On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 04/09/2014 06:02 AM, drago01 wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher >> <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 04/08/2014 07:22 AM, drago01 wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik >>>> <jrez...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role >>>>> Deployment = >>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> > Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač <mitr AT volny DOT cz>, Fedora Server >>> Working >>>>> Group <server AT lists DOT fedoraproject DOT org > >>>>> Responsible WG: Server >>>>> >>>>> A new D-Bus service, and associated command-line tools, to >>>>> deploy and manage Server Roles. >>>>> >>>>> == Detailed Description == A new D-Bus service will be made >>>>> available, exposing available server roles, making it >>>>> possible to deploy, configure and manage them. Appropriate >>>>> functionality will also be exposed as a command-line >>>>> utility. >>>>> >>>>> == Scope == * Proposal owners: Write, document, package and >>>>> test the D-Bus API. * Other developers: Possibly use the >>>>> framework for development of new server roles. * Release >>>>> engineering: Nothing * Policies and guidelines: Nothing >>>> >>>> "Contingency mechanism: Do not ship the Server product with >>>> Fedora 21. " >>>> >>>> What? That's not a contingency plan thats a "nuke clause" .. >>>> we could simply not ship any roles and add it in f21 (given >>>> that we don't have many roles to begin with). >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, it's a nuke clause. This Change Proposal is a blocker for >>> shipping the Fedora Server. Without completing this Change, >>> Fedora Server is not meaningful. >> >> I am not sure I agree with that ... you can still install the >> server packages you need which probably is necessary even with this >> feature because ... >> > > Sorry, you misunderstand (and I wasn't terribly clear). Fedora is > still useful as a server, but the Fedora Server *product* has no > meaningful differentiation from "Fedora with server packages" without > this. So if we don't deliver this, we may as well not ship specialized > install media. >
No my point was rather this framework will be only useful for a very limited set of cases (domain controller and database as you stated below), so for anyone having a different type of server he/she will have to install packages by hand anyway. So if this feature its not done it will only affect two specific usecases so there is no need for a "nuke clause" if its not done just get it into F22 (with hopefully a larger set of roles). >> Which roles are we going to ship with F21? >> > > The two we're working for in F21 are "Domain Controller" (powered by > FreeIPA) and "Database Server" (powered by PostgreSQL). > > >> Database server and ? This feature is not "meaningful" if common >> roles are not present. Like file server, web server, application >> server, could / virt server etc. >> > > Well, a complete Domain Controller is certainly meaningful. I didn't say it isn't. > Also, please understand that the focus of Roles is to provide turn-key > *infrastructure*, not abitrary applications. So we looked at what we > could provide that would benefit the most potential use-cases. We > acknowledged that nearly any application that an end-user would want > to build would need access to a database server and that in real-world > deployments, databases are generally kept distinctly separate from the > server (or VM) providing the application. So it makes sense to provide > this as a Serevr Role with easy set-up in order to support all the > other things people want to do. > > >> Also if I enable / install / activate the database server role >> which database do I get? > > We selected PostgreSQL by overwhelming majority vote among the Server > WG. A MariaDB Role may come in the future, but we're only building one > right now. Well the times where database means sql database are over (it depends on the application(s) the user is going to use). > >> What if my applications need to talk to another database? Same for >> application server etc. >> > > If your applications cannot use PostgreSQL, then you can always > manually set up a different database. You just lose access to the > simplicity of doing so via the role mechanism. This is additive; it > doesn't replace the traditional way of doing things, but for the > common use-cases we support it will make them vastly easier. Sure I am not saying its not useful its just very limited currently (lots of setups will have to use traditional methods anyway) and thus does not warrant to not ship a server product at all if it is not done. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
