Meeting started at 2026-08-12 17:00:09 UTC

The Meeting name is 'fedora-server '

!hi

!group members server-wg

Members of server-wg: Alexander Bokovoy, Adam Williamson, Paul Maconi, Brett Weir, Emmanuel Seyman, Rowan Puttergill, 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

Welcome to our weekly Server WG meeting.

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

!hi

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

!hi

Brett: Brett Weir (brettweir) - he / him / his

mmm quiet today... I think Emmanuel is watching the eclipse... which is something I'm hoping to do in about an hour or so

Is there an eclipse?? lol

Also.... Europe is melting

Yeah, here is one. At least partly.

But currently the sun is shining, and shin.....

I saw someone joke about the eclipse: At last some shade!

OK, I think, we should start anyway.

We had agreed about the agenda on Matrix.

Let's start

Regarding the action, see the list in our

meetings overview:

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

Did I forget something?

OK.

Announcements:

Fedora had branched today. The first build came today on noon.

I'll adjust our tests accordingly tomorrow

Some other announcement?

DNF documentation is ongoing... we can discuss at the next meeting

Only announcement is that we have group-wide CI/CD runners now for the first time!

You guys may already know that though lol

That's great!

First time ever for us.

OK

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/203

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/193

!hi sorry to be late

Sorry, I can only look up one username at a time

!hi

Sorry to be so late

Will try to pick up the new build and do the tests that I have tended to take ownership of. I have some hardware so I can do bare metal on this round

This might slow down other work, but I think the DNF stuff is in a good place... best to get in a rhythm with the testing

Please. take ownership of the ticket, se we know it.

Well, now we are in the branch phase!

And the next action will be a freeze. And before that we should have our bugs fixed.

Conan Kudo 😌: How far did you get with the partition type? Ticket https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/193

I will attempt a fix later in the day

since this only affects the MBR type image

No it is the partition 4, which is LVM but of type Linux.

That's produces some issues, specifically then use various LVM tools.

(In the VM image)

In the aarch64 image it is partition 3, same issue. Details in the ticket.

Please, could you comment in the ticket when you are done?

We don't have a bug report for this. So there is no notification.

Another item: We still have to discuss the list of changes prepared by eseyman. It is scheduled for next meeting when he is back.

But would be helpfull if everybody would take a look at it before our meeting. And we could have a pre-meeting discussion on one of our dates, Friday afternoon/evening and Monday.

I guess that's it for now? Anyone with something else?

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/227

Brett did a lot of work.

And as we discussed, a provided a server for demos. (athos.resdigita.eu). Currently, Brett and I are the only one with access. But every WG member who wishes to check, can get access, too.

I haven't had any time to look at it... and it will be a long time before I can start looking at it in any depth... sorry

Brett, would you take over for this topic?

I'm not sure there is more to say, haha. The infrastructure is available, both the build environment and the test envrionment are virtualized, so it should be safe to run on your regular workstation.

This kind of testing is going to require more permissions, so automating in Forge CI may not be possible.

This server that Peter provided will come in handy for that though, so I intend to provision a documented forge runner for some of these heavier jobs.

So a KVM runner and an Ansible molecule runner are in the near future and we can fully automate the OS construction testing. Testing Farm is another possibility for getting some big capacity as well.

Yes but the problem doesn't exist on any of the GPT type images.

Because partitions don't get labeled the same way

OK, but all VMs use currently biosBOOT by default, and the Arm SBC image as well.

Not sure if your'e responding to me or [Conan Kudo 😌](https://matrix.to/#/@conan_kudo:matrix.org) 😆

Responding to Conan Kudo 😌 , sorry

Out of topic.

No worries. I think if people haven't had a chance to review what I've provided, we can move on.

What do you propose, everybody should do

What do you propose, everybody should do ?

Let me double-check, but I provided a README that works through the setup of the environment and gets all the way to building a dummy Fedora image from scratch.

So I'd like to know: does it work for you?

Does it make sense?

Does it seem like a flow that you'd want to use?

Yes,

Sp proposed !info Every member should walk through the README in ??? and try to make it woek?

(As a wrap-up)+

Okay, let me try!

in homeserver repo

Cool! I didn't know that would work.

I'll merge in to main right now.

Great. Let move on.

I'm fine with the use-case part. I'm not so sure with the post-install.

It is quite comfortable to have just one file to walk through the basics.

But the current post-install file has grown too much over time. It is too long, now.

I forgot:

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/228

Tracking issue: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/server/tickets/issues/224

Yeah, and it's difficult to access individual sections currently.

Personally, I think that separating out sections into individual topics makes sense and makes it easier to parse. Particularly if some of those are optional.

Second [Ro](https://matrix.to/#/@goroboro:matrix.org)'s comment

Yes, maybe we should make a "base steps" and several "optional steps"?

in the new subdir post-install

with topics per service-area or whatever?

or one topic for base-steps and then several for optional?

I feel like topic differentiation where it feels right is sufficient. The first pass would be taking what's already there and splitting it up.

There are some basic steps, e.g. network and storage preparation, and probably key bases access. And several optional, e.g.

And clearly label steps as optional within the file itself

fail2ban

fail2ban (optional example)

Semi-related, we should avoid numbering things manually. It causes maintenance problems.

Yeah, nowerdays a always use ". "

and "numbered" for the chapters.

We have to unify that.

So I'd recommend (making up sections now)

- Securing SSH

- Setting the hostname

- Doing something else...

- Making whatever...

And within the file itself, if it's optional:

= Making Whatever

!!! NOTE "This step is optional for typical use cases" (I don't remember the AsciiDoc syntax for admonitions)

I'm suggesting doing away with manual numbering of headings entirely, because people can link to anchors, and it makes it easier to add/remove sections.

Currently, we have already section that are linkable.

The "numbered" would do that automatically (the numbering of chapters)

Possibly avoiding gerunds in the titles :)

You got me 😅

Oh, if numbering is automatic, it's fine.

So what you're proposing is those sections are individual topic files?

I've been having to renumbering a lot of sections to get AsciiDoc to stop complaining. 🤣

Let’s take it one step at a time.

I gues we agree, to create a new section "use cases" which will include the current tutorial section an the various single use-case files.

Can we decide this part of #224?

Yeah:

```

post-install/

hostname.adoc

fail2ban.adoc

use-cases/

jellyfin.adoc

paperless-ngx.adoc

```

Something like that.

mmm we need to hurry along or I am going to bail to catch the peak of the eclipse :)

Yeah, I can add comments there

Let's do it step by step. Just the use-case decision for now.

proposed: !agreed We will create a new section "use cases" and move all use-case files and the files in "tutorial" therein. The section Tutorials will be deleted.

+1

+1 yes yes!

+1

OK. so:

!agreed We will create a new section "use cases" and move all use-case files and the files in "tutorial" therein. The section Tutorials will be deleted.

zodbot ????

watching the eclipse :D

I added a comment to the ticket reflecting the agreement.

OK agreed without zodbot.

I'm not that happy with renaming virtualization etc. Let's that discuss separately. It' too late now.

It's all good. I threw a bunch of ideas out to be eviscerated. 🙂

May the good ones survive.

Regarding the structure of a new post-install, we should detail the new structure for the current content in a comment in the ticket. For anything else it is too late.

proposed !info WG will discuss the details to a new post-install section in the ticket and decide next meeting.

I have to go... status on PXEBoot is that the dnsmasq doc is comprehensive now. We need coverage on Kickstart for this to be worthwhile. And we need to do a reference topic in the install guide that points to dnsmasq and kickstart for more information. Possibly with some suggestion to set up a web-server to host the kickstart file and possibly act as a mirror.

I will try to dig into this in coming weeks but want to wrap up the DNF stuff and get some testing done this coming week.

proposed !info WG will discuss the details of a new post-install section in the ticket and decide next meeting.

Ro: thanks! Lets continue with that next meeting.

I see now objection, therefore

!info WG will discuss the details of a new post-install section in the ticket and decide next meeting.

adios folks ☀️🌒🕶️

Zodbot still sleeping?

So, time is up and sun eclipse is going on.

Let's continue on Matrix after that.