server February 2018

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
7 discussions

Re: News in net-snmp package
by Adam Williamson 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 09:02 -0500, Josef Ridky wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to inform you, that net-snmp package will use Python3 package instead of Python2. > With this change, python2-net-snmp package will be renamed to python3-net-snmp package. > This change will be applied in Fedora Rawhide and Fedora 28. > > I would be glad for any feedback. This sounds a bit odd. What do you mean by 'renamed', exactly? It's not as if you can just have python3-net-snmp provide and obsolete python2- net-snmp ; any dependency which actually needs the python2 one is not going to keep working with this change. Do you just mean the python2-net-snmp package will go away and anything using it has to migrate to python3-net-snmp? If so, have you actually looked at the things that use it and considered how difficult it will be to migrate them? I see, for instance, '389-ds-base-owner' CCed on this mail; if 389-ds- base depends on python2-net-snmp it is not at all going to be acceptable to just throw it away without regards to whether 389-ds-base can reasonably migrate to python3 right now. That is a core component of one of our release-blocking deliverables, Fedora Server. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

Request for a review of F28 Release blocking deliverables
by Jan Kurik 26 Feb '18

26 Feb '18

I would like to ask for a review of Release blocking deliverables [1] for F28 release delivered by Server SIG/WG. Please let me know in case of missing images, or in case the "blocking" status has changed since the last release. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/28/ReleaseBlocking#Server Thanks, Jan -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2018-02-13)
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 ================================================================ #fedora-meeting-1: Fedora Server SIG Weekly Meeting (2018-02-13) ================================================================ Meeting started by sgallagh at 21:00:06 UTC. The full logs are available athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-02-13/serversig.2… . Meeting summary - --------------- * Roll Call (sgallagh, 21:00:06) * Agenda (sgallagh, 21:04:30) * Agenda Item: Modular Repo By Default (sgallagh, 21:04:34) * Agenda Item: Module-creator Conscription (sgallagh, 21:04:37) * Modular Repo By Default (sgallagh, 21:07:02) * AGREED: Fedora Server Edition will ship the Fedora Modular repository configuration as enabled and available by default. (+4, 0, -0) (sgallagh, 21:09:44) * Module-creator Conscription (sgallagh, 21:09:53) * Plan of action is to approach targeted groups and assist them with making module streams for F28 Beta. Documentation will be improved in parallel and we will make a general availability announcement for module packaging at the end of February. (sgallagh, 21:29:36) * Next Meeting (sgallagh, 21:32:49) * ACTION: sgallagh to send out a new meeting time request (sgallagh, 21:36:16) * Open Floor (sgallagh, 21:36:22) Meeting ended at 21:43:09 UTC. Action Items - ------------ * sgallagh to send out a new meeting time request Action Items, by person - ----------------------- * sgallagh * sgallagh to send out a new meeting time request * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) - --------------------------- * sgallagh (62) * langdon (12) * nirik (10) * zodbot (8) * mjwolf (6) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v2.1.1 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wkYEAREIABAFAlqDXEwJEHolVWI2uqOjAAAp3QCfaemwt3NHIiF9rO0Z9i5X CZAnmFsAn1jHYzcMiSvSKFiKv0CqaR/0LVbb =/T9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Poll: New Weekly Meeting Time
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

It's become apparent that attendance at the Server SIG meetings is *way* down. I think part of that is due to its extreme inconvenience for those in European timezones. So I'm sending out a WhenIsGood [1] to try to find a more optimal time for the weekly meeting. If you feel that you are likely to want to attend, please respond with the times that would work for you. The responses are public [2]. Let's see what we can find. [1] http://whenisgood.net/4dyzhts [2] http://whenisgood.net/4dyzhts/results/xg9a3ym

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Agenda (2018-02-13)
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

We haven't had a meeting in a while and there are a few things to discuss. First, I'd like us to formally vote on whether Server Edition will ship with the modular repository enabled by default. I assume the answer will be "yes", given our previous attempts to go *fully* modular, but I'd like to have the vote on record. Second, I'd like to discuss starting a campaign to have people work on creating modules to ship alongside Fedora 28 when it releases. I'm leaning towards making the following proposal on the general Fedora mailing list, once we have a couple last hiccups worked out in the build and compose process (hopefully this week): Hello, Fedorans! As I'm sure most of you are aware by now, Fedora 28 will be shipping with Modularity as an add-on repository[1]. In order to ensure that this effort is successful, we're going to need a set of real, usable modules in the repository at launch time. What I would like to see is this: if you have any package that is making a major-version jump between Fedora 27 and 28 (and for which you will be continuing to support the older version on Fedora 27 anyway), I'd like to ask you to build a module stream for that older version to be usable in Fedora 28. As a real-world example, I have created a set of module streams for Node.js in Fedora 28. We will be shipping Node.js 8.x in the standard RPM repository (as it is the latest LTS release and will be supported beyond the lifetime of Fedora 28). Because I also maintain the 6.x LTS branch for EPEL 7, I opted to also produce that version as a module stream for Fedora 28, so that anyone who wishes to may load that version to run whatever apps they might require that haven't been updated yet to support the 8.x series. And, because this is Fedora and we like to be First, I have also packaged Node.js 9.x which is the latest upstream release (with a short lifecycle) for developers to use as needed. We have documentation on how to create and manage modules available[2]. For anyone who is having difficulty doing this, they are welcome to ask any questions on this list, on #fedora-modularity on Freenode, or to simply contact myself or one of the other Modularity developers directly. We are prepared to help. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F28AddonModularity [2] https://docs.pagure.org/modularity/

1 0

[Canceled] Server SIG Meeting (2018-02-06)
by Stephen Gallagher 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

We have nothing on the agenda for this week, so I'm going to cancel the meeting. If anything comes up, please bring it up on the mailing list.

1 0

Release criteria proposals: Edition branding and installer customizations
by Adam Williamson 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

sgallagh and I both noticed that the release criteria do not currently include any requirements around Edition branding or installer customizations. We think they probably should. Thus, we're proposing the following new criteria. They would be in a new section for each page, something like "Edition requirements" or something like that, probably with a brief explanation of what "Editions" are outside of any specific criterion text. For Beta: == Installer customization == For each Edition, all significant functional customization of installer behavior that are intended to be a part of that Edition must take effect on that Edition's installable release-blocking images. footnote: 'Significant functional?': significant functional customization would usually include, for e.g., changes to the default filesystem and firewall configuration. The WG or SIG responsible for each Edition has the definitive say on what is or is not considered a 'significant functional customization' for that Edition. For Final: == Self-identification == For each Edition, the installer must be clearly identified as that Edition in all of that Edition's installable release-blocking images. Also, for any deployment of that Edition in accordance with the rest of these criteria, the relevant fields in {{filename|/etc/os-release}} must include the correct Edition name. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, flames? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server February 2018