition.  Not as a common denominator.
>> my mind means any installable env group shipped on our media).
>> The Base WG's responsibility is to define the platform atop which
>> the artifacts can be built.
> Where is that definition?  Or more succinctly, if that definition
> is whatever is on the wiki page, what purpose is the Base WG
> serving today as it seems to be "done" or otherwise stalled.
>> I don't (personally) think that the Base WG output should
>> necessarily be installable or even self-hosting; I think it
>> should be a definition of what constitutes the minimal set of
>> functionality for which we are willing to call something
>> "Fedora". (Note, I intentionally choose the term "functionality"
>> and not "packages", because I think we also need to consider the
>> possibility that reorganization of the output of packages may be
>> necessary to produce a sensible view of this base platform.
> I'm not comfortable with the minimal functional install being the 
> responsibility of any of the editions, particularly not Server or 
> Workstation.  Cloud is arguably the most minimal of the editions. 
> However, when you start talking about _function_, what is minimal
> is completely unclear from one Edition to another.
> That is not to say that Server hasn't done a good job as the de
> facto maintainer of this.  I would simply prefer to non-Edition
> entity to be responsible for the definition and curation of minimal
> function. Perhaps Env & Stacks if not Base.

So, I think that at the very least, Server should be responsible for
anything selectable from the Anaconda installer on the Fedora Server
install media. The problem here is that Anaconda will display any
entry from comps that is fully satisfied by the packages available on
the media.

So if we're going to offer "minimal" as an installable option, I think
we need to own it. Otherwise, I think we need to hack up a mechanism
in comps that makes it so that the Server isn't a proper super-set of
"minimal" so that it doesn't appear on the list.

Version: GnuPG v2


More information about the server mailing list