Meeting started at 2025-11-05 18:00:17 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.

!hi

Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

Hi, folks!

!hi

John Himpel (jwhimpel)

!hi

Jan Kuparinen (copperi)

Welcome everybody. We have our quorum, so we should start.

Anything to change / comment / dislike / like ??

I'm good

OK. let's start.

Well, we have:

2. AGREED: pboy will write a summary to the list and we should see where the discussion takes us (ongoing)

1. Jocelyn will take a look at the current NFS documentation and make a proposal how to proceed.

I think, 1. is done with the next topic.

Any comment?

No announcement from me. Anyone something to add here?

I brought the NFS file into line with what is expected for a basic NFS server in F43, I still need to learn how to use security features on NFS to flesh out tht part of it.

My changes were pushed to staging with a PR to merge to Main

OK, lets start with this in the next topic,.

I completely forgot to review those changes last weekend

Will comment on the PR next weekend

I just had a connection interruption.

Me too

same

Good to know, i'm not alone :-)

I think we have to postpone to next week and take the opportunity to merge to stg. And I think I have to detail the new workflow.

Every WG member can commit to main and to stg (or commit PRs). We commit to main for small modifications we think do not need discussion. And comit / merge to stg to discuss things before we merge to main.

At least, that's the idea.

that sounds sensible

I think I'll do the merging of Jocelyn's modification, at the same time checking if it really works :-)

My brain thinks we should treat main as only modifiable by PR. That way everything is vetted to make sure we are as accurate as we can be.

a PR just for a spelling mistake is really heavy-handed

And I'll adjust our git workflow documentation at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/server-working-group/usr-docs-maintenance/ and on the wiki.

Agreed. That would probably be fine to push to main, but anything major? Should be handled via PR

Somehow I can't find the contribution doku on our wiki. Nevertheless, I'll put everything on the docs pages.

I think the proposed workflow is fine for docs, but I think the ansible stuff (due to packaging and versioning) doesn't work well on that workflow. I will attempt to do a rough draft for ansible workflow by the end of November.

John Himpel: agrr

ee

John Himpel: agreed!

!hello

Steve Daley (mowest)

Hey, Steve!

Jocelyn (she/her): is typing according to ...bot ??

Nope.

OK, but mowest is ?

I haven't checked. Do we have docs explaining how to use Ansible in F43

Or are we depending on upstream

No, we haven't for server, at least. I don't know about anywhere else in Fedora.

So I think, we should document our workflow ourself.

Agreed

John will write a proposal.

OK, next topic.

No tracking issue yet

An Emmanuel Seyman had ab additional discussion i linked earlier in our room.

I've the impression, we have a mess here.

My question is, do we have to do something or is no need to do anything, because it will workout automatically?

Yes, that's the conclusion that I've come to, as well

and I don't see any (easy) way to fix it for F43

TLDR: F42 shipped with Pg16 by default and F43 shipped with Pg18 (the default) and Pg17

but, because Pg16 isn't in F43, the inplace upgrade doesn't work

Is there any feedback from the posrgres maintainer(s)?

None that I know of

Is there any feedback from the postgres maintainer(s)?

At this point, I should point out that the Change that announced the update to Pg18 contains a number of false statements

something I am not happy about

To my knowledge, pg17 should we able to upgrade version 16, isn't it?

But, when I do a system-upgrade, what pg version gets installed?

As far as I know a parallel installation of 2 versionis not supported.

or no longer, because modularisation is gone.

modular packages were not parallel installable either. ;)

but yeah, the postgres thing is a mess. ;( Someone was going to write a quick docs about how to handle the upgrade... I don't know if they have yet

It can but you cannot install postgresql17-upgrade alongside postgresql to do a 16 to 18 upgrade, according to Tom Hughes

you have to install all of postgresql17 and upgrade your 16 databases.

Hm, I have a bunch of postgres servers with quite a lot of data .... I'm really happy

then if you want to go to 18, you have to install that, stop everything and enable checksums and then upgrade to 18. ;(

What a mess!

Well, what do we do? I think, at least we must amend a waring to the release notes, a warning on out Server Docs and probably an entry in common bugs.

And check quickdocs for informaton.

yeah, a quickdoc to point people to for sure... and a common bug (Might be already?)

don't see it off hand

OK, I'll check the information situation and add something if necessary.

Emmanuel Seyman: could you support me with the information text if necessary?

there was someone on discussion saying they would write a quick doc, but not sure if they had time yet

My reference bug is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2411778

Most of the information I have is in the discussion on #devel that you linked to

I can add common bugs tag to that one

OK!

@nirik++

Anything else? Otherwise let's go on.

Let's move on

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): are you online and can take over?

I'll be honest I haven't been looking at long term issues for about a month. My work situation is complicated with the current political situation.

I spent more time working on F43 testing than issues.

OK, so let's simple start with the simplest one :-)

The issues migrated to forge, right?

Arrg yes, wait!!

*wonders if the robots are trying to take over*

correct link

https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/114

Well, there is a new comment.

Yeah I think we need to actually do a change request for this.

Although then how do you implement said change? Is this something we have to package up or get included in another package?

Hm, good question.

From a configuration standpoint it's as easy as the comment makes it sound; create a drop file for the systemd unit and call it a day.

Yes, but probably not by default? Maybe it is a post-installation task depending on local requirements?

In most cases you will have a dedicated DNS server?

I think that was the earlier discussion. "Fedora should do this by default"

Agreed. This seems as valid a change for Server as for Workstation as for...

Anyway, we can't just close it, I think. And I remember a bit discussion some months ago, but don't remember the details.

Anyway, we can't just close it, I think. And I remember a big discussion some months ago, but don't remember the details.

What to do?

Paul Maconi (Aggraxis): Can you evaluate the topic further and make a proposal? I think there is no hurry

I guess we follow these instructions and construct a change request: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_guide/

yeah I can dig into it

++1

If this comes down to needing to package something or modify a package, I am not a packager (yet).

OK Next one:

https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/54

Sorry again!

We kind of talked that one to death lol

(automatic updateS)

Yeah, I don't see it on forge anymore ??

Did you already close it, I think?

Yes

Very good !!

Time is up. At least some clearance achieved.

Something to add here?

No all good

OK, let's close.