Meeting started at 2025-10-22 17:00:11 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server'

!hi

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

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

Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers

!hi

Mat H (theprogram)

Emmanuel Seyman: mowest jwhimpel anyone online ??

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): ping!!

Sorry, I started a podcast and lost track of time

he seduction of new media 😀

ov by new media ??

OK, with nirik lurking as usual, we have our quorum and can start.

I'll post the agenda.

Anything to add / remove?

OK, let's start

I'm good

Anyone any announcement / info to add?

Nothing here

Nothing from me

OK let's go on

Tracking issue: !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/164

Max 15 mins

Fortunately, the SBC bug os resolved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2396309

And arm-image-installer works fine, again.

I couldn't test todays rc yet.

Ah, that's a good thing

Yes, it saves us to kick ARM out and probably disapppoint many users.

What about our special tests, as listed by Emmanuel in the ticket?

Unfortunately, i couldn't test dovecot, which is quite a radical change.

Yeah, I still need to upgrade my server with dovecot here at home. :( Totally new config...

Yes, and I administer 3 mail hubs (in production) user dovecot.

I have done virtually no testing, too busy with other things... :-(

I've got a arm box here to test with now. Plan to do some testing later today hopefully

Would be helpful if you could post your findings.

sure, can do

Well, I don't expect any surprises with our main installation media. Everything worked fine at the various stages / test versions

There are still some blocker bugs open, as far as I counted. Maybe we get tomorrow a no-go again. But nevertheless, I think we are done with our testings.

And it would be fine, if we could get f43 out of the door.

So, let's go on.

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/168

max 10 mins.

Proposal: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/168#issuecomment-146737

Currently, the changeover of our user docs is not working. You have to append "/latest-

Currently, the changeover of our user docs is not working. You have to append "/latest" to the URL.

Docs is working on it.

Unfortunately, it is blocked since Friday (or Thursday?)

Any comments / ideas?

Will having our documentation on the new forge improve things ?

Basically, it is unchanged. But there are some improvements, e.g. the performance is better. And notification should work out of the box (allthough out box is currently still "closed" i.e. no configuration done so far).

And we will get a preview button for Asccidoc, which we were missing with pagure and which was too complicated to use on GitLab.#

And we separate repos for different things under the same roof. Which makes working with it easier.

And we can adjust the UI to our needs.

There is a lot more, I think. I did some work on forge, and I like it a lot.

Any comments about the proposal? use https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/latest/ to view the current state.

I stumbled on this last night : https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/wg-documentation/pulls/170

which didn't fill me with joy

but, overall, the new forge seems a step up

I think, that's part of our next topic. Great, if we would make progress with the issues.

That's the only open PR for us right now

If someone can point me to a document that explains the differences between issues and projects, I would really appreciate it

Well. I searched the docs about that, too. Seems to be kind of a collection of (tracking) issues.

I'm going to reasearch this for next week

But there are also milestones. We have to dig deeper into it,

Looking forward to your findings. There are a lot more organisational options. We have to find out, how to make the best use of them.

Well, back to the proposal https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/168#issuecomment-146737

Any objections or alternatives?

I think it is a good idea

It could be a very large section if anybody wanted to write it

Lots of 'is and outs' with SBCs

I am in favour of this change

Lots of 'ins and outs' with SBCs

It could be a very large section if anybody wanted to write it

I am in favor of this change

OK, 3 in favour and no objections, therefore

Some security feature :)

Annecdote: I have an SBC with Fedora Server that will only boot if I put a butter knife or screwdriver on pins 22 and 23

!agreed: WG modifies the SBC docs as proposed in the ticket (#168)

ping zodbot

Strange, sometimes zodbot will have a colon, sometimes it will not. Seems to have it's own mind.

!action: pboy will modify Server docs about SBC as agreed upon.

OK, next topic.

No Tracking issue

Let's start with the PR.

Someone merged the commit and the PR was rebased so it now contains 0 commits?

Yes, seems so.

Did someone check the source?

There is only comment, file is missing

Yes, I see. Maybe we have to check on pagure. The complete content is still there.

John Himpel: I see your are online ??

I am lurking as I am in and out.

OK, Could you or Emmanuel check on pagure, if the content / the change is really in the current file on forge? Or it got lost in the transition process?

you can't search a pagure repo via the web interface?

No, you can open the issue and you can look at the commit difference. An than you can look at the file on forge and check, if the modification is there.

No, but you can open the issue and you can look at the commit difference. An than you can look at the file on forge and check, if the modification is there.

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/user-documentation/src/branch/main/modules/ROOT/pages/services/filesharing-nfs-installation.adoc

Issue is still there:

----

+ […]$ sudo adduser -c 'nfs pseudo user' -M -r -s /sbin/nologin nfs

- […]$ sudo adduser -c 'nfs pseudo user' -m /nonexisting -M -r -s /sbin/nologin nfs

----

The difference is:

The file does not reflect the commit.

first line old version, second proposed new one

John Himpel: Thanks! So it got lost in the transition.

Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs): I was looking at the pagure forge if that helps.

Yes, my citation is from pagure.

John, can you fix it or are you struggeling with GIT?

So it would be too much work, currently?

I can do it, if need be

Emmanuel Seyman: OK. Thanks.

John Himpel: I'm struggling still with git. Also under narcotic pain killers, thus not thinking all that clearly all the time.

Thanks John. And thanks Emmanuel, so we have a solution here.

Well, out time is up. Thanksfully we have something to do next meeting. 😏

The floor is open!

Do we still have to prepare a story for each Fedora release

Do we still have to prepare a story for each Fedora release ?

I don't think so.

But we should prepare a Release Note entry. Provided, we have something to note.

Maybe, there is something about dovecot and how to upgrade without coming into rough waters.

I was looking at this last night : https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/134

and was wondering if it is still valid

I currently see noome to mention something. An on Fedora Magazine are only the usual article about what is new to Workstation, etc.

So may, we can silently close the issue 😀

OK, Emmanuel Seyman do you close the issue?

I'll do that

OK. So I suppose we are done for the moment? And I close the meeting.

3

2

1