14:59:29 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-05-27)
14:59:29 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue May 27 14:59:29 2014 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:59:29 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:59:32 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
14:59:35 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss stefw adamw simo tuanta mitr
14:59:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw tuanta
14:59:50 <sgallagh> Who do we have today?
14:59:57 <nirik> morning
15:00:21 <tuanta> .hellomynameis tuanta
15:00:21 <adamw> .hellomynameis adamwill
15:00:21 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com>
15:00:24 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com>
15:00:28 <tuanta> good evening :)
15:01:06 <sgallagh> stefw is on vacation this week and next.
15:01:22 <sgallagh> mizmo_afk notified me that she will be late (if she makes it at all today)
15:01:36 <davidstrauss> Hello folks.
15:01:42 <tdk2fe> greetings
15:01:45 * davidstrauss is back from Burning Flipside.
15:01:47 <gsanchietti> hi all
15:02:33 <sgallagh> Welcome, folks! I see we have a few new faces
15:02:48 <alefattorini> hi all
15:02:57 * alefattorini is a new face ;-)
15:03:07 <pcbaldwin> hello
15:03:12 <tdk2fe> Hey all - i'm Tim K from the list :)
15:03:18 * davidep is a new face
15:03:23 * tdk2fe anothe rnew face
15:03:39 <twoerner> hi all
15:03:44 <davidep> good afternoon (gmt+2)
15:03:46 <sgallagh> #topic Introductions
15:04:00 * alefattorini is from NethServer with davidep gsanchietti and filippoc
15:04:05 <sgallagh> So we have some new participants this week. Mind giving yourselves a one-sentence intro?
15:04:46 * tdk2fe lives in St Louis (heart of the US) and wants to actually take action on helping out with a SIG
15:05:41 * nirik waves to all the new folks.
15:05:45 * gsanchietti from Italy, involved in CentOS SLS SIG
15:05:57 <simo> ciao
15:06:13 <adamw> welcome, folks!
15:06:13 <tuanta> hello all
15:06:43 <sgallagh> Ok, let's list today's agenda.
15:06:47 <sgallagh> #topic Agenda
15:06:50 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: CentOS Simple Linux Server SIG
15:06:53 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Release Engineering
15:06:57 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Branding and Logos
15:07:08 <sgallagh> We'll start with the SLS SIG.
15:07:14 <sgallagh> #topic CentOS Simple Linux Server SIG
15:07:23 <pcbaldwin> pcbaldwin/pete is from Canada, works with  ClearOS and involved in CentOS SLS SIG
15:07:32 <pcbaldwin> and a slow typist.
15:07:34 <sgallagh> #link http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SLS
15:07:45 <sgallagh> pcbaldwin: Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off.
15:07:53 * danofsatx-work is here.....was getting coffee
15:08:44 <tdk2fe> great to actually converse in real time as opposed to email ;)
15:09:06 <sgallagh> So as I understand it, the CentOS Simple Linux Server SIG is trying to build a turnkey server, not dissimilar to what we're trying to do with Server Roles in Fedora
15:09:30 <filippoc> Yes
15:09:35 <sgallagh> Given that CentOS is a downstream of Fedora, it seemed prudent to involve them in the discussions
15:09:45 <sgallagh> Hopefully we can build something together that will work for all of us.
15:10:11 <filippoc> Both ClearOS and NethServer have a working released ISO
15:10:16 <adamw> how far along is SLS?
15:10:47 <nirik> also, how much integration is involved? or is it more just putting the server bits on one media, etc?
15:11:15 <filippoc> the SIG is being evaluated by CentOS
15:12:03 <filippoc> the SIG has plans to release some variants, more or less tailored to various scenarios
15:12:53 <filippoc> we need to define some goals, i.e. server roles and software needed
15:13:24 <adamw> so, the idea is sort of to have an image which just gives you a ready-to-go web server or mail server or directory server or whatever?
15:14:02 <filippoc> now the image is centos, with an interface to add software
15:14:27 <filippoc> we would like to have only one image, and make it easy to extend the system
15:15:03 <filippoc> this is what a MacGuyver sysadmin would like :-)
15:15:21 <filippoc> I'm referring to Persona #1
15:15:32 <filippoc> one server, many purposes
15:16:27 * sgallagh nods
15:16:38 <adamw> ok, so it's pretty similar to our design
15:17:07 <filippoc> Fedora Server has broader scope,maybe, but the ideas are really similar
15:17:43 <filippoc> we have achieved something with custom built software, but the technology behind Fedora is appealing
15:18:26 <sgallagh> Our goal is to build an extensible framework for roles, which we can expand on as we go.
15:18:27 <nirik> cockpit and some of our integration ideas are pretty tied to systemd, etc... so I would expect it might be hard to just port our stuff to centos5/6... but 7 should be completely doable. ;)
15:18:35 <tdk2fe> what is 'Persona #1'?
15:18:52 <sgallagh> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas
15:18:58 <tdk2fe> ah ty
15:20:03 <filippoc> 7 for sure
15:20:36 <filippoc> we have working systems on 6, not going to change now :-)
15:20:49 <nirik> yeah. :)
15:21:50 <filippoc> we have to evaluate cockpit
15:22:05 <sgallagh> Right now, we're hacking together the first version of the role API
15:22:43 <sgallagh> twoerner is designing the D-BUS API (around which we plan to wrap at least one remote API), so it would be a real benefit to get some concrete use-cases and design input there.
15:22:52 <filippoc> do you have a link to code?
15:23:08 <sgallagh> filippoc: Still on the drawing board
15:23:24 <twoerner> filippoc: no, not yet
15:23:41 <sgallagh> I'd like to suggest that we schedule a separate meeting on this topic, since I think it will consume more than the available time in this meeting.
15:23:50 <adamw> sounds reasonable
15:23:52 <filippoc> agreed
15:24:37 <twoerner> yes
15:25:04 <sgallagh> filippoc: I'll send out a whenisgood request to the server mailing list shortly, if you and any of your cohorts who want to participate could respond to it, that'll help
15:25:26 <filippoc> will do
15:25:28 <adamw> cohorts. i like that.
15:25:55 <davidep> hoplites :)
15:26:03 <filippoc> me too, even if I don't know the meaning :-)
15:26:05 <sgallagh> filippoc: Since I can tell you've researched us probably more than I have had time to research you, do you see any obvious places where we don't align and should watch out for?
15:26:53 <sgallagh> "a cohort is a group of subjects who have shared a particular event together during a particular time span" (Thanks, Wikipedia)
15:27:14 <tuanta> :)
15:27:44 <gsanchietti> maybe we can difference within used stacks
15:27:54 <gsanchietti> for example you are planning to use firewalld
15:28:09 <gsanchietti> and we are using shorewall
15:28:28 <gsanchietti> will the API provide and abstraction layer?
15:28:45 <sgallagh> Interesting
15:28:59 <sgallagh> We were not originally planning to do so, but that's perhaps worth keeping in mind.
15:29:03 <filippoc> you mean abstraction on a component?
15:29:11 <gsanchietti> yes
15:29:14 <filippoc> or a function?
15:29:21 <gsanchietti> maybe both
15:29:27 <twoerner> gsanchietti: there is only very limited abstraction for the firewall planned so far...
15:29:31 <adamw> gsanchietti: why the choice of shorewall, btw?
15:29:43 <twoerner> gsanchietti: ports and services
15:30:25 <gsanchietti> twoerner: can be a very good starting point. Something like: this service need port 1234 open
15:30:34 <twoerner> gsanchietti: this is provided by firewalld
15:31:25 <twoerner> gsanchietti: firewalld provides not only ports, but also services, these are a collection of ports, netfilter helpers and destination addresses
15:31:38 <gsanchietti> yes. I don't know firewalld very well, but does it provides something like traffic shaping (like shorewall does)
15:32:01 <twoerner> gsanchietti: no.. there is no traffic shaping support in firewalld atm
15:32:31 <gsanchietti> if the server has "Gateway Role", maybe you need something a little bit more expressive than firewalld
15:32:51 <gsanchietti> maybe it's not your target :)
15:33:21 <mitr> I think we’ve been assuming Fedora Server to be an endpoint, in a data center with dedicated (hardware?) network infrastructure
15:33:46 <gsanchietti> mitr: ok, it sounds reasonable
15:33:54 <filippoc> we work more on premises
15:34:13 <sgallagh> Right, we haven't really considered the "router" role, but I wouldn't necessarily rule it out.
15:34:21 <sgallagh> (Nor would I expend resources working on it right now)
15:34:32 <mitr> That doesn’t _prohibit_ a gateway use case/role, but the more expressive firewall/shaping functionality would probably be a part of that specific role rather than of the universal role infrastructure.
15:34:49 <mitr> (… which doesn’t really resolve the assumed firewalld/shorewall conflict, though)
15:34:57 <adamw> yeah
15:35:11 <gsanchietti> ok, but each Role can extend the API, right?
15:35:14 <adamw> well, we don't have to resolve it right now, just be aware of it
15:35:37 <mitr> gsanchietti: yes
15:36:29 <gsanchietti> good, I think this is make less important the problem about abstracting the API
15:37:12 * danofsatx-work is currently in the process building two F20 routers, with NetworkManager and firewalld.
15:38:06 <sgallagh> gsanchietti: Well, firewall rules may be a bit of a special case
15:38:24 <sgallagh> Because up to now, we've been assuming that the API will manage firewall rules for a Role
15:38:40 <sgallagh> But if the Role itself *is* all about firewall rules, it doesn't align quite clearly.
15:38:48 <sgallagh> Something to consider and discuss in the other meeting.
15:38:49 <tdk2fe> sorry - newbie question - which API are you referring to?
15:39:02 <gsanchietti> sgallagh: ok
15:39:11 <sgallagh> tdk2fe: We're building a new public API for managing Server Roles.
15:39:24 <sgallagh> There will be a separate meeting on it; I just sent out the whenisgood request to the server list.
15:39:52 <sgallagh> I think this has been a good start, but I think we should reserve some of the meeting for the other agenda items.
15:40:40 <sgallagh> filippoc, gsanchietti, et. al: Thank you very much for joining us today. I think we have a great opportunity to work together.
15:41:19 <sgallagh> #topic Release Engineering
15:42:07 <sgallagh> I don't know if dgilmore is around, but we wanted to determine what changes (if any) we will need in Anaconda or the compose for Fedora Server 21
15:43:27 <sgallagh> Originally, we were expecting that we'd need an extension to Anaconda to support the server roles, but I now believe we can avoid (or minimize) this by taking advantage of one-time systemd units to deal with things on first boot (probably separate from the firstboot environment, since we may need to run after that stuff is all set up)
15:43:39 <nirik> yeah. If he's not we should sync up out of meeting and talk about it.
15:44:17 <adamw> we still need a variant comps, presumably, with just the package sets we want to offer from 'our' netinst image
15:44:24 <sgallagh> So the real questions that remain are how we present the installer (particularly on netinst). Do we expect to have separate branding and a completely unique install tree + comps.xml?
15:44:28 <adamw> and the different default filesystem config
15:45:04 <nirik> so, on the netinstall...
15:45:05 <sgallagh> Right, I forgot about the fs default. That alone probably mandates a separate tree.
15:45:27 <nirik> do we want 'our' netinstall to offer everything? or just fedora server groups?
15:46:03 <mitr> Will there be any non-Product netinstall?
15:46:24 <nirik> There was talk of base doing one at one point, but I am not sure where that stands.
15:46:29 <sgallagh> mitr: adamw's QA mail from yesterday strongly implies there would be.
15:46:33 <nirik> workstation and cloud likely don't want/need one.
15:46:35 <sgallagh> But I have no idea who would own that if they do
15:46:37 <adamw> sgallagh: let's say 'assumes', not implies.
15:46:42 <sgallagh> ok
15:46:46 <adamw> sgallagh: as it's not my job to decide that. :P
15:46:59 <sgallagh> Fair enough
15:47:13 <sgallagh> I would think that if that tree was going to exist, the Base Design WG would own it.
15:47:22 <sgallagh> And I think they explicitly stated they're not building install media
15:47:25 <nirik> I'd personally prefer to minimise number of things we need to test, but if we need a seperate thing for good reasosns then we do
15:47:28 <sgallagh> But I'd have to double-check
15:47:56 <adamw> well, it's just that we've been saying all along that the products are sort of 'over-the-top' additions to 'generic Fedora'
15:48:09 <sgallagh> yes and no
15:48:10 <adamw> does that jibe with a Fedora 21 that has no generic install media of any kind?
15:48:19 <sgallagh> That doesn't mean that "generic Fedora" has to be installable.
15:48:24 <adamw> hrm
15:48:29 <mitr> OTOH with our current limited scope, we do need a way to install things that are not (yet) roles, for this to be useful for much more servers, and very lilkely also offer a desktop.  At that point there might not be too much of a difference between a Fedora Server and a very generic netinstall?
15:48:31 <sgallagh> Just that you can start from any Product and then mix and match as you wish
15:48:35 <adamw> i think people are kinda assuming it does, but it's something for fesco to kick around, i guess.
15:48:40 <nirik> mitr: yeah
15:49:04 <nirik> also, if we do seperate trees for each product, we have the fun of fedup.
15:49:05 <adamw> mitr: well, there's a question whether we want to offer those at install time or not
15:49:35 <mitr> adamw: If there had to be a generic Fedora, I’d expect this to primarily be a DVD rather than netinst-image (but that’s mostly a hunch)
15:50:02 <mitr> adamw: true, offering say chemical lab doesn’t follow from that argument
15:50:36 <adamw> mitr: i thought we'd already discounted a dvd, but anyhoo
15:50:50 * nirik would be ok with the netinstall being a generic one. If people want a specific thing to server, get the dvd/usb/whatever image.
15:51:15 * sgallagh nods. That seems reasonable
15:51:17 <nirik> but it might all depend on how things are made.
15:51:33 <nirik> dgilmore is planning a test compose soon... ie, stawman for how things look.
15:51:48 <adamw> nirik: that kinda makes sense, but then it makes the image a little fuzzy. it's the Fedora Server network installer, but you can also use it to install Cinnamon or Electronics Lab?
15:51:54 <adamw> but i don't hate it
15:51:58 <adamw> dgilmore: that'd be really useful actually
15:52:04 <adamw> hard to do this theoretically
15:52:27 <adamw> it'd be nice to have a strawman for the fedoraproject.org download pages to go with it...
15:53:05 <nirik> right, so lets defer this until we can talk with dgilmore and see a proposed layout/etc
15:53:10 <adamw> OK
15:55:00 <sgallagh> ok
15:56:07 <sgallagh> Alright, nirik and I can try to catch up with dgilmore about this in the next couple days. Sound good?
15:56:11 <nirik> yep
15:57:46 <sgallagh> Ok, I don't think we have time for the branding topic even if mizmo_afk has turned up, unfortunately.
15:57:51 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
15:58:02 <sgallagh> Anything for open floor in the next 60 seconds?
15:58:03 <adamw> very quickly: did folks see my test plan draft? any notes/issues/objections?
15:58:14 <nirik> adamw: looked good to me from a quick glanceover.
15:58:16 <adamw> and does anyone mind if i kick off a thread about defining release criteria and test cases for Server?
15:58:25 <sgallagh> I skimmed it this morning, the only thing that caught my attention was the aforementioned non-Product install media
15:58:39 <adamw> sgallagh: that drops right out if there turn out not to be any.
15:58:56 <tuanta> it looks good for me, adamw
15:59:04 <adamw> thx
16:00:31 <sgallagh> tuanta: When you find some time, could you have a chat with mizmo_afk? As our Ambassador, I'd like you involved in the branding discussions, particularly on how we can "sell" this stuff.
16:00:31 <dgilmore> we are not going to have a generic boot.iso
16:00:33 <dgilmore> each product will have its own
16:01:42 * twoerner has to leave now
16:01:43 <tuanta> I got FAmSCo meeting now
16:01:43 <tdk2fe> As a new person with a pretty solid understanding of Linux .... who should I speak with to find out where I could be useful?
16:01:48 <nirik> dgilmore: thats unfortunate I think... people who want to install a varied set of things will be unhappy
16:01:55 * tuanta will see the logs later
16:02:45 <danofsatx-work> tdk2fe: #fedora-server
16:03:20 <tdk2fe> that works - thanks
16:03:22 <adamw> dgilmore: i don't believe Workstation is planning to have one.
16:03:26 <danofsatx-work> or, if I misunderstood your question, #fedora-admin
16:03:52 <tdk2fe> well - is that for the Fedora Server SIG or the CentOS SLS SIG?
16:04:08 <sgallagh> tdk2fe: #fedora-server is for Fedora Server
16:04:18 <sgallagh> For SLS, probably #centos-devel for now
16:04:40 <sgallagh> #topic Release Engineering (redux)
16:04:44 <gsanchietti> sgallagh: yes, #centos-devel for now
16:04:48 <danofsatx-work> yeah, the admin channel is fedora backend. Server specific channel is, well, server.
16:04:51 <sgallagh> I'll leave the meeting open for now
16:05:17 <tdk2fe> cool - ty
16:06:27 <sgallagh> I need to grab lunch before my next meeting. dgilmore, nirik, adamw: please continue talking and just endmeeting when done. We have the channel reserved for another hour.
16:07:05 <tdk2fe> Does SLS have any type of tracking site similar to the Fedora project?
16:08:59 <filippoc> SLS now only have a wiki page: http://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/SLS
16:09:16 <filippoc> will have resources when approved by centos
16:09:37 <filippoc> we use centos-devel mailing list and #centos-devel
16:11:08 <tdk2fe> I'm on the list - didn't know about #centos-devel though
16:11:09 <tdk2fe> thanks
16:13:18 * nirik thinks dgilmore is pretty busy right now, perhaps we end this meeting and catch up later?
16:20:18 <nirik> ok, if nothing else, will close the meeting in a minute.
16:21:56 <adamw> fine by me
16:22:41 <nirik> Thanks everyone
16:22:43 <nirik> #endmeeting