16:02:25 <sgallagh> #startmeeting Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2015-11-10)
16:02:25 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Nov 10 16:02:25 2015 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at
16:02:25 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:25 <sgallagh> #meetingname ServerSIG
16:02:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'serversig'
16:02:25 <sgallagh> #chair sgallagh mizmo nirik stefw adamw simo danofsatx mhayden jds2001
16:02:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw danofsatx jds2001 mhayden mizmo nirik sgallagh simo stefw
16:02:25 <sgallagh> #topic roll call
16:02:34 <nirik> morning folks.
16:02:35 <jds2001> .hello jstanley
16:02:36 <zodbot> jds2001: jstanley 'Jon Stanley' <>
16:02:36 <stefw> .hello stefw
16:02:39 <zodbot> stefw: stefw 'Stef Walter' <>
16:02:40 <mizmo> .hello duffy
16:02:42 <zodbot> mizmo: duffy 'Máirín Duffy' <>
16:02:52 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:02:53 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <>
16:03:02 <mhayden> .hello mhayden
16:03:03 <zodbot> mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' <>
16:04:24 <sgallagh> OK, that should be good to get started.
16:04:27 <sgallagh> #topic Agenda
16:04:28 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Cockpit Release Criteria
16:04:28 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Server/Cloud Interaction
16:04:28 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Minimal Installation
16:04:42 <sgallagh> Anyone have other items for the agenda?
16:05:06 <mhayden> none here
16:05:39 * nirik has nothing
16:05:49 <sgallagh> OK, let's start
16:05:53 <sgallagh> #topic Cockpit Release Criteria
16:06:04 <sgallagh> First of all, thank you mizmo for the excellent write-up.
16:07:10 <nirik> is there a final link? or ?
16:07:12 <sgallagh> So, it's been a week and we haven't seen any arguments
16:07:18 <sgallagh> Ah, one moment
16:07:18 <stefw> it was sent via email
16:07:37 * nirik nods. re-reading that now
16:07:41 <sgallagh> #link
16:08:07 <stefw> it's very thorough and well thought out
16:08:22 <sgallagh> Short version is that we will enforce testing of Firefox on Fedora, but we will block if someone discovers a serious issue on Firefox or Chrome on any of the Big Three platforms
16:08:41 <nirik> yep. mizmo++ :)
16:08:41 <zodbot> nirik: Karma for duffy changed to 8 (for the f23 release cycle):
16:08:56 <jds2001> mizmo++
16:08:57 <zodbot> jds2001: Karma for duffy changed to 9 (for the f23 release cycle):
16:08:59 <sgallagh> mizmo++
16:09:00 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for duffy changed to 10 (for the f23 release cycle):
16:09:04 <nirik> sgallagh: will block if it's something we can fix right?
16:09:10 <sgallagh> nirik: Right, sorry
16:09:25 <mizmo> \o/
16:09:29 <sgallagh> If the bug is provably in third-party software, we can do nothing about it
16:09:52 * nirik is ok with this. It leaves us open to fixing issues we can fix, but don't commit us to non free software testing or blocking on things that aren't our fault.
16:09:56 <mizmo> i can add that to the writeup if need be, that it only applies if it's a bug in our thing?
16:09:57 <sgallagh> There's a fuzzy line somewhere regarding workarounds, but I'd say those wouldn't block
16:10:22 <stefw> yup very fuzzy there
16:10:27 <jds2001> mizmo: i thought adamw told us that there's precedent for not blocking on things we cant fix
16:10:27 <stefw> everything on the web is a work around for something :)
16:10:33 <nirik> well, we have already 'could block'
16:10:34 <jds2001> that are otherwise blockers :)
16:10:47 <nirik> stefw: so very true. ;)
16:11:40 <sgallagh> Well, it's probably best to state up front that we're explicitly not going to block on a bug in code we don't control.
16:12:02 <sgallagh> However, reasonable workarounds are certainly candidates for a Freeze Exception...
16:12:30 <jds2001> sgallagh: i cant parse that
16:12:33 <mizmo> BEFORE "but if issues in meeting the functional criteria are reported against those platforms, they may block the release."
16:12:47 <sgallagh> jds2001: Once we're in Freeze, there are only two ways to get changes into the frozen package set.
16:12:55 <sgallagh> Either it's a blocker or a Freeze Exception
16:13:10 <sgallagh> FE's are opportunistic; if the fix happens before a respin, it gets in.
16:13:15 <jds2001> sgallagh: so if we can make the workaround no longer required, it's a freeze exception?
16:13:22 <sgallagh> Blockers will cause the release to slip if they don't get fixed
16:13:44 <mizmo> AFTER? ""but if issues in code related to Fedora / Cockpit (and not third-party software such as the third-party browsers) in meeting the functional criteria are reported against those platforms, they may block the release. Workarounds to get around bugs that are outside of our control (such as in third party browsers) will not be considered blockers but may be considered freeze exceptions."
16:13:53 <sgallagh> jds2001: No, I meant that if the problem is something like "Chrome doesn't parse a tag properly", then detecting Chrome and providing a different tag is a workaround
16:14:20 <jds2001> sgallagh: ahh, that makes more sense. I thought you meant workarounds on the client side.
16:14:23 <sgallagh> mizmo: +1
16:14:49 <jds2001> i.e. that the user has to perform, like adding it to a "broken page list" or something :)
16:14:55 <mhayden> mizmo: sounds good to me, +1
16:15:08 <adamw> morning, sorry folks
16:15:10 <adamw> found myself short of breakfast
16:15:11 <sgallagh> jds2001: Right, I see where it was unclear. Hopefully it's more understandable now
16:15:49 <mizmo> i'll s/bugs/issues just for consistent languages
16:15:51 <mizmo> language
16:15:56 <nirik> well, FE's are not automatically pulled in.
16:16:00 <nirik> but could be
16:16:12 <adamw> fwiw, philosophically speaking i've always preferred to keep the criteria intentionally vague and not mention specific products and such unless it's absolutely necessary - but i'm fine with server WG going in a slightly different direction. you just have to remember to update these when browser popularity changes ;)
16:16:15 <adamw> so +1 mizmo
16:16:44 <sgallagh> adamw: I think it's still a couple weeks too early for more mizmos
16:17:03 <adamw> 2 fast 2 mizmo ?
16:17:12 <mizmo> sgallagh, just 1 :)
16:17:36 <sgallagh> mizmo: Right, should have typed "another mizmo". Mea culpa.
16:18:15 <sgallagh> mizmo: Did you have a writeup on the final language of the decision somewhere?
16:18:30 <mizmo> sgallagh, just in the backscroll :)
16:18:36 <mizmo> want me to fpaste it for vote?
16:18:41 <mizmo> in context with the rest?
16:19:18 <mizmo>
16:19:32 <sgallagh> Thanks
16:20:24 <sgallagh> Proposal: Accept the criteria as written in the fpaste above
16:20:26 <sgallagh> +1
16:20:32 <jds2001> +1
16:20:49 <nirik> sure, +1
16:21:02 <mizmo> +1 <= biased :)
16:21:13 <stefw> +1
16:22:12 <sgallagh> Anyone else?
16:22:36 <sgallagh> #agreed New cockpit release criteria are accepted. (+7, 0, -0)
16:22:42 <sgallagh> #topic Server/Cloud Interaction
16:22:57 <sgallagh> So, this is going to be an ongoing topic of discussion and collaboration.
16:23:44 <sgallagh> I'm hoping for 2-3 volunteers to act as a Cloud Collaboration subcommittee and work closely with that SIG to position Server where sensible.
16:24:02 <mhayden> i'm not well-versed in Atomic yet, but i'll throw my hat in there
16:24:15 * mhayden does cloud at $dayjob and has worked w/Cloud SIG previously
16:24:25 <sgallagh> Thank you
16:24:43 <mhayden> plus i enjoy giving dustymabe grief at any available opportunity ;)
16:24:49 <sgallagh> mhayden++
16:24:50 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for mhayden changed to 2 (for the f23 release cycle):
16:25:01 <mhayden> ah, i guess i should harass dustymabe more often! :P
16:25:22 * nirik would offer to help, but I am still pretty low on time.
16:25:36 <sgallagh> Yeah, as am I (hence the begging for help)
16:26:14 <sgallagh> jds2001: I don't suppose this is something you'd be interested in taking on?
16:26:46 * jds2001 enjoys giving dustymabe a hard time. And can have beers and beat him up^W^W^Wchat with him as needed :)
16:26:51 <sgallagh> (mostly I'm trying to find multiple people so no one person is entirely responsible for it)
16:27:20 <sgallagh> #action mhayden and jds2001 will be the primary contacts with the Cloud SIG to discuss Server positioning in public clouds
16:27:27 <sgallagh> Thank you both
16:27:52 <adamw> thanks guys
16:28:04 <mhayden> should i fire off an email to the cloud sig about hopping in their next meeting?
16:28:13 <mhayden> and are there any specific agenda items we ought to bring up?
16:28:24 <sgallagh> I was just about to ask the same
16:28:25 <jds2001> mhayden: probably a good idea...
16:28:48 * linuxmodder late (mostly  listening in)
16:28:54 <jds2001> mhayden: what would it take to get a server image in the cloud offering would be one.
16:29:04 <sgallagh> I think we really want to figure out if it makes sense to provide a Server image or to enhance cloud-init/whatever to be able to run the cloud-to-server script automatically.
16:29:37 <sgallagh> At this point, I'd suggest that we may want to leave the questions up to our subcommittee to determine until they have something concrete to bring back to the WG.
16:29:38 <sgallagh> Reasonable?
16:30:10 <mizmo> sounds reasonable to me
16:30:34 <sgallagh> Look at us, all delegating and stuff.
16:31:00 <sgallagh> Shall we move on?
16:31:09 <sgallagh> /me has a hard stop at noon today
16:31:31 * mhayden is okay with that
16:31:35 * jds2001 too
16:31:42 <mizmo> +1
16:31:44 <adamw> sure
16:31:59 * nirik is now in 2 meetings. what fun. ;)
16:32:11 <sgallagh> #info Agenda Item: Minimal Installation
16:32:18 <mhayden> nirik: i feel your pain
16:32:19 <sgallagh> #undo
16:32:19 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by sgallagh at 16:32:11 : Agenda Item: Minimal Installation
16:32:23 <sgallagh> #topic Minimal Installation
16:32:43 <sgallagh> So, we had some limited conversation about this on the list today.
16:32:56 <jds2001> left me slightly confused.
16:33:06 <mhayden> is the main concern around which packages go into (and don't go into) the minimal environment?
16:33:14 <sgallagh> So, the Fedora Server install media (DVD) includes "minimal" as an install option
16:33:15 <jds2001> is hte concept of minimal NOT an unbranded install?
16:33:19 <mhayden> i always thought that the goal of minimal was to have the tinest package set for a functional system
16:33:25 <jds2001> i.e. not any specific product, choose your own adventure?
16:33:58 <sgallagh> This is mostly because of the way the environment groups work; Anaconda will display any whose packages are completely satisfied by the packages available in the media
16:34:12 <sgallagh> Fedora Server is a proper superset of "minimal", so it shows up there.
16:34:28 <jds2001> right, but it would show up in workstation as well, correct?
16:34:29 <adamw> yeah, this strikes me as something that'd be hard to 'fix'
16:34:34 <sgallagh> At the very least, it is confusing to have the media present the ability to install something that would not actually be "minimal"
16:34:39 <sgallagh> jds2001: Actually, no.
16:34:45 <adamw> if we had a workstation DVD it would.
16:34:48 <sgallagh> Workstation uses the live installer, which gives no choice
16:34:49 <sgallagh> right
16:34:56 <sgallagh> (RE: WS DVD)
16:34:58 <mhayden> you can do pxe installs of workstation, minimal shows up there
16:35:11 <adamw> all groups show up in all network installs
16:35:18 <adamw> (and we've previously decided that's a feature not a bug)
16:35:22 <jds2001> yeah, that's the only way i've done it, so i guess that's why i saw it :)
16:35:24 <sgallagh> Right, but network installs are a special case.
16:35:33 <mhayden> is the main concern here that minimal is "unproductized"?
16:35:45 <sgallagh> And it's not showing you a boolean choice: "minimal" or "Fedora Server"
16:35:55 <sgallagh> mhayden: Well, not exactly.
16:36:19 <sgallagh> Regardless of the truth of the matter, many people actually install the "minimal" version from the Server media and assume it to actually be Fedora Server.
16:36:26 <sgallagh> (Not that this has any real meaning...)
16:36:46 <sgallagh> So we're clearly not meeting users' expectations.
16:36:59 <mizmo> people want a minimal version for sure
16:37:15 <adamw> if this is something that could reasonably be 'fixed' for the DVD I'd be fine with fixing it, but it doesn't seem like a screaming priority.
16:37:24 <sgallagh> mizmo: But that's not our value-add as Fedora Server
16:37:25 <mizmo> i think i read some feedback (maybe in a review article) that they were indeed expecting server to be that minimal
16:37:30 <mhayden> sgallagh: ah, i follow now
16:37:35 <mizmo> so there is deifnitely confusion over what server actually is
16:37:39 <sgallagh> (We *do* need to trim down our depchains so that we are more minimal than we are today, though)
16:38:34 <mizmo> s/fedora minimal/fedora light, now with 50% fewer depchains!
16:38:35 <mizmo> ?
16:38:55 <sgallagh> There are ways we can get minimal off the DVD if we want to, or we could talk about considering "Minimal" to be an approved variant of Fedora Server.
16:39:07 <sgallagh> I'm not in favor of that latter, but I'm also not going to avoid discussing it as an option :)
16:39:40 <jds2001> sgallagh: like mizmo said, there are folks that *want* minimal
16:39:50 <jds2001> so I think getting it off the DVD might be the wrong direction
16:39:53 <adamw> jds2001: sure, but does the server DVD have to be a delivery mechanism for it>?
16:40:07 <sgallagh> jds2001: We need to address their actual need, though
16:40:10 <jds2001> adamw: maybe, maybe not :)
16:40:14 <sgallagh> Not just their desire for a faster horse :)
16:40:15 <adamw> there are folks that want all the other package groups too, and we point them to the appropriate media
16:40:37 <sgallagh> What they want is a smaller install with a limited number of services running.
16:40:37 <adamw> sgallagh: i usually really, really, really want minimal. honestly, when i'm deploying a fedora server i don't use fedora server. sorry. :P
16:40:45 <jds2001> adamw: are you saying minimal becomes a separate CD/DVD?
16:40:57 <sgallagh> adamw: Right, and that says to me that our definition of Fedora Server might be too heavy today.
16:41:05 <sgallagh> I think the correct answer is somewhere in the middle
16:41:18 <adamw> jds2001: i don't think i want to make a specific proposal, i'm just pointing out that 'people want minimal' doesn't necessarily imply 'minimal has to be on the Server DVD'
16:41:27 <adamw> in general i'm not a fan of adding new media.
16:41:35 <mhayden> i don't see why minimal would need to be 'removed'
16:41:36 <jds2001> adamw: +1 :)
16:41:40 <mizmo> a project i've been working on with robyduck (that probably won't happen until f24) is a new website where you can get the minimal variant
16:41:49 <mhayden> perhaps the wording around it could be changed to something that implies "the bare minimum"
16:41:51 <mizmo> i dont know if that would help if we wanted to treat minimal as a separate thing
16:42:13 <sgallagh> mhayden: That's a user-experience concern. The installer and install media is branded as Server, therefore people assume that anything it allows you to install is ALSO Server
16:42:15 <adamw> if it means i have another two goddamn DVDs to burn every release cycle, then no. ;)
16:42:45 * mhayden patpats adamw
16:42:51 * jds2001 ships adamw a case of DVD's :D
16:43:15 <sgallagh> My ideal case would be for the Server DVD to provide only one choice, but have that choice be useful to the most people.
16:43:17 <mizmo> it'd be here (altho note minimal isn't actually listed in that version of the mockup)
16:43:34 <sgallagh> If, as adamw says, more people want less by default than we are delivering, then we should trim it down closer.
16:44:06 <mhayden> there are some machines i install where i don't want everything fedora server comes with -- i just don't need it on that box
16:44:07 <jds2001> sgallagh: i suspect a lot of folks dont want cockpit, for example.
16:44:17 <jds2001> sgallagh: which is a key value-add of Fedora Server.
16:44:18 <adamw> right
16:44:22 <mizmo> sgallagh, well i think they are looking for minimal as a base to build stuff on, and i think server as we've devised it is a base to build stuff on but we give you a lot more stuff than ppl think they need?
16:44:25 <mhayden> but there are others where i want server for the extras that are configured for me already
16:44:25 <adamw> i'm not sure you can go in both those directions
16:44:34 <mhayden> mizmo: right -- like folks who want to run ansible with cloud-init
16:44:39 <sgallagh> mizmo: Right, and a lot of that is cargo-cult
16:44:40 <mizmo> sgallagh, i think the minimalists are the lego builders, and the target for server as we've devised are maybe microwoft converts
16:44:46 <mizmo> er microsoft
16:44:54 <mizmo> altho i like the sound of microwoft, makes me think of wookiees
16:45:00 <sgallagh> Right and Fedora in general is already addressing that use-case.
16:45:07 <sgallagh> Particularly with the network-install.
16:45:38 <sgallagh> So it's *probably* better for us to remain focused on the "Let's provide a common platform, rather than a minimal one" approach.
16:46:41 <mizmo> but we need to redirect the minimalists properly
16:47:01 <mizmo> maybe we need a minimal image redirect on the server download page
16:47:04 <mizmo> in the sidebar?
16:47:14 <sgallagh> That said, I could hear an argument for providing a "Server with Graphical Administration" and a "Server without Graphical Administration" env group
16:47:21 <jds2001> mizmo: but there's no such thing right now
16:47:33 <sgallagh> mizmo: "minimal" isn't really very minimal either :-/
16:47:43 <jds2001> mizmo: at least not as a separate consumable product.
16:47:46 <sgallagh> Anyone who is truly doing a lego-block build-up is using a kickstart and netinstall
16:48:01 <mizmo> jds2001, well that's a point of confusion for me bc i had some discussions about the website redo and minimal as a standalone image was mentioned
16:48:11 <jds2001> %packages --nobase ftw :)
16:48:38 <sgallagh> See, that's where I think the Base WG needs to weigh in.
16:48:46 <sgallagh> There should *never* be a good reason to use --nobase.
16:49:10 <sgallagh> (And there are plenty today)
16:49:28 <mizmo> i think there are different visions of what minimal is too right
16:49:33 <mizmo> like is minimal like fedora coreos?
16:49:42 <mizmo> or is minimal like damn small linux
16:49:43 <mizmo> or whatever
16:49:49 <sgallagh> mizmo: Today, it's neither
16:50:23 <sgallagh> It's an organically-grown set of packages when someone said "Well, every system needs this..."
16:50:38 <mizmo> it needs a gardener to lovingly tend to it
16:50:51 <sgallagh> But it *is* smaller than the Fedora Server install
16:51:20 <jds2001> about 1/3 the packages, iirc
16:51:24 <sgallagh> mizmo: I think it needs a cheap lawnmower first
16:51:42 <mhayden> once i see CoreOS, i can only see c(oreos)
16:51:53 <mizmo> i guess the damn small linux crowd is looking for minimal to run on ancient or otherwise limited or embedded hw and not server stuff rgiht
16:51:57 <mizmo> or maybe server stuff
16:52:00 <mizmo> but not normal server stuff
16:52:00 <sgallagh> jds2001: I suspect strongly that a lot of that is accidental dependency stuff
16:52:06 <sgallagh> And *that* needs addressing too
16:52:14 <sgallagh> /me has some scripts to track down the big offenders
16:52:15 <mizmo> mhayden, now i can never unsee that. and i'm craving chocolate.
16:52:19 <mhayden> but "minimal" isn't great for embedded IIRC because it still has some fairly large things in it
16:52:26 <sgallagh> Yeah, DSL is really special-case
16:52:52 <mizmo> i dont know, outside of those two cases (coreos / DSL) why ppl want minimal but there may be more cases?
16:52:53 <adamw> focus, guys - solving minimal is not our (server WG's) problem
16:53:05 <sgallagh> mizmo: Ancient behavior.
16:53:16 <sgallagh> adamw: We actually haven't decided that...
16:53:18 <mizmo> adamw, yes but they are knocking on our door so we gotta figure out where to point them :)
16:53:37 <sgallagh> mizmo: Historically, UNIX admins start from next-to-nothing and add the tiny pieces they care about.
16:53:43 <adamw> oh, sorry, thought we'd agreed with 'better for us to remain focused on the "Let's provide a common platform, rather than a minimal one" approach.'
16:53:43 <mizmo> like that crazy lady who still uses my email address and i get awkward family photos from her relatives. i still dont know where to point htem
16:53:43 <sgallagh> Fedora has always been good at that.
16:53:54 <sgallagh> adamw: I'd *like* for us to agree on that.
16:54:01 <adamw> count me agreed.
16:54:17 <mizmo> +1 let's provide a common platform rather than a minimal one
16:54:27 <adamw> if we want to throw minimal off the DVD and there's a sane way to do that, fine by me; i think that's as much as Server WG needs to do about this 'problem'.
16:54:33 <mizmo> but let's also figure out how to get the minimalists from knocking on our door and then we dont meet expectations and get crapped on?
16:54:39 <sgallagh> Proposal: Assert that Fedora Server is meant to be a defined platform and not necessarily the most minimal platform possible.
16:54:44 <sgallagh> (just for clarity)
16:54:46 <adamw> big fat ack
16:54:48 <mizmo> +1
16:54:53 <sgallagh> +1
16:54:58 <mhayden> +3.14
16:54:58 <jds2001> +1 here
16:55:31 <sgallagh> (This statement does not preclude us from trimming down the defined platform as best as is reasonable, of course)
16:55:31 <jds2001> mhayden: now i want oreo pie :D
16:55:40 <mizmo> oh god
16:55:45 <mizmo> cruelty
16:55:49 <mhayden> oh, it's on
16:55:51 * mizmo hungry for lunch too :)
16:55:59 <mhayden> sgallagh: sorry for mentioning oreos and derailing the meeting
16:56:16 <sgallagh> /me mumbles something around a mouthful of chocolate cookie crumbs
16:56:19 * mhayden packages up some oreos and sends them to westford
16:56:38 <mhayden> they dip them in mexican chocolate (the spicy kind) here in south texas
16:56:41 <mizmo> mhayden, what about my pie!
16:56:46 <sgallagh> OK, I count +5; does anyone want to object?
16:56:57 <mhayden> the only object i want is an oreo
16:57:17 <sgallagh> #agreed Proposal: Assert that Fedora Server is meant to be a defined platform and not necessarily the most minimal platform possible. (+5, 0, -0)
16:57:17 <mizmo> who solves the minimal issue
16:57:27 <sgallagh> mizmo: We defer to Base WG on that, I'd guess
16:57:30 <mizmo> okay
16:57:34 <sgallagh> Or do you mean on the DVD?
16:57:46 <adamw> proposal: everyone go eat an oreo
16:57:55 <mizmo> should we send them a yo dawg, people are using server for minimal, maybe we should figure out what they really need and make minimal it?
16:58:00 <sgallagh> I can hack that up very easily; just add something to the "minimal" env group that isn't part of Server :-D
16:58:10 <sgallagh> adamw: +1
16:58:18 <mizmo> well the DVD too, although i bet if we removed it there would be upset
16:58:47 <sgallagh> mizmo:
16:58:54 <mizmo> yes exactly
16:59:04 <mizmo> i feel like base wg would have to solve the broader minimal prob before we could safely remove it
16:59:37 <sgallagh> I won't make any changes there *right now*.
16:59:51 <sgallagh> But I'll keep it in the back of my mind as we approach Alpha Freeze
17:00:09 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
17:00:15 <sgallagh> Anything for Open Floor?
17:00:27 <mizmo> food
17:00:28 <mizmo> :)
17:01:41 * jds2001 disappears to another meeting
17:01:53 <sgallagh> Thank you, folks
17:01:57 <sgallagh> #endmeeting