server June 2014

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

22 participants
26 discussions

rolekit D-Bus API
by Thomas Woerner 10 Sep '14

10 Sep '14

rolekit D-Bus API ================= org.fedoraproject.rolekit1 -------------------------- Properties version:i # server role manager version roles:ao # role objects list Methods getNamedRole(name:s)→o # get role by name getRolesByState(state:i)→ao # get all roles with the given state org.fedoraproject.rolekit1.roles.$name -------------------------------------- Properties (general) # role settings name:s (ro) # role name version:i (ro) # role implementation version state:i (ro) # deployed/started/inactive/dead? packages:as (ro) # package list: packages and @groups (similar to kickstart) services:as (ro) # service list: services to be enabled and started firewall:a{sas} (ro) # firewall settings: ports and services dict { "ports" => array ( portid:s["-"portid:s]"/"protocol:s ), "services" => array( name:s ), } ports are similar to firewalld port definitions firewall_zones:as (rw) # firewall zones to apply the firewall settings to custom_firewall:b (rw) # custom firewall: firewall settings will not be applied if set to true errorlog:s (ro) # errorlog string #backup_paths:as (ro) # backup paths (files and directories) # ... # role specific settings Methods start() # start the role (startServices, installFirewall), fails if not deployed stop() # stop the role (stopServices, uninstallFirewall), fails if not started restart() # stop and start deploy() # deploy role (i.e. running initial setup post-package-install, ipa-server-install) decommission() # decommision (example: moved to another machine, ipa-server-install -u ), stop if started updateRole() # update role: yum update; restartServices; updateFirewall getFirewallZones() # get firewall zone list from firewalld, add used ones to firewall_zones Role States =========== Nascent 0 Deploying 1 ReadyToStart 2 Starting 3 Running 4 Stopping 5 Decomissioning 6 Error 255

7 19

Multibooting UX, how well it ought to work
by Chris Murphy 16 Aug '14

16 Aug '14

This is largely directed to the WG, as a request to clarify a part of the workstation product tech spec. It relates to a thread on the anaconda list regarding os-prober, and a thread on this list regarding release criteria, both of which are referenced below. I am cross posting to the server@ list as well, while they don't have a dual-boot requirement in their spec it stands to reason the ability to dual-boot Fedora Server/CentOS/RHEL version n and n+1 could come in handy when doing migrations while still having a fall back position. Perhaps replies should drop the other cross posting since the requirements for the two products are different? But I leave up to the person replying to decide. The WorkstationTechnical Spec says: "One aspect of storage configuration that will be needed is support for dual-boot setups (preserving preexisting Windows or OS X installations), since e.g. students may be required to run software on those platforms for their coursework." 1a. Does preserve preexisting include providing a working menu entry in the boot manager (e.g. in the GRUB menu)? 1b. Or is it sufficient to just preserve the installation data — meaning it's permissible for its bootability to be either non-obvious or broken? 2. If the answer to 1a. is yes, and 1b. is no, does this dual-boot requirement apply to both BIOS and UEFI? 3. If resources cannot meet the dual-boot requirement by ship time, should the installer inform the user that their previous installation will be preserved but may not be bootable? 4. Why is the preservation of an existing Linux OS, including a previous Fedora, not explicit in the spec? Should it be? The answers to the above will help determine the scope of QA testing in this area, and avoid lengthy debate during blocker meetings. Maybe it'll provide some kick in the pants for old bugs with unimplemented solutions. Or maybe it will make it clear that the UX in this area doesn't need improvement and therefore effort testing and developing can be better spent elsewhere. So in any case, clarification will be helpful. References: "grub2, 30_os-prober, os-prober: A Proposal" https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-June/msg00020.html Initial very rough Workstation release criteria draft https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-June/009931.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964828 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048999 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010704 Thanks, Chris Murphy

8 13

Proposal: Implementation of Server Roles
by Stephen Gallagher 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've finally gotten around to putting together my thoughts on how (at a high level) the roles should be implemented. NOTE: this is specifically about the Roles as a concept, not the implementation of the logic within the roles, except for a couple restrictions I make on input and output format. Please see the design page I've written at https://fedorahosted.org/rolekit/wiki/Design/RolePackaging and comment on it here. I will be the first to admit that the "First-Boot Configuration" approach is a bit of a hack, but it's a hack that will work regardless of installation during anaconda or a live system (it defers the configuration step to a systemd unit that runs just prior to the first start-up of the role). The implication here is strong: while the UI that prepares the configuration may be interactive, the content fed into rolekit is non-interactive. Comments and clarifications requested. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOi9v8ACgkQeiVVYja6o6NO+wCfXtPdDdb3nSkrooM+NCeoK4gw JsUAn3j0jUtV8NDhAjuRzBaW2iF0A7LX =7qj0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 12

Server File Diffs to Fedora Rawhide
by Stef Walter 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

So this may be obvious to some of you, but how do we handle the case where installed files need to be different between Fedora Server and other Fedora flavors? For example for Cockpit to be installed by default we need to: * Add the cockpit service to all relevant zone files in /usr/lib/firewalld/zones (currently owned by firewalld rpm). See 'man firewalld.zone' and 'man firewalld.service' * /etc/pam/sshd needs an addition module, for Cockpit reauthorize to work with added servers. See: https://github.com/stefwalter/cockpit/blob/reauthorize/doc/reauthorize.md ... and likely others. So I guess the question is how do we adapt behavior of rpms that are installed both on Fedora Server *and* on other Fedora flavors. Follow up question: How would I install Fedora Server today? What and where are the diffs from the usual Fedora Rawhide represented? Is Fedora Server still a completely theoretical construct at this point? Cheers, Stef

5 5

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group
by Pierre-YvesChibon 30 Jun '14

30 Jun '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-07-01 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

Release criteria draft revised again
by Adam Williamson 26 Jun '14

26 Jun '14

I've revised the release criteria draft again, with reference to the useful discussions both on-list and at this morning's meeting: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_server_release_criteria I added the firewall exception for the Cockpit web interface, clarified the issue about role deployment "at install time", and added new criteria for the cockpit management interface to be running OOTB and for roles to meet their "functional requirements, as defined in their role specification documents" - role specification documents being something I invented out of my ass at the meeting this morning. View that one as a trial balloon. :) As always, thoughts / comments welcome! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

4 10

Soliciting agenda items for 2014-06-24 meeting
by Stephen Gallagher 24 Jun '14

24 Jun '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What's on the list this week, folks? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOoFLQACgkQeiVVYja6o6NP7ACgsGOZyryQ98w59kz0SYU1fyCf 3aQAoKWurWBF20q92+5F1fbFxnz7hZRj =ctII -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 1

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server Working Group
by Pierre-YvesChibon 23 Jun '14

23 Jun '14

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server Working Group on 2014-06-24 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

Fedora Server Test Day?
by Stef Walter 20 Jun '14

20 Jun '14

Does Fedora still have the concept of Test days? I followed the usual links but couldn't find a list of Fedora 21 test days ... hence the question. If so, should we have a combined test day for Fedora Server related things like Roles and Cockpit, or better separate? Stef

3 5

Bugzilla for Fedora Server
by Stef Walter 19 Jun '14

19 Jun '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Do we have a place in Bugzilla for Fedora server? I've already gotten a bug closed with NOTABUG due to possible misunderstandings: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110764 By the way this is the tracker bug for Cockpit in Fedora Server: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108258 And there are various issues that may interest readers of this mailing list: Cockpit URL in /etc/issue https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110763 Cockpit firewall port https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110711 Cockpit enabled by default on Fedora Server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110764 Cheers, Stef -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOh3ikACgkQe/sRCNknZa9D6QCbBNXZOANkqtJuJr1YdTVnpS4M u8gAoPqj1N6iqXESafayA0wQ7HndjkCl =pJgv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server June 2014