server October 2014

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

20 participants
32 discussions

F21 Beta release announcement
by Jaroslav Reznik 17 Oct '14

17 Oct '14

Hi marketing team/WGs, me again - we're getting closer to Beta release. The readiness meeting is just one week away from now, it would be great to have at least draft prepared. I see, Joe already created Beta announcement page. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F21_Beta_release_announcement Btw. it was excellent work on Alpha, with WGs and everyone else being involved! I expect we don't need much updates from Alpha, just a bit extend it with more features, more details. Thanks Jaroslav

1 0

Re: "Package sets" release criterion: what to do with it?
by Adam Williamson 15 Oct '14

15 Oct '14

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 14:29 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 06:25:46PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi, folks. I'm checking the release criteria again for Fedora.next > > compatibility, and there's an Alpha criterion with obvious issues: > > > > "Package sets > > > > When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the > > installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, > > as well as the minimal package set. " > > > > This was obviously written to the world where we had generic installer > > images - the DVD, and intentionally-generic netinsts. We do not have > > those things any more. > > > > Do we want to dump this criterion entirely, or is there any of it we > > would like to keep? For instance, would we consider it 'release > > blocking' functionality for you to be able to do some/any of the above > > from the Server and/or Workstation network install images *after > > configuring the repos manually*? Particularly, the minimal installation? > > I'm not sure F21 as currently conceived would offer an avenue for doing > > an interactive minimal installation. > > > > Basically, it comes down to: do we want to have a blessed method for > > doing a network install of KDE and/or minimal? If so, do we want to > > block releases on it? > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the WS-specific netinst.iso allow > you to install the standard Workstation product, among other things? > I think I booted it the other day while redoing an installation, and > saw multiple products available. I don't recall seeing Minimal but I > didn't look specifically for it. Sorry for the belated reply, but it's a good opportunity to try and re-start this question. At the time you wrote the mail, and indeed currently, the WS and Server netinsts in fact act as 'universal' network install images - but this is not per design, it's a bug. Insofar as there was a design, it was to 'Product'-ize the network install images - have them offer only the environment group that matches the Product, and its option groups, by default. No-one really did the work ahead of time to find out if that was actually feasible, though, and what we found out at Alpha time is that it is rather difficult to achieve with our current image generation process and anaconda behaviour. The bug tracking this is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134524 . As things stand, if no-one does anything, the Product network install images for 21 Beta will also be 'universal'. No-one, AFAICT, has even taken a swing at solving the issues that prevent them being Product-ized yet. Funnily enough, so long as the network install images continue to act as 'universal' images, we can continue to use the existing release criterion, I guess. Not sure whether it's appropriate, but it is at least valid. Before anyone asks, it is also not trivial to just ship a single 'universal' network install image. Traditional install media are built out of product trees. Pre-F21, the netinst.iso image was built in the 'Fedora' tree - https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/20/Fedora/ , for e.g. . That tree was populated with all the bits necessary to build the 'Fedora DVD' - the bits specified in fedora-install-fedora.ks . The packages in that tree are all the packages on the DVD. The netinst.iso was simply the DVD ISO without all the packages. In a Product-y world, we don't have a Fedora/ tree any more. We don't have anywhere logical to build a single 'officially universal' network install image. We have these trees: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/21-Alpha/ with installer images built in Server/ and Workstation/ . It gets messy if we try and yank the network install image out of one of those trees after creation and stick it somewhere else. (And of course the Product-y network install images are *branded* with their Product name, even though there's really nothing very Product-y about them at all). One option if we just wanted to go with a single 'universal' netinst image is to build it out of Everything/ , but then (AIUI - dgilmore may correct me) the downside would be it'd make the compose process even longer. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group
by Pierre-YvesChibon 14 Oct '14

14 Oct '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-10-14 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly meeting to discuss issues and planning for the Fedora Server Product and SIG. More information available at: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/283/

5 5

2014-10-15 @ 16:00 UTC ** F21 Blocker Review Meeting
by Mike Ruckman 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

# F21 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2014-10-15 # Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT) # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net As testing of Beta TC3 continues, it's time for another blocker review meeting. Currently we have 3 proposed blockers and 2 proposed FEs. We have 10 accepted blockers to review. Should be a shorter meeting :) If you want to take a look at the accepted blockers, the full list can be found here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/21/beta/buglist We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate the Beta Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not fixed. Information on the release criteria for F21 can be found on the wiki [0]. For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, check out these links: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out the SOP on the wiki: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting See you Wednesday! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org

1 0

[X-POST] Script to convert Fedora Cloud instance to Fedora Server instance
by Kushal Das 13 Oct '14

13 Oct '14

Hi all, Please test it and report any issues. https://github.com/fedora-cloud/cloudtoserver Kushal -- CPython Core Developer http://fedoraproject.org http://kushaldas.in

2 1

Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 3 (TC3) Available Now!
by Adam Williamson 10 Oct '14

10 Oct '14

As per the Fedora 21 schedule [1], Fedora 21 Beta Test Compose 3 (TC3) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010#comment:4 . Please see the following pages for download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. Normally dl.fedoraproject.org should provide the fastest download, but download-ib01.fedoraproject.org is available as a mirror (with an approximately 1 hour lag) in case of trouble. To use it, just replace "dl" with "download-ib01" in the download URL. Installation: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Installation_Test Base: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Base_Test Workstation and Desktop: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Desktop_Test Server: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Server_Test Cloud: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Cloud_Test The Summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Summary combines the result tables from all the pages, without the instructions. Ideally, all Alpha and Beta priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] should pass in order to meet the Beta Release Criteria [3]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5]. Create Fedora 21 Beta test compose (TC) and release candidate (RC) https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6010 Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-21/f-21-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Beta_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Server WG Meeting (2014-10-07)?
by Stephen Gallagher 07 Oct '14

07 Oct '14

I forgot to send out a request for agenda. Do we have anything urgent that we need to discuss, or shall we all keep working on hitting the Beta deadline?

1 0

Server GUI Use Case
by John Unland 06 Oct '14

06 Oct '14

Here is some use cases I came up with that Stephen G. wanted. Case 1: Migration of servers. Ex: Server A is a old model so were going to migrate the configuration to the new Server A. (You really have to be there physically there to mess with hardware / networking) Case 2: Install / Remove Hardware. Ex: Faulty RAM / CPU / Hard drive (That is not hotswapable) you want a quick way to identify the server and turn it off from a KVM inside the rack. (Not all company's will have a dedicated machine to SSH or go into a web-browser to configure these things. They may still have KVM's inside there cabinets.) Case 3: Installation of server software (Open Source AND Proprietary). Ex: Bitnami + your appliance, a appliance software stack where you can install it in a VM or locally inside a desktop. However you need to have a GUI to configure / start/stop / view logs to install locally. (They still have there own web interface in a browser but you still need a GUI to install it.) Sidenote: Case 3 ~ When you install Bitnami + your appliance locally it uses the Container feature like Docker so it does not interfere with other configurations in the same server. When I was doing my research at my University, I opted to give the user to use either the Ajenti, because it was a quick overview of your server / services that you were running. AND I wanted to have a configuration / overview control panel locally (That I was going to build in-house) so that you could have more advanced outlook on your server as well as local documentation, Hardware Install / Uninstall Wizard, and some other helpful stuff for the person. Because I figured that a small business didn't have a IT staff so it had to depend on ques from the software logs / messages and the documentation. But you could pretty much run the server from either both or one of them just fine... I know for the beta and I think the full release you want just the base + essential server roles, and then later down the road your going to define more. How about you leave the essential roles for now that way you will have somewhat have a base to go off of other servers (ownCloud, Round Cube, HPC roles, etc.), BUT create a template so that members of the community can create there own roles and add it to a repo list. Kinda like having the Play Store on Android but for servers. I know you are still in Alpha phase but this is just something to consider, but I digress. So those are my cases, hope this was some of help to the SIG.

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group
by Pierre-YvesChibon 06 Oct '14

06 Oct '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-10-07 from 11:00:00 to 12:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Weekly meeting to discuss issues and planning for the Fedora Server Product and SIG. More information available at: [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server) Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar//meeting/283/

1 0

Proposed Server release criteria for F21 Beta and Final
by Adam Williamson 02 Oct '14

02 Oct '14

Hi, folks. So, I drew up a rough draft of the Server release criteria for Beta and Final as I suggest they might be. We could kick it around at tomorrow's meeting if desired. Here we go: BETA === Remote logging === It must be possible to forward system logs to a remote system using Server packages. === Firewall configuration === Release-blocking roles must be able to report their status in regard to the system firewall as described in the [[Server/Technical_Specification#Firewall|technical specification]]. === Roles === Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must meet the core functional [[Server/Technical_Specification#Role_Definition_Requirements|Role Definition Requirements]] to the extent that supported roles can be successfully started, stopped, and queried. === Cockpit === ?????? FINAL === Roles === Release-blocking roles and the supported role configuration interfaces must fully meet the [[Server/Technical_Specification#Role_Definition_Requirements|Role Definition Requirements]]. === Cockpit === ?????? You will note first of all the big ?????? for Cockpit. Cockpit's role really isn't terribly well defined in the tech spec or PRD, so it is hard to draft requirements. Is it primarily supposed to be an interface for controlling roles? If so, can we treat it that way in the criteria, and require things from it as regards its job in configuring roles? I think the Role criteria described above would be okay, and at least unambitious enough not to cause huge problems, for F21, but I'm really not that happy with them for the long term. It's obviously not practical to start hardcoding specific requirements for specific roles into the criteria. What I would like instead is to have a little more process on the Product side for Roles. I'd suggest that Roles themselves should have definitions of their expected functionality baked in at the point of creation / approval. These could be split into sections to be required at Alpha, Beta and Final. You could, for instance, expect roles to basically start up and not explode at Alpha, expect them to be broadly 'feature complete' and testable at Beta, and expect them to fully meet their listed functional requirements at Final, just as a quick cut. Here's a very rough mock-up for the "Domain Controller" role as a guide: Alpha ----- The Role must start and stop successfully. When the role is running, a client system must be able to enrol into the FreeIPA domain. Beta ---- When the Role is running, it must be able to enrol and unenrol multiple clients. Client systems must be able to authenticate user accounts via Kerberos. The FreeIPA configuration web UI must be available and allow at least basic configuration of user accounts and permissions. Final ----- Oh, I don't know, I'm running out of ideas, I don't do that much more with my FreeIPA system than is described in Beta. You know better than me! That's why you should be writing this! :) Well, I sort of ran out of steam at the end there, but you kinda get the idea, right? We can set things up appropriately so the release criteria can sensibly call out to them. I'd expect the criteria would just say something like 'Release-blocking roles must meet the functional requirements listed in their definition pages for the Beta milestone' or whatever, with a link to a sensible target from which you could easily find the Role definition pages. I'd be very grateful for feedback on both the proposed criteria for F21, and the idea above. We do need to get the Beta criteria in place ASAP, Beta TC1 is due tomorrow (yes, I know, no rest for the wicked :/) I'll start drafting up test cases ASAP. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

2 3

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server October 2014