20/12/3 03:39(e)an, Dusty Mabe igorleak idatzi zuen:
I 100% would like to get to a point where we rebase to the latest Fedora
major soon after release. As jlebon mentioned earlier this does mean working
harder to get ahead of the curve by adopting a rawhide development stream
(not exposed
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 10:21:35 -0600
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 7:33 am, James Szinger
> wrote:
> > Undelivered -devel packages and modularity are killer anti-features
> > of EL 8—it is way too hard to build the software I need.
>
> Honestly I don't think modularity is
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 08:44:37AM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> It's too early to say that this hypothetical workflow is a replacement for
> Fedora. Things still show up in RHEL 8 ahead of CentOS Stream.
I don't suggest that it's a replacement, but it can be complementary.
>
> A strong Fedora
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:41:01AM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> Well, where should we discuss further proceedings? Is it this generic
> devel list, is it ser...@lists.fedoraproject.org? Another one?
Yes, let's take it to that list. Everyone interested, join us over there. :)
--
Matthew
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 7:33 am, James Szinger
wrote:
Undelivered -devel packages and modularity are killer anti-features of
EL 8—it is way too hard to build the software I need.
Honestly I don't think modularity is a serious problem for end users.
Missing -devel packages is unbelievably
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 3:25 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
> > be a better-engineered and tested option. But as time goes on and
> > the next EL release isn't either isn't announced or isn't stable
> > enough to rely on, Fedora Server
> Am 04.12.2020 um 20:33 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
>> ...
>> Just in case it is indeed considered useful and desirable I could
>> contribute various Fedora Server related/specific documentations and
>> how-to's, e.g. an annotated step-by-step guide to setup a basic server
>> which can get
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 01:24:22 +0100
p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> I see advantages sui generis in Fedora Server over CentOS, not "just"
> an interim solution or workaround until the next CentOS version is
> released. You get (almost) all the positive features that make CentOS
> /RHEL stand out (well
> Am 04.12.2020 um 23:16 schrieb Japheth Cleaver :
>
> On 12/4/2020 12:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> For the people who were using it as servers, it was split between getting
>> ready for the next RHEL/CentOS they would be deploying, they needed packages
>> which were
> Am 04.12.2020 um 20:33 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
>> Just in case it is indeed considered useful and desirable I could
>> contribute various Fedora Server related/specific documentations and
>> how-to's, e.g. an annotated
On 12/3/20 1:01 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 03. 12. 20 v 20:02 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
Mostly the latter. I don't even really care if they end up keeping the
distinct os-release and etc.
Is this backed by some numbers and analysis?
My personal usage is that I create **hundred thousands**
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
> be a better-engineered and tested option. But as time goes on and
> the next EL release isn't either isn't announced or isn't stable
> enough to rely on, Fedora Server probably sees more use as a
> quasi-stable release base.. This
On 12/4/2020 12:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Anecdata which is as 'useful' as any other.
Most of the people I have dealt with in the last 4 years with Server
have been using it mainly as a replacement for the Everything DVD and
because it was the most 'un-opinionated' release of
Am 04.12.20 um 21:35 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
Anecdata which is as 'useful' as any other.
just some additional experience from my side:
- Fedora provides a recent PHP (unlike RHEL 7) but also ships the full PHP stack
required to run popular PHP applications like WordPress/NextCloud/...
On Friday, 04 December 2020 at 20:51, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...]
> For those using it for traditional server use cases, why? What about
> it do you find better than something like CentOS?
Here are my reasons, in no particular order:
1. Because that's what I use on my desktops.
2. Because latest
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:17, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:51:45PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > It would be interesting if we had a set of use cases Fedora Server
> > actually solves. So far in this thread we've seen people use it, but
> > it reads to me like they use it to
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:51:45PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> It would be interesting if we had a set of use cases Fedora Server
> actually solves. So far in this thread we've seen people use it, but
> it reads to me like they use it to get a boiled down installation of
> Fedora. So is Fedora
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> > I’m not a maintainer but I use Fedora Server for a lot of our university
> > research institutions infrastructure (and I’m a dormant member of Fedora
> > docs).
> >
> >
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 07:53:12PM +0100, p...@uni-bremen.de wrote:
> I’m not a maintainer but I use Fedora Server for a lot of our university
> research institutions infrastructure (and I’m a dormant member of Fedora
> docs).
>
> Just in case it is indeed considered useful and desirable I could
> Am 04.12.2020 um 19:08 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
> It's not a matter of making changes for change's own sake, but I would hope
> that we'd have some level of innovation and experimentation in Fedora
> Server. There are also just normal things like marketing materials,
> promotion, blog
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:59:17AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > No one is talking about making it go away, just de-editioning it. I'd
> > definitely prefer it to remain an edition, but we need it to be more active
> > for that to work.
> Having an active team is one thing, but making changes just
I'm not part of the server WG, but a super interested user. Count me in to
help if needed.
Br,
El vie, 4 dic 2020 a las 14:00, Neal Gompa () escribió:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > I
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:49 AM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > I agree, sign me up! I've been using Fedora Server for years for my
> > own projects and it's been 99.9% flawless, so I would be sad if it
> > went away.
>
> No one is
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> I agree, sign me up! I've been using Fedora Server for years for my
> own projects and it's been 99.9% flawless, so I would be sad if it
> went away.
No one is talking about making it go away, just de-editioning it. I'd
definitely
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 6:48 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 11:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > There were a number of people interested in helping with reviving the
> > Server WG, myself included. But we don't know how to have that move
> > forward. We've never really had a
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 20:42, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 19:48 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
> > > > I think if we don't want to accept a different
> > > > philosophy about release schedule and release engineering we can
> > just
> > > close
> > > > that Change proposal.
> > >
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 20:32, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 19:48 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
>
>
> [big snip]
>
> > To the outside
> > > world, there is a strong impression that the thing called "Fedora" is a
> > > product or set of products with a release number that gets
> Am 03.12.2020 um 20:35 schrieb Alexander Bokovoy :
>
> On to, 03 joulu 2020, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:39AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> I suppose we could look into this, but it seems kind of complementary to
>>> me:
>>> Server: a install dvd, pxe/netboot
>>>
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, 4:11 PM Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > This seems more split on the OS consumption model to me, rather than
> > the tools to make it. The end user shouldn't care at all about what
> > tools make it.
>
> I've been meaning
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 2:14 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> This seems more split on the OS consumption model to me, rather than
> the tools to make it. The end user shouldn't care at all about what
> tools make it.
I've been meaning to write a longer blog post on this but briefly:
How you build
Dne 03. 12. 20 v 20:02 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> Mostly the latter. I don't even really care if they end up keeping the
> distinct os-release and etc.
Is this backed by some numbers and analysis?
My personal usage is that I create **hundred thousands** VM from Fedora cloud
image per year.
And
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:52 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 11:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > There were a number of people interested in helping with reviving the
> > Server WG, myself included. But we don't know how to have that move
> > forward. We've never really had a
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 15:22 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > I dunno when's the last time anyone tried without it, tbh.
>
> For CoreOS we spent a *lot* of time ensuring that Ignition has first class
> SELinux support, and actually
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I dunno when's the last time anyone tried without it, tbh.
For CoreOS we spent a *lot* of time ensuring that Ignition has first class
SELinux support, and actually making it work on the Live ISO in a
not-horribly-hacky way required a
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 14:43 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:36:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > (Personally I'm really proud that for example our Live ISO ships with
> > > > SELinux enforcing)
> > > This is true of Fedora Workstation and other desktop spin live
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 14:14 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > Beyond the pungi-vs-bodhi thing of course, to me it is also very
> > fundamental that our OS build and test process runs natively via podman and
> > Kubernetes (unprivileged). We're telling people to use containers;
> > building the
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 11:36:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > (Personally I'm really proud that for example our Live ISO ships with
> > > SELinux enforcing)
> > This is true of Fedora Workstation and other desktop spin live ISOs as well.
> Yes, but the live installer runs 'setenforce 0'
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:35:02PM +0200, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> >>Server: a install dvd, pxe/netboot
> >>Cloud: a runnable image
> >>Are folks wanting to drop the dvd and netinstall?
> >>Or just market the Cloud image more to server admins that want a ready
> >>to run image?
> >
> >Mostly the
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 14:06 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:58:56PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > (Personally I'm really proud that for example our Live ISO ships with
> > SELinux enforcing)
>
> This is true of Fedora Workstation and other desktop spin live ISOs as
On to, 03 joulu 2020, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:39AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I suppose we could look into this, but it seems kind of complementary to
me:
Server: a install dvd, pxe/netboot
Cloud: a runnable image
Are folks wanting to drop the dvd and netinstall?
Or
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 19:48 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
> > > I think if we don't want to accept a different
> > > philosophy about release schedule and release engineering we can
> just
> > close
> > > that Change proposal.
> >
> > That's not the outcome I intended, but rather that if we want
On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 19:48 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
[big snip]
> To the outside
> > world, there is a strong impression that the thing called "Fedora" is a
> > product or set of products with a release number that gets released
> > every six months. The concept of "Fedora 33 release" or
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:59 PM Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> >
> > What does the question "is Fedora CoreOS 34 ready to go" even mean, in
> > the context of how CoreOS is built and released? What set of bits will
> > we be deciding to ship
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 01:58:56PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> (Personally I'm really proud that for example our Live ISO ships with
> SELinux enforcing)
This is true of Fedora Workstation and other desktop spin live ISOs as well.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:53:39AM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I suppose we could look into this, but it seems kind of complementary to
> me:
> Server: a install dvd, pxe/netboot
> Cloud: a runnable image
> Are folks wanting to drop the dvd and netinstall?
> Or just market the Cloud image more to
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
> What does the question "is Fedora CoreOS 34 ready to go" even mean, in
> the context of how CoreOS is built and released? What set of bits will
> we be deciding to ship or not ship, and how will that have been decided
> and
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:29:11AM +0100, Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> On 2020-12-03 09:31, David Kaufmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > That would be amazing! In order for it to remain as an edition, we
> > > (speaking
> > > generally for the
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 21:22, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 19:42 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
> > >
> > > CoreOS is going to be the same only worse, because it's not even built
> > > the same way as the rest of Fedora. It's not built by Pungi, we don't
> > > get the same messages
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:31:43AM +0100, David Kaufmann wrote:
> Until now I thought of both as having a very different target audience,
> I've never looked at Cloud Base, as I almost completely self-host.
> I don't really understand why it should be merged, is there some
> document or chat log
Ben Cotton wrote:
> This changes is to promote Fedora CoreOS to Edition status alongside
> Workstation, Server and IoT.
IMHO, Fedora CoreOS is still an experiment with way too many limitations and
drawbacks to warrant Edition status.
Don't get me wrong, it is nice to have a place for
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 21:25 -0500, Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
> Ideally we update our stable stream closer to Fedora's actual release date
> but I think it's
> important to maybe release Fedora CoreOS from the notion that it's tightly
> coupled with the
> Fedora major release date for a few reasons:
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:27 AM Dusty Mabe wrote:
> There are three update streams for Fedora CoreOS. The "stable" stream is
> still
> on Fedora 32 but has been receiving bi-weekly updates and should be
> switched over
> to Fedora 33 soon (probably this week). The `next` and `testing` streams
>
On 2020-12-03 09:31, David Kaufmann wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
That would be amazing! In order for it to remain as an edition, we
(speaking
generally for the Council) like to see regular meetings -- at least
monthly.
I'll check the situation there
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> That would be amazing! In order for it to remain as an edition, we (speaking
> generally for the Council) like to see regular meetings -- at least monthly.
I'll check the situation there - if there are more people interested in
a
On 12/2/20 12:57 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>>
>> So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing
>> the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide
>> whether to release "Fedora CoreOS 34"?
>>
>
On 12/2/20 12:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Note that if you go to getfedora.org and click on CoreOS *right now*,
> it offers you a Fedora 32-based CoreOS. This is the kind of thing that
> is kinda fine so long as it's an Emerging Edition. It would *not*,
> IMHO, be fine for an Edition.
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 10:59:50PM +0100, David Kaufmann wrote:
> Count me in, but honestly I don't see a lot of things that need to be
> changed - I'm quite happy with how it behaves. But aside that I'm happy
> to help with those issues that come up.
That would be amazing! In order for it to
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:11:02AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> One uncomfortable question that this raises: is it time to de-Edition
> Fedora Server?
Please don't, for me it is the Version I'm currently migrating my Centos
7 boxes to, so having it properly tested and being high on the "if it
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:15:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> with quite a lot of consequences. It has consequences, for instance,
> for our most important forms of communication to the wider world: how
> do we pivot from this simple story that "Fedora is a (set of)
> product(s) that come(s)
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 19:42 +0100, Clement Verna wrote:
> >
> > CoreOS is going to be the same only worse, because it's not even built
> > the same way as the rest of Fedora. It's not built by Pungi, we don't
> > get the same messages published when CoreOS builds happen (we don't get
> > messages
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:31 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> This is a fair point. I've personally been very annoyed about how
> little Fedora CoreOS integrates with the rest of the Fedora Project.
> One very broken consequence of Fedora CoreOS working this way is that
> they basically *don't* participate
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing
> > the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide
> > whether to release "Fedora
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 18:27, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 09:23 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > == How To Test ==
> > See QA test cases :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:CoreOS_Test_Cases
> >
> > We also have regular tests days, for example
> >
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:58 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing
> > the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide
> > whether to release "Fedora
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:58 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing
> > the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide
> > whether to release "Fedora
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing
> the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide
> whether to release "Fedora CoreOS 34"?
>
This question is relevant to my interests.
On Wed,
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 11:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> There were a number of people interested in helping with reviving the
> Server WG, myself included. But we don't know how to have that move
> forward. We've never really had a situation like this before...
>
I'd start with staging a takeover
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 09:56 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Meh, sure I guess? This is a paperwork change. It's been considered an
> Edition in practice since it replaced Fedora Atomic, which *was* a
> full Edition in its own right.
I would dispute that. To me the most obvious factor here is: what
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:19 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 09:23 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > == How To Test ==
> > See QA test cases :
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:CoreOS_Test_Cases
> >
> > We also have regular tests days, for example
> >
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 11:14 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > One uncomfortable question that this raises: is it time to de-Edition
> > Fedora Server? We'd still produce it, but it would no longer be
> > considered an Edition (and thus
On Wed, 2020-12-02 at 09:23 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> == How To Test ==
> See QA test cases : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:CoreOS_Test_Cases
>
> We also have regular tests days, for example
> https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-coreos-test-day/
So...yeah, that's not really enough to
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 11:11 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> One uncomfortable question that this raises: is it time to de-Edition
> Fedora Server? We'd still produce it, but it would no longer be
> considered an Edition (and thus potentially not block releases, etc,
> the exact implications would have
One uncomfortable question that this raises: is it time to de-Edition
Fedora Server? We'd still produce it, but it would no longer be
considered an Edition (and thus potentially not block releases, etc,
the exact implications would have to be worked out)
As far as I can tell, the Server Working
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 9:23 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraCoreOS
>
> == Summary ==
>
> This changes is to promote Fedora CoreOS to Edition status alongside
> Workstation, Server and IoT.
>
> == Owners ==
>
> * Name: [[User:cverna|Clement Verna]]
> * Email:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraCoreOS
== Summary ==
This changes is to promote Fedora CoreOS to Edition status alongside
Workstation, Server and IoT.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:cverna|Clement Verna]]
* Email: cve...@fedoraproject.org
* Products: Fedora CoreOS
* Responsible WGs:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FedoraCoreOS
== Summary ==
This changes is to promote Fedora CoreOS to Edition status alongside
Workstation, Server and IoT.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:cverna|Clement Verna]]
* Email: cve...@fedoraproject.org
* Products: Fedora CoreOS
* Responsible WGs:
76 matches
Mail list logo
