15:00:50 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2014-03-25) 15:00:50 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Mar 25 15:00:50 2014 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:50 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:53 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik davidstrauss Evolution adamw simo tuanta mitr 15:00:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution adamw davidstrauss mitr mizmo nirik sgallagh simo tuanta 15:00:55 <sgallagh> #topic roll call 15:00:59 <nirik> morning 15:01:02 <sgallagh> #info sgallagh is present 15:01:02 * jreznik is lurking 15:01:08 <sgallagh> #info nirik is present 15:01:13 <sgallagh> #info jreznik is present 15:01:23 * mizmo here 15:01:34 <tuanta> .fas tuanta 15:01:34 <zodbot> tuanta: tuanta 'Truong Anh Tuan' <tuanta@iwayvietnam.com> 15:02:04 <sgallagh> #info mizmo is present 15:02:07 <sgallagh> #info tuanta is present 15:02:36 <adamw> .hellomynameis adamwill 15:02:38 <zodbot> adamw: adamwill 'Adam Williamson' <awilliam@redhat.com> 15:02:41 <adamw> sorry, folks 15:02:42 <sgallagh> #info adamw is present 15:04:14 * sgallagh waits a couple minutes to see if anyone else filters in 15:04:43 <adamw> who've we got so far? 15:05:31 <sgallagh> adamw: myself, nirik, mizmo tuanta and you 15:05:37 <sgallagh> So we have quorum, but just barely 15:05:43 <sgallagh> (Also jreznik, sorry) 15:05:57 * zoglesby is here for Docs talk 15:06:08 <simo> hola 15:06:13 <sgallagh> #info simo is present 15:06:25 <simo> that's a lie ;-) 15:06:26 * mizmo has to go at 12 15:06:29 <sgallagh> #info zoglesby is present to represent Documentation 15:06:33 * simo too probs 15:06:41 <sgallagh> Ok, let's get started then 15:06:44 <sgallagh> #topic agenda 15:06:47 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: tcpwrappers 15:06:50 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Documentation Needs 15:06:53 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Topic: Change Proposal Filing 15:07:07 <sgallagh> Anything else to add to the agenda? Otherwise this is what we'll cover today 15:08:02 <sgallagh> Ok, I'll take that as a "no" 15:08:07 <sgallagh> #topic tcpwrappers 15:08:40 <sgallagh> We've been asked to weigh in on the topic of tcpwrappers support in Fedora (ostensibly because Server usage is the most likely) 15:08:53 <adamw> is anyone else finding it really hard to care? 15:08:59 * sgallagh raises his hand 15:09:02 <adamw> =) 15:09:11 <nirik> yeah. 15:09:20 <tuanta> :) 15:09:26 <adamw> personal feedback: I stopped using it sometime in 2006. response to This Week's Fedora Soap Opera: mehhhhhhh. 15:09:28 * mizmo raises hand 15:09:29 * jsmith raises his hand too 15:09:36 <davidstrauss> Whoops, just realized that my Quassel was disconnected. The meeting *is* on. :-) 15:09:47 <sgallagh> Proposal: Fedora Server won't include it as a mandatory component unless Base Design elects to do so. If someone is maintaining it for Fedora, let them keep doing so. 15:10:07 <jsmith> WORKSFORME :-) 15:10:08 <sgallagh> #info davidstrauss is present 15:10:08 <adamw> that's an excellent way of formulating 'we don't care' 15:10:10 <adamw> +1 15:10:16 <nirik> well, it's going to be pulled in probibly... but sure. 15:10:19 <jreznik> sgallagh: I can bring it to the Base WG mtg this week too but I believe even Base would have similar opinion 15:10:49 <sgallagh> adamw: Well, it's not just "we don't care" and more "we're not committing to supporting it" 15:11:08 <tuanta> good point. +1 from me too 15:11:21 <nirik> right, and that we don't intend to use it actively. 15:11:27 * sgallagh nods 15:11:34 <adamw> yeah. 15:12:13 <sgallagh> adamw: As another personal anecdote, I've used it exactly once myself: for the RHCE exam on RHEL 4 15:12:45 <simo> sgallagh: as long as we are not forcibly removing it I am fine 15:13:22 <nirik> if we wanted to we could possibly get it dropped from our images... but that would be some work too. 15:13:25 <simo> so +1 to don't care/no explicit support 15:13:36 <simo> nirik: is it worth it ? 15:13:44 <davidstrauss> +1 15:13:55 <sgallagh> +1 to my own proposal (for the record) 15:14:00 <nirik> simo: not to me. ;) It would likely need convincing openssh to drop it's dep and a few others. 15:14:01 <simo> nirik: I mean I won't stop an upstream to kill it, but I wouldn't cause fedora work to remove tcpwrappers 15:14:07 <nirik> +1 15:14:38 * nirik notes you can do what systemd plans to also and use tcpd still, even if it's not linked with tcp_wrappers. 15:14:43 <sgallagh> I count +6, with only mizmo present and silent. 15:15:15 <mizmo> +1 (Sorry i 'raised my hand' before) 15:15:34 <sgallagh> #agreed Fedora Server won't include tcpwrappers as a mandatory component unless Base Design elects to do so. If someone is maintaining it for Fedora, let them keep doing so. (+7, 0, -0) 15:15:48 <sgallagh> mizmo: Sorry, I missed that. 15:16:03 <sgallagh> #topic Documentation Needs 15:16:37 <sgallagh> #info The Documentation team (represented today by zoglesby) would like us to let them know what Server-specific tasks we will have for them 15:16:38 <nirik> so, I would guess we would want some kind of docs on role configration? 15:16:51 <nirik> and possibly a release notes type thing for each role? 15:17:23 <sgallagh> We probably also want docs on Cockpit, though those may end up coming from upstream. 15:17:37 <sgallagh> Fedora Docs should at least coordinate that 15:18:07 <zoglesby> nirik: As it stands right now, we are going to give Server, Cloud, and Workstation a section in the Release notes 15:18:07 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Can you narrow the question for us at all? What specific information do you need to know? 15:18:15 <nirik> and (althought this may be too much to start with) we should make a 'How to make new roles' document. 15:18:27 <nirik> zoglesby: good...cool. . 15:18:37 <sgallagh> nirik: I'd like to formally recommend that this not be an F21 blocker :) 15:18:46 <nirik> right. 15:18:50 <nirik> agreed 15:18:51 <sgallagh> F21 is more a PoC for the Roles than anything else 15:18:58 <zoglesby> sgallagh: Out side of the release notes, why question is really do you want Fedora Server specific docs 15:19:31 <tuanta> Installation guide is also needs to be updated, I think 15:19:36 <sgallagh> zoglesby: A Role-deployment HOWTO is probably necessary 15:19:40 <zoglesby> Do you see the need for a "Fedora Server Guide" on doc.fp.o? Or is the information in other guides okay 15:19:49 <sgallagh> I'm not sure where that fits in the Documentation tree, but it needs to be there. 15:19:58 <davidstrauss> I'd like a doc sweep for stuff that still refers to pre-systemd utilities. 15:20:10 <sgallagh> tuanta: Good point; the products aren't sharing install media, so that process will vary slightly 15:20:29 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: s/service/systemctl/ and such? 15:20:35 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: Yes 15:20:41 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: +1 15:21:03 <tuanta> Installation is one of the the first docs people need 15:21:09 <simo> shouldn't we have per-product docs that highlights the specific of the product and then they all refer to a common body of docuemnts for everything they share ? (ie everything but sometimes with different default configs) 15:21:11 <sgallagh> zoglesby: There will be some Server-specific content 15:21:41 <sgallagh> simo: I'd prefer that as well 15:21:49 <tuanta> zoglesby: it's good to have a separated section for Fedora Server Guide on docs tree 15:21:59 <jreznik> tuanta: we were thinking at Base that installation is more Base documentation 15:22:24 <zoglesby> sgallagh: So would a standalone guide be the best option from the WGs standpoint? 15:22:36 <sgallagh> jreznik: Well, Installation is going to vary though. In Workstation, it's going to be a Live install, on Cloud an image deployment 15:22:46 <sgallagh> Server is the closest to the "traditional" installation 15:22:51 <tuanta> jreznik: but there are some specific steps/notes for each products as well 15:23:26 <sgallagh> zoglesby: I think simo has the right idea: a standalone primary guide that refers to other docs for things that are common between the Products (and non-Product world) 15:23:38 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: I found the docs on creating software collections to be pretty unusable, too. 15:23:55 <tuanta> +1 sgallagh, simo 15:24:13 <nirik> I think a standalone server guide makes sense, and can/should refer to the install guide for things (or other guides) 15:24:13 <zoglesby> Okay, I will start working on an outline and pick peoples brains as needed. 15:24:20 <jreznik> sgallagh: yep, I think it should be the goal 15:25:10 <zoglesby> As far as the release notes, I will just need to know what people think should be included, but that is a task for a later time 15:25:10 <sgallagh> zoglesby: That would be most appreciated. Please send your thoughts to the mailing list 15:25:24 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Hopefully the release notes will fall from the Change Proposals fairly neatly 15:25:31 <sgallagh> (our next meeting topic) 15:25:47 <zoglesby> sgallagh: We always hope so 15:26:17 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Have you read our PRD and Tech Spec? If so, please stick around and help us turn the latter into a collection of Change Proposals 15:26:25 <sgallagh> Then you'll be sure to get what you need :) 15:27:17 <jreznik> and for Changes - the same process as for other 15:27:23 <sgallagh> #info General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server documentation that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora. 15:27:33 <sgallagh> #undo 15:27:33 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 15:27:23 : General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server documentation that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora. 15:27:39 <sgallagh> #info General consensus (no formal vote) is that there should be a primary Fedora Server document that can refer to other documentation common to other Products or non-Product Fedora. 15:27:42 <sgallagh> I english good. 15:27:57 <mizmo> makes sense 15:28:34 <sgallagh> zoglesby: Is there any further information you would like on this topic right now? If not, we'll move on to Change Proposals 15:28:46 <zoglesby> sgallagh: I am good for now 15:28:57 <sgallagh> Thank you for raising this discussion 15:29:04 <sgallagh> #topic Change Proposal Filing 15:29:14 <sgallagh> Ok, I'd like for us to do two things today: 15:29:22 <sgallagh> 1) Come up with a list of Changes to file 15:29:26 * jreznik is listening 15:29:45 <sgallagh> 2) Divide up the work of filling out the appropriate forms 15:30:38 <sgallagh> Getting the obvious ones out there: 15:30:56 <sgallagh> * Framework for Server Role Deployment 15:31:15 <sgallagh> * Featured Server Role: Domain Controller 15:31:31 <sgallagh> * Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server 15:32:09 <sgallagh> * Cockpit Server Management Console 15:32:39 <sgallagh> Actually, let me #info those (assuming no argument) 15:32:55 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Framework for Server Role Deployment 15:32:57 <nirik> would the framework have the command line tool? or is that going to be a part of/variant of cockpit? 15:33:03 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Featured Server Role: Domain Controller 15:33:26 <sgallagh> #Info Change Proposal: Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server 15:33:38 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: Cockpit Server Management Console 15:33:54 <sgallagh> nirik: Actually, the OpenLMI team committed to providing the command-line tool 15:34:01 <nirik> cool! 15:34:03 <sgallagh> And that should be a Change as well 15:34:05 <nirik> yep 15:34:17 <sgallagh> #info Change Proposal: OpenLMI Support for Server Roles 15:34:48 <sgallagh> nirik: (And we'd likely have a simple command-line tool as a side effect of producing the role deployment anyway, if only for testing purposes) 15:35:23 <davidstrauss> Are OpenLMI and Copr coordinating at all? 15:35:47 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: I don't understand the question. They're unrelated technologies. 15:36:01 <jreznik> davidstrauss: they know about each other 15:36:24 <sgallagh> mizmo: Do you think we should be filing a Change for website design? 15:36:32 <nirik> you mean cockpit and openlmi? 15:36:32 <davidstrauss> Sorry, was thinking Cockpit, not Copr. Ignore my early-morning confusion. 15:36:35 <adamw> are we going to list all the proposals as coming from the WG as a whole? 15:36:45 <mizmo> sgallagh, dont the changes only affect the distro not the websites? 15:36:58 <mizmo> sgallagh, we've never had to file any kind of anything to update the website, and that work is already underway. so i think we're okay 15:37:11 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: They are coordinating to make sure they use the same underlying layers 15:37:28 <sgallagh> In some cases, Cockpit may also use OpenLMI directly, but they aren't at this moment 15:37:40 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: (in other words, they're not building competing stacks) 15:38:11 <sgallagh> jreznik: Can you answer adamw's question? Should we be maintaining these under a Server umbrella, somehow? 15:38:42 <sgallagh> mizmo: Ok, thanks. I just didn't want anyone to be thinking we were intentionally forgetting the impact we have there 15:39:09 <simo> sgallagh: how is openlmi going to help here ? 15:39:18 <mizmo> sgallagh, nah we're fine 15:39:29 <simo> sgallagh: are we forcing everyone to have and LMI provider installed just to use roles ? 15:39:44 <sgallagh> simo: They're going to be wrapping the role management API and creating an LMI metacommand to deploy roles remotely. 15:39:52 <simo> sgallagh: what about locally ? 15:39:56 <jreznik> sgallagh: if you take a look on https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/EmptyTemplate&action=edit I added there optional * Product: and * Responsible WG: fields 15:39:59 <simo> does it mean we have no CLI ? 15:40:21 <jreznik> if you fill it in - I can create category based on that if you wish 15:40:26 <sgallagh> the command works locally as well. I'm still discussing with them about how best to do that. 15:40:48 <simo> sgallagh: well let's make it clear, I am not ok on depending on LMI for basic functionality 15:40:49 <sgallagh> As I already said, in the worst case, a "simple" CLI will get built as a side-effect anyway 15:41:17 <simo> given the current status of server components for example 15:41:26 <jreznik> mizmo: actually I'd like to see also Changes from websites and other teams - to make the progress more trackable and to have documented what's happening in one place but it's up to you 15:41:38 <sgallagh> jreznik: Yeah, a wiki category would be a good idea 15:42:09 <jreznik> sgallagh: it's not wiki category now, only that product thing but then I can do my own categories in the ChangeSet 15:42:14 <sgallagh> simo: I see your point and I mostly agree. We will want to have a local CLI for F21. 15:42:26 <jreznik> but if you'd like to mark it with wiki category too, I'm ok 15:42:28 <simo> I think it is a blocker 15:42:42 <simo> w/o CLI we do not really have a usable role installer 15:42:58 <jreznik> for blocking, I've added also "* Blocks product? product <-- Applicable for Changes that blocks specific product release/Fedora.next -->" field to the template 15:45:25 <sgallagh> OK, so back on topic (and since we've only got 15 minutes left) 15:45:53 <nirik> simo: yeah, we need a usable command line... 15:46:06 <sgallagh> Are there any other Changes we need to file? 15:46:16 <sgallagh> If not, let's start volunteering people to work on them. 15:46:28 <sgallagh> I'd like to suggest that each one be filed by two WG members working together. 15:47:21 <simo> sgallagh: ok I can volunter to work with you on domain controller role 15:47:47 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh and simo to file the Domain Controller change 15:48:27 <tuanta> sgallagh: I can work on "Featured Server Role: SQL Database Server" with someone 15:48:28 <nirik> I can work on db role one 15:48:42 <tuanta> nice, +1 nirik :) 15:48:43 * nirik happy to work with tuanta on it. 15:48:44 <sgallagh> #action nirik and tuanta to file the SQL Database Server Change 15:48:49 <sgallagh> Thanks guys 15:49:34 * adamw not really sure he has the knowledge to help with either of the outstanding ones :( 15:49:38 <adamw> do we have domain experts in those areas? 15:49:39 <sgallagh> I'll coordinate the OpenLMI and Cockpit changes with a representative from their upstreams, but I'd like another WG member to also participate. 15:50:35 <sgallagh> adamw: I'd *really* like you and mitr to take on the Server Role Infrastructure one, actually. (Of course, I'm volunteering mitr who can't defend himself...) 15:50:50 <sgallagh> Obviously you should consult the rest of us while doing so. 15:51:10 <adamw> "Framework for Server Role Deployment" ? oh, i missed that one 15:51:16 <adamw> i could help with that, sure. 15:51:18 <sgallagh> adamw: That's the one 15:51:30 <sgallagh> Thanks. I'll assign it to you and check with mitr later. 15:51:31 <tuanta> yes, I think the change owner should be Server WG 15:51:54 <sgallagh> #action adamw to file the "Framework for Server Role Deployment" Change Proposal. 15:52:05 <davidstrauss> I think I'm still recovering my bandwidth too much still to volunteer for anything blocking. 15:52:12 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to ask mitr to assist adamw 15:52:44 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: You could still volunteer to help with final editing, if you're willing. 15:53:18 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to coordinate with Cockpit and OpenLMI upstreams to file their Change proposals. 15:53:28 <sgallagh> (man, I have a lot of work in my future) 15:53:37 <tuanta> :) 15:54:04 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: Would you be willing to vet and approve those two? 15:54:06 <davidstrauss> sgallagh: Yes, I can do that for any ones you'd like, especially Cockpit, OpenLMI, or DB server. 15:54:12 <jreznik> in case you'd need any help with filling proposals - let me know 15:54:18 <sgallagh> davidstrauss: Thanks! 15:54:36 <tuanta> thanks, jreznik 15:54:38 <jreznik> davidstrauss: openlmi guys were usually good in proposing changes, I can ping them to do it for F21 15:54:41 <sgallagh> #action davidstrauss to provide final editing review for Cockpit, OpenLMI and DB Server Changes. 15:54:56 <sgallagh> #info jreznik is available to assist with filing proposals 15:55:09 * sgallagh is trying to produce useful meeting minutes for a change this week. 15:55:58 <sgallagh> Ok, I *think* that covers all the Changes we plan to file. Am I missing anything? 15:56:22 <nirik> that seems good to me 15:56:29 <tuanta> I think all have been covered 15:56:33 <tuanta> anything else today? 15:56:44 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor 15:56:50 <sgallagh> I have one item for Open Floor. 15:57:07 <simo> do we want to set any deadlines ? 15:57:08 <sgallagh> Evolution hasn't attended a meeting since before the PRD was filed, I think. 15:57:10 <tuanta> I need to go for chairing FAmSCo meeting today on #fedora-meeting-2 in a few minutes 15:57:19 <sgallagh> tuanta: Thank you for your participation. 15:57:39 <sgallagh> simo: The deadlines are implied; the Change freeze is imminent. 15:57:44 <tuanta> thanks, see you all later 15:57:46 <sgallagh> jreznik: What's the exact data? 15:57:52 <nirik> have fun tuanta 15:57:57 <sgallagh> Change *Submission* Freeze 15:58:15 <sgallagh> #undo 15:58:15 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x122e3b50> 15:58:19 <simo> sgallagh: I meant Fedora Server deadlines to make sure we progress in a way that will allow us to have the roles stuff by F21 15:58:26 <jreznik> sgallagh: submission deadline is in two weeeks 15:58:36 <sgallagh> #info Change Submissions must be complete two weeks from today 15:58:41 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor 15:58:49 <tuanta> nirik: please drop me an email to get started with our *action* to file DB role change 15:58:54 <jreznik> simo: I'd say standard Fedora Change Freezes should apply 15:58:56 <sgallagh> simo: Can you start a thread on the list? 15:59:04 <jreznik> + contingency deadlines 15:59:05 <nirik> tuanta: sure, can do 15:59:06 <sgallagh> We're out of time today and that's likely to be a longer topic 15:59:10 <simo> ok 15:59:20 <simo> sgallagh: I'll propose as topic for nex tmeeting 15:59:23 <sgallagh> simo: Ack 15:59:28 <sgallagh> Thank you 15:59:35 <sgallagh> Anything further for Open Floor? 16:00:28 <sgallagh> Ok, thank you everyone! 16:00:30 <sgallagh> #endmeeting