Meeting started at 2025-09-03 17:00:07 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server '

As usual, let's wait a moment for everybody to show up.

I'll post the agenda in 2-3 minutes.

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

Hi Emmanuel!

Hi, Peter

Our meeting today is a little sparse.

But I think, we should start anyway. And count nirik in, who is lurking as usual

OK, let's start and hope someone else will join later.

!hi

Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers

Welcome Jocelyn (she/her) !

Now we have our quorum complete!

Any comment to the agenda?

nirik: waving back :-)

I see no comment to the Agenda, so lets start.

Regarding the action, nothing new. See

And no announcements from me, today.

Anything else here?

OK, we proceed then

ee https://docs.stg.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/services/httpd-basic-setup/

Oh, I see, docs staging is still down and doesn't rebuilt

Has there been a PR made to the httpd package?

Hi

Welcome Eyüp Akbulut

There's a ticket on that... hopefully we can fix it soon

Emmanuel Seyman: Not yet. I wanted us to agree first.

nirik: Yes, the ticket is from me :-) Usually darknao takes care, but he seems to be offline/holiday/something like that

Well, we have workaround: https://pboy.fedorapeople.org/webservice.html

That is the latest version. For download it still links to my development server. I will move everything to the download area of our docs.

Eyüp Akbulut: I dedn't forget you, let's talk a bit after this topic.

it's building now, should publish in a bit when it's done building.

ha, no, hit an error. Anyhow, sorry for sidetracking

nirik: 👍️

Oh, I hope not because an error on one of the documents

Emmanuel Seyman: Jocelyn (she/her) Could you look at the slightly revised text?

I just glanced at it and it looks accurate to me. (I'm bouncing between tasks at work at the moment)

it's accurate as far as I can see but still has the inconvenience that we're asking the user to edit the configuration in a very heavy-handed method

What do you mean with heavy-handed edit?

We're asking people to download an httpd.conf site from a third-party website

which doesn't even differ that much from the rpm-supplied httpd.conf

No, bno third party website but our docs download section!

I still have to move the files.

it isn't supplied by the rpm or root. Therefore, it is third-party

I would rather we upstream the differences in the two httpd.conf files via a PR on the httpd package

Yes, when we agree about the content, i will make a PR, and "on behalf of Server WG".

And hope, someone will react on this. Otherwise, I'm at a loss and see no alternative to downloading.

I think we're there, honestly

I'm obviously slow on the uptake today. What does that mean?

I believe everyone who has seen the changes agrees with them

Similarly, I think everyone finds the way we distribute the change heavy-handed

I need to take a closer look at the httpd conf

So a PR seems the simplest way forward

It seems drastic to toss it out with a file from an external link. It should make most readers nervous.

At least if they aren’t actually looking at the file first.

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): There are 2 deletions: the server name and the port. Both are moved to conf.d/customize.conf for easier modification without having to touch the main conf file.

I think Paul’s point is that the end user isn’t necessarily going to catch that

Right, I'd be more inclined to instruct the reader to comment out the lines in the original document, then place them in the customize.conf

That would be in line with most other product literature out there.

I'm sure Peter finds that error-prone, hence the instructions to download the modified file

Yes, I hesitate to ask useres to edit the main conf file with all it's technical details.

We can decribe the user either to edit of to download the file for convenience.

I have no hard objections. It was the only real observation I made during my brief review.

I would really like these changes to be in the rpm-supplied httpd.conf, hence the PR

I feel like this would be the best way to go about this change

Yes,we argee about the PR. 2 weeks a go we decided: We create a PR and we publish in at the same time. My proposal was to create a PR, wait 2 weeks for reaction, and when there is none, we publish anyway.

Yes,we argee about the PR. 2 weeks a go we decided: We create a PR and we publish intat the same time. My proposal was to create a PR, wait 2 weeks for reaction, and when there is none, we publish anyway.

2 weeks sounds a short time, all things considered, but I'm okay with that plan

And in parallel we want to write a Fedora Magazine article to discuss the issues and to instigate a discussion.

I have a draft, and I would be glad if we can auther that all together.

Ah, I would have thought the discussion would be in the PR

Regardless, I think the PR should be the first step of this plan

We must, of course, justify our PR, and perhaps this will also lead to a discussion.

proposed !agreed we create a PR for httpd to include the config files as of stg article 2025-09-03

Any objections?

I see none.

What about a Fed Mag article? Any coauthorship ?

I'll gladly contribute to the article

Emmanuel Seyman: 👍️ We were a good team at Flock!

Anyone else? We have no limit, or perhaps no more than 10 authors. :-)

Everyone is invited to join later,too. I think.

I think, it is really too late for this now. So I would like to postpone again.

I see no objection.

Sorry, I'm distracted with work. :)

No objections

yeah, it's too late for that

maybe we need a dedicated meeting

Yeah, that's a good idea? Let's try via our Matrix room

From me nothing new here so far

Same. I had to focus on packaging last weekend

OK. then

Looking for Eyüp Akbulut, can we answer some question, give some information, do you have a question?

syn: Are you still with us?

Hm, probably not.

Another topic, the new forge.

I would like to try to get us an org there as soon as possible. There is some discussion about a suitable naming convention. So we have to wait for that anyway .

The most likely org name at present would probably be simply server.

+1 to moving to the new forge ASAP

OK, I'll create a ticket for that. Workstation has already done so.

Our time is up. Nevertheless, anything else to discuss here?

I see none. So 'll close now.

3

2

1