Meeting started at 2026-06-24 17:00:11 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server '

!HI

!group members server-wg

Members of server-wg: Alexander Bokovoy, Adam Williamson, Paul Maconi, eseyman, jwhimpel, Kevin Fenzi, korora (@korora:fedora.im, @korora1981:matrix.org), mowest, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), Peter Boy, Stephen Gallagher

!hi

Jocelyn Gould (UTC-4): Jocelyn Gould (korora) - she / her / hers

!hello

Emmanuel Seyman: Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his

I wonder what I need to do to get my account highlighted in that group call

Hi!

Mine doesn't get highlighted in that list either

!hello

I suppose it is hightlighted because I send the command? Let's check it

Ro: Rowan Puttergill (goroboro) - he / him / his

Emmanuel Seyman: Do you check?

OK, Welcome to our weekly Server WG meeting.

I send the agenda.

Anything to change?

I'm good

lgtm!

OK Let's start

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/server-working-group/wg-minutes-2026/

meetings overview:

Regarding the action, see the list in our

Current status

vips6349

2.

eseyman writes an Ansible playbook that applies the official post-installation tasks.

1.

pboy will implement the Fedocal workarount for providing meeting location address

4.

MatH will compose the existing ideas and proposals into a TOC proposal, perhaps already for next meeting

3.

Conan Kudo will fix Kiwi to set the right partition type of Linux LVM for the system partition on KVM guest and arm image.

5.

DONE: pboy will put together the originally planned way of Ansible support for pre-installed software in home server spin-off in the server matrix room.

!hi

John Himpel: John Himpel (jwhimpel)

Hi, John !

Announcements:

Hi, John!

Nothing from me today.

Has someone something to announce?

I have nothing.

There is a post-Flock survey and people who were at Flock should give their thoughts

That is all

Yeah, I already did.

It wasn't Fedora Server, but I got Fedora Minimal up and running on an Rpi 5 using Peter Robinson's copr for the kernel. The only big thing that isn't working for me is a usb attached external disk (on-board disk works fine).. He is hopeful that all of this will be ready for F45.

Looking forwar how the Ppi5 performs compared to the latest rockship

Let's proceed.

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/201

max 10 mins

We need to decide what to do.

Another proposal: include it as a fall back option in home server spin-off.

One opinion was, this is not part in a professional use of Server, because businesses have a stable internet connection.

(When disussing this on Matrix or in the ticket)

i'm ok with adding it into the base image. How big are the packages?

Jocelyn Gould (UTC-4): It is a matter of increasing the distribution file - on the one side. On the other it is a matter of concept and profile

I can't see PPP and DSL support being big in size...

It’s not a huge amount, but one little thing leads to another.

True

Does it hurt the user to just install it?

And we have already far exceeded our original size.

Base packages feel like minimum viable

Still, given Stephen Gallagher's explanations, I'm in favor of adding it back in

But we're pretty much past the era of CD/DVD installation, so image size doesn't seem to be much of an issue any more.

Brett: The user can't install without an internet connection. And for this they need ...

Yes, but if a business uses xDSL, this is still a probelm for them. Makes me wonder if it's not been a probelm that we just wern't aware of

John Himpel: Image size is a matter in regions with a fragile and slow internet connection. And there a lot of those worldwide.

I think this is where these packages would also get used.

The matter is: To what extent should we show consideration for countries with fewer resources and a lower level of development?

There is surely a point where we have to consider something to be reasonably legacy technology, however xDSL is presumably still used in places. I agree with [Peter Boy (ServerWG, Docs)](https://matrix.to/#/@pboy:fedora.im) about image size and keeping that down

I suppose if it is in a similar boat of like WiFi drivers. Trying to set up a machine with no WiFi is a sad day

That said, presumably if you can download the ISO, you have some mechanism to download what you need. Surely you can just manually download the rpm after install and install it like that? We could provide a Known Issue in the release notes, with a workaround.

That assumes you're not downloading in one location and installing in another

The same thing would apply though

Download the ISO, and the rpm... install ISO, install rpm.#

I guess the majority would propose: !agreed WG will be included PPP packagers into the next revision of the distribution media

but not me: -1

Working in a field where people are provided a lot of information tells me that people won’t read it.

I’m +1

I'm +1

If it isn't a bit deal to add it, and it isn't a large package, I am +1... but I think it should be reviewed for future releases

Currently. +3 / 0 9 / -1

More votes?

Currently. +3 / 0 0 / -1

It would be great to know how much this actually gets used... unfortunate that we can

It would be great to know how much this actually gets used... unfortunate that we can't gather intel on this

OK. the majority of the participants as well as the formal WG members is +

Therefor:

Let's proceed

We need to agree upon the plan for the new article

Personally, my feeling on this is that SSH is so ubiquitous it actually just belongs in general Fedora user documentation, however there was a proposal that this was generally used in a server context, so I have lumped everything into this PR

I don't believe there is high value in separating out conceptual, server, client, and advanced usage from each other more than I have already done

Ro: Agreed, but on the other side sshd is very essential for Server. Doesn't work without

Maybe something detailed on sshd in our docs?

I am totally okay with all of this living in the server docs... if it can hold together as one thing.

Im very content with the plan. What came into my mind: Wouldn't it fall into basic administration? It is default in Server. It is not an (additional) service.

FTR, I'm in favor of including it

It’s not additional, but it is a very powerful tool that often needs some tweaking.

Yes, therefore basic administration.

Right... in the nav, I put it under Basic Administration

If that is good, then I am happy... I intend to work on content once this is approved, because it could do with some updating, beyond the lift and shift (and minor updates I did as part of this)

If I read the posts correctly:

Proposed: !agreed: WG agrees to the plan to produce documentation on SSH (Ticket 181)

+1

+1

Thank you.

+1

+1

OK. 3 / 0 / 0 for now

Any votes?

OK, so it is:

I just see John may be typing ? waiting....

not typing

OK, wrong Element message

There appears to be some confusion regarding the current status of the work and which PRs or actions are now to be carried out.

Document:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/services/filesharing-nfs-installation/

I must admit, I'm a bit of lost here.

I suspect it will be easier to close that PR and ask Jocelyn Gould (UTC-4) to create another one with the changes that are still relevant

I will take a peek and let every one know.

Looking at that PR, there is definitely something odd going on... it looks like it will take out or at least change a lot of existing content that is unrelated to NFS.

I would like to see a strong statement discouraging the use of nfsv3. nfsv4 has been out for a long time now and is quite stable.

as [Emmanuel Seyman](https://matrix.to/#/@eseyman:fedora.im) said, easier to close that one and create a new PR

Jocelyn Gould (UTC-4): Could you answer to martennl in the ticket and explain what to do and thank for the pr?

and his attention and action

Yes. I'll do that ASAP (and take a look at everything and report back next week.)

I would also like some documentation on how to deal with nfs if the host on the other end does NOT support selinux. I have run across this a couple of times and have neglected to document how to handle.

Proposed !action korora resolves both the tickets appropriately.

+1

Proposed !action korora resolves both the tickets appropriately as discussed.

+1

+1

We need some more votes. 😀

+1

yes from me

OK, unanimously Thanks

Next one

and following 4 tickets

We need to decide whether we want to bring the presentation of command line instructions in our documentation into line with the Fedora Docs Style Guide.

Back then, I’d started using the “[…]#” style to emphasise the command line – the key tool for working on servers. But unfortunately, copy and paste doesn’t work like that.

And the general Docs Style Guide also says something different.

I think our docs should follow the general docs style guide

I am pro this move, because I think that it helps simplify and establish good guidelines

And as a Docs guy I should follow that style. 😒

I also think we really really should stop saying run as root#

+1 for sudo

Yes and no. Mostly the user is the admin. And mostly they perform admin tasks.

(although if I am running a bunch of commands as root, I will often sudo su

+1 for sudo, +1 for style guide, it still permits expressing what needs to be expressed

yes... but as an admin, it is good practice to use sudo

But Docs style guide (and I wrote the first version myself) says sudo

sudo su is extra cycles... you should use sudo -s or something like that :)

+1 for style guide , +1 for sudo

but yeah... I get switching to a root shell using sudo... but it shouldn't be practice we encourage...

+1 for style guide... and sudo

Proposed: !agreed WG agrees to align console prompts with the style guide.

+1

+1

+1

+1

Proposed: !agreed WG agrees to align console prompts with the style guide in all Server documentation.

OK, all pro.

So we’ve managed to stick to the schedule down to the minute! We’re really good at this 😀

Let's overdue a bit

For the record can we vote on using sudo in the docs where privilege escalation is required?

+1

+1

Do you mean sudo -s or sudo su?

John Himpel: Yes, I thing our agreement includes this. Or does someone see it different?

"sudo cat whatever"

Was what I was voting for

mmmm sudo cat might not be a good use of sudo unless it is a file you need permission to read

Instead of "sudo su, #...."

I would like to see Brett 's interpretation

The alternative would we sudo -i and an exit after a series of command.

That's the use case lol

ah... writing stuff to file should use` sudo tee`

I think the style guide says "sudo command options" in any case

so something like: echo "blah"|sudo tee -a /etc/root-file

For documentation, I would prefer "sudo [command}", If the admin wishes to use "sudo -s" or "sudo -i", that's fine. Power to them. But for docs I prefer the "sudo [command]" usage

Yeah

this is the one place sudo catches people out in docs

I have seen people do stuff like sudo echo "blah" >> /etc/root-file

that won't work

OK, I think we’re all in agreement. Do we need another !agreed to be clerar?

this is important for review... when we're converting old syntax to sudo just make sure that someone hasn't done something like this

I think we agree

I'm good with it being part of following style guide

I will review commands as I work through them but will update different aspects across multiple PRs

OK, anything else?

I have started looking at https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/202 but it is a while away before I have anything to submit

I have nothing else.

I know that someone offered help on putting together the Kickstart stuff... I am currently focuses on the PXE boot side of things

Ro: that's OK, It is a big tasks.

It is slightly challenging using older preceding doc living in a branch, but I am good with it

I had this working (at one point) but I've not gotten anywhere with it. I'll get with you

FTR, still working on the ansible post-install stuff

will take me a couple of weeks... I need to get my lab set up nicely for this for the dhcp stuff... I just don't want to create chaos on my home network at this point :)

@Ro, you can modigy the branch as you see fit. It shouild just be a branch to make merge easier. You can also create a new branch and dismiss the existing.

Bye, Have to run

I have a fork of the branch... I will submit a PR against the branch when I am ready

same herer

same here

And I'm still working on the tempory backup stuff

yep... I need to head out as well... thanks for the meeting... useful

OK, let's close

3

2

1