Meeting started at 2024-09-04 17:00:18 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server'

Let's wait a moment. I'll post the agenda in 2-3 minutes with a new business to deal with in addition to the agenda as sent earlier today.

!hi

John Himpel (jwhimpel)

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

OK, welcome everybody!

nirik is lurking, but it counts nevertheless for our quorum.

So let's start

Anything to add or comment?

I'm good

OK, let's start.

I couldn't complete a current list of out actions status. So I will add it to the short minutes which are part of our WG documentation. And let it skip here.

Any announcement?

Obviously not. So next topic

I finally got my ansible roles loaded into the Fedora-server pagure repository. In the meta/README.md file are instructions on how to install and run the ansible modules.

I haven't had time to file PRs. Sorry, it's been a busy week

I also added some text to README.md showing what the ansible portion of the filesystem should look like after the role is installed.

John Himpel: Yes, thanks a lot! I had studies it today. And regarding the added graphic, ir is really helpful for me.

Unfortunately, I couldn't test it practically, so far.

I think I should probably create a separate document with that graphic and instructions, because it will be useful for any ansible roles we create. Then the individual role docs can just provide the necessary reference link.

If things calm down a bit, I should be able to start on the user docs (ansible role & cli) before our next meeting.

Well, I studied the code. If I didn't miss something, you don't prepare the storage so far, as it is included in the manual part. Ot did I miss something?

Peter Boy: Not sure what you mean by "prepare the storage"

The manual part includes consideration which base directory to use and proposes /srv. It then creates the directory and logical volume and mounts everything. #

create the exported directory and mount a dedicated LVM volume, I use imagine

Peter Boy: Look at the nfs_server_export role. That work is done there.

OK, thanks.

I'll have a look in more detail. :-)

That invokes another question.

!hi

Jason Blackwell (blackwell)

If I understand Ansible correctly, the most important task of admin is to specify the desired state in in inventory file. And then they start the playbook. Because Ansible analyses the current state and skips the steps already done (I forgot the correct term) the admin does not differentiate between installation and configuration.

The admin just modifie the inventory file and then starts Ansible. Am I correct?

The admin does not differentiate between installation and configuring the export directories.

Hi Jason !!

correct

Peter Boy: Yes and no. :-( State is defined in many different places. Tasks actually define state. Variables used by tasks are defined in role-name/defaults/main.yml , role-name/vars/main.yml, inventories/.../main.yml and from inventory data collected from hosts.

You are correct that it doesn't differential between installation and configuration. Many experienced ansible users do try to separate installation from configuration. Installation is often "cookie cutter" between hosts, but configuration will most likely vary between hosts.

Well, and how do we want to deal with it?

I obviously prefer separating install from configuration, but an willing to consider other opinions.

I would like groups of exports and groups of servers.

Emmanuel Seyman: sounds logical to me. And what does it mean codewise?

installation will target some groups and configuration will target others. Absible is quite flexible in this regard

My idea is, we have a subdir, eg. "supportedServices", and there is one or are various inventory file(s). And a start script "doit" And the admin just takes care of the inventory files.

and executes doit

or is this to naive?

Ansible unfortunately isn't quite that simple. It has it's own file structure and way of doing things. If you stray from that, it is usually trouble.

agreed. We can try to apply the principle but we're very much stuck with the directory structure

I would suggest one Fedora-server/ansible directory. Under that directory, would be "runtime scripts" and the various directories (roles & inventories) that ansible requires.

OK, I see there is a "best practice" regarding the directory structure. There is the same in Java, which I'm working with a lot. And it is a good idea not to deviate from that structure.

As we develop more roles, it will not be uncommon for various roles to reference and include other roles and inventory data. To do that ansible needs to be in a common/shared file structure.

But I suppose, we can nevertheless use a meta directory, where this goood practise is created.

Ansible has it's assumptions about where things should be located and how they should interact, just like JEE does.

There are several good "ansible best practices" docs on the net that we could/should cherry-pick from and create our own "ansible best practices" doc

I like that !! :-)

Peter: A good place to start learning about ansible is at https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/getting_started/index.html

Yes, a started to read that.

I myself need a few more days to try everything out in detail. And I assume Emmanuel does too?

So we may stop here and continue next week?

I need EPEL10 requests to stop piling up in Bugzilla...

I don't want to speak for Emmanuel, but I think he's quite ansible proficient. MOWEST says he's a newbie to ansible. Let's move on now.

OK, let's move on for now.

Does anyone have the url for the F41 iso used by anaconda for installation?

see https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/nightlies.html for nightlys?

That's just what I was looking for. Thanks !!!

Yeah, and there are also regularly officion builds for testing. I just can't find the latest email in all my stuff.

I think, we should include the latest build links in the ticket.

I had a discussion with Adam after our last meeting in our Server matrix room. You may read it, just in case did not already. He proposed, to create a list of tests und to try to automate as much as possible.

So i started a system of wiki pages which specify a list of tests and then the details in a separate page for each test.

I hope I'll have a very first proposal ready on Monday.

In the meantime, we should use the ticket 144.

Please, could everyone add his test efforts the the table in the ticket for now?

sure, will do once I have time

Will do. It will probably not be until the weekend.

Thanks, no problem. As soon I have a Wiki proposal ready and we modify it the get a version we all agree upon, we may switch fron ticket to he wiki.

Another topic is the list of changes. See Emmanuels mail.

I couldn't study it so far.

Anything to add here at the moment?

Sorry, it came this late. Again, I had a lot to do

Emmanuel Seyman: really no problem. Basically, I have the same issue. And John, too, I suppose. Let's make the best of it :-)

OK, so we interrupt for now and continue next week with additional insights :-)

We have a bit of time left for open floor. Let's use it.

The floor is open. Anything here to talk abut?

I'm probably the only Raspberry Pi5 fan-boy here, but I saw an email from Peter Robinson, that it's almost ready for F41. The remaining issues are mainly video related (which doesn't much matter to servers).

Yeah, and I read most of the current blockers are Pi5 related

Hopefully, supporting SBC's like this better in the future by Fedora, et.al, will increase the interest in Fedora Server.

John Himpel: Agreed. We should take on this task and the improvement of our documentation page for SBCs soon. I'm not wo much interested in PI, to much proprierity software. But I'm interested in other manufactures.

But since RH probably doesn't expect to sell many RHEL licenses for this product, it will probably receive little to no RH paid personnel support. It will all have to be developed and supported by amateurs. Which usually results in an 18 month lag behind initial hardware release. By that time, much enthusiasm for the product has waned.

Fedora's RPi 5 release should contain NO proprietary software.

Well, Peter Robinson is doing a lot of work there. And various others as well.

Agreed, Thank goodness for Peter and the others. But it's a "at home - in spare time" effort for them.

Yeah, nevertheless, the Fedora versions work mostly smoothly. Much better as other distributions in my opinion. But maybe I'm biased :-)

a bit

I need to leave now. Talk to eveyone next week.

See you next week, folks

Yeah, and our time is up. So I'll close now.