Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/09/2014 07:28 PM, Rob K wrote:
> On 10/04/2014 7:50 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> 
>> +1 - What are 'server roles'? Are we just reinventing 
>> Ansible/Puppet/et al here? Yeah, why is someone spending time
>> creating a new Fedora-specific configuration management system
>> rather than just shipping an Ansible playbook or a Salt formula
>> or whatever?
> 
> Pretty much this. The world has enough reinvented wheels as it is.
> I'd like to see a clear use case and implementation example
> without handwaving about dbus and so on.
> 

Ok, first we probably need to clarify a few things: the Server Role
Deployment Framework is meant to describe a layer more than a specific
implementation.

The purpose of this layer is to provide a vastly simplified mechanism
for deploying common infrastructure services in a best-practices
manner. The idea is that this layer should intentionally limit choices
to those that are known to work in the vast majority of cases. This
will hopefully make our volunteer support teams happy, as it means
that there should be a reduction in the number of edge-cases and poor
configuration choices.

Second, we really envision this as being the mechanism that a tool
such as Ansible would call out to in order to perform these
operations. Instead of writing a complicated and custom configuration
for complex services like a domain controller, an ansible playbook
should be able to instead just invoke our tool (or D-BUS API, or
OpenLMI remote interface, etc.) to do all of the work for them.

In other words, instead of coordinating the placement of a dozen or so
configuration files and custom command-line tools to set up a service,
these config management utilities should instead be able to operate
against a single interface.

Furthermore, we expect this approach to improve our users' experience
when it comes to software updates on their systems. Implicit in the
inclusion of a package in a Server Role is also an additional
guarantee on its stability: we intend to end the days where packages
that need to be tested together are instead only testing on their own
(a classic example being the semi-regular cases where a 389DS update
causes deployments of FreeIPA to fail). By ensuring that these
packages are all tested as a unit, we can make much more confident
claims about Fedora's suitability as a production server.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlNGhtcACgkQeiVVYja6o6Oh8ACgpmctP4O+lLEWflu3XSiLfV54
TUcAn1Ju0P461WXUsnS5rEGKTBHVSblO
=3oPJ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Rob K]

On 10/04/2014 7:50 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:


+1 - What are 'server roles'? Are we just reinventing Ansible/Puppet/et al here?
Yeah, why is someone spending time creating a new Fedora-specific
configuration management system rather than just shipping an Ansible
playbook or a Salt formula or whatever?


Pretty much this. The world has enough reinvented wheels as it is. I'd 
like to see a clear use case and implementation example without 
handwaving about dbus and so on.


--
Rob K

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Jeffrey Ollie]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Rob Kearey  wrote:
>>This Change, as written, is *extremely* vague, moreso that most other
>>changes that are filed for Fedora.  Is it intended to be updated with more
>>information when that becomes available?
>
> +1 - What are 'server roles'? Are we just reinventing Ansible/Puppet/et al 
> here?

Yeah, why is someone spending time creating a new Fedora-specific
configuration management system rather than just shipping an Ansible
playbook or a Salt formula or whatever?

-- 
Jeff Ollie
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/09/2014 05:54 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 
> 
> On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:48 PM, William Brown  > wrote:
> 
>> 
> == 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.
 What does it mean to "deploy, configure, and manage" a
 server role? Nothing and everything fits this whole
 description.
 
>>> 
>>> Installation, setup of mandatory data, running of the
>>> necessary services, opening of the necessary ports, easy view
>>> of overall health of the services and gathering of backup
>>> sets.
>>> 
>> 
>> I'd like a bit more about this, especially the opening of ports
>> (What about ip ranges?) and the "gathering of backup sets" and
>> what that implies or how it's triggered.
>> 
>> What additionally, counts as a "server role" in this case? Or are
>> these not completely filled out yet? IE a network router is
>> certainly a server role, but does it come under this case?
>> 
> 
> 
> Most of these questions are answered here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document
> and many of the implementation details have been discussed on the 
> ser...@lists.fp.o , but I certainly agree
> that we need to gather those details on a wiki page and link that
> and the PRD from this Change Proposal. I will look into doing this
> today.
> 
> 


I've made some changes to the "Detailed Description" and
"Documentation" sections of the Change proposal to link to relevant
information. Some of the detailed pieces (like the API design) are
still being worked out and currently have no design page. I hope to
have that complete in two weeks.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlNFp1YACgkQeiVVYja6o6PSmACgpOha+nKmoali++ZxdxbaBeP0
gCkAoIzU8xc+ZqdvmV+09o7ucCjgXgYn
=o7S0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[David Malcolm]

On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 08:45 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 06:02 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> >  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 
> >>>  wrote:
>  = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role 
>  Deployment = 
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
> 
[snip]

> > 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).

Thanks.  I've added links to the Change pages for those roles to the
*discussion* page of the above page, but IMHO the page itself should
have such links.  I held fire on doing that since I think it merits a
more substantial rewrite of the Change page.   I think having concrete
examples of Roles would make the idea less abstract, and would thus
improve the above Change page.

BTW, do the roles themselves have pages on the wiki beyond their
individual Change pages?

[snip]

Hope this is helpful
Dave


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[drago01]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Stephen Gallagher  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
>>  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
  wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role
> Deployment =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
>
>
>
>>>
>
> Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server
>>> Working
> Group 
> 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

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

-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
>  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 
>>>  wrote:
 = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role 
 Deployment = 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment



>>
 
Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server
>> Working
 Group 
 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.


> 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.

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.


> 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.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlNFQQUACgkQeiVVYja6o6ORPQCfZxdBphDLy8650EI+HYpJ6yMH
5LUAoKW0772utqY7SCZE3NFNnEgr+Fuk
=Cuht
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[drago01]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher  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
>>  wrote:
>>> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role
>>> Deployment =
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server
> Working
>>> Group  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 ...

Which roles are we going to ship with F21?

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.

Also if I enable / install / activate the database server role which
database do I get?
What if my applications need to talk to another database? Same for
application server etc.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

> On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:48 PM, William Brown  wrote:
> 
> 
 == 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.
>>> What does it mean to "deploy, configure, and manage" a server
>>> role? Nothing and everything fits this whole description.
>> 
>> Installation, setup of mandatory data, running of the necessary
>> services, opening of the necessary ports, easy view of overall health
>> of the services and gathering of backup sets.
> 
> I'd like a bit more about this, especially the opening of ports (What
> about ip ranges?) and the "gathering of backup sets" and what that
> implies or how it's triggered.
> 
> What additionally, counts as a "server role" in this case? Or are these
> not completely filled out yet? IE a network router is certainly a server
> role, but does it come under this case? 
> 


Most of these questions are answered here: 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document and many of 
the implementation details have been discussed on the ser...@lists.fp.o, but I 
certainly agree that we need to gather those details on a wiki page and link 
that and the PRD from this Change Proposal. I will look into doing this today.-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[William Brown]

> >> == 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.
> > What does it mean to "deploy, configure, and manage" a server
> > role? Nothing and everything fits this whole description.
> > 
> 
> Installation, setup of mandatory data, running of the necessary
> services, opening of the necessary ports, easy view of overall health
> of the services and gathering of backup sets.
> 

I'd like a bit more about this, especially the opening of ports (What
about ip ranges?) and the "gathering of backup sets" and what that
implies or how it's triggered.

What additionally, counts as a "server role" in this case? Or are these
not completely filled out yet? IE a network router is certainly a server
role, but does it come under this case? 

-- 
William Brown 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Rob Kearey]

>This Change, as written, is *extremely* vague, moreso that most other
>changes that are filed for Fedora.  Is it intended to be updated with more
>information when that becomes available?

+1 - What are 'server roles'? Are we just reinventing Ansible/Puppet/et al here?

-- 
Rob K
http://ningaui.net
I swear, if I collected all seven dragonballs,
I'd bring back Jon Postel. - Raph
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Bill Nottingham]

Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: 
> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role Deployment =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
> 
> Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working 
> Group 
> 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

This Change, as written, is *extremely* vague, moreso that most other
changes that are filed for Fedora.  Is it intended to be updated with more
information when that becomes available?

Bill

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 04/08/2014 11:02 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:53:59PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role
>> Deployment = 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
>>
>>
>> 
Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server
Working
>> Group  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.
> What does it mean to "deploy, configure, and manage" a server
> role? Nothing and everything fits this whole description.
> 

Installation, setup of mandatory data, running of the necessary
services, opening of the necessary ports, easy view of overall health
of the services and gathering of backup sets.

That's the high-level view.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlNEE6QACgkQeiVVYja6o6N11wCfW/JuHyKByaIiElwSr4uvOuXm
LGkAn3n39NgFF+wJh6158G/FItoS9ESE
=6UWA
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:53:59PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role Deployment =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
> 
> Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working 
> Group 
> 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. 
What does it mean to "deploy, configure, and manage" a server role?
Nothing and everything fits this whole description.

Zbyszek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Stephen Gallagher]

-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
>  wrote:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role
>> Deployment = 
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
>>
>>
>> 
Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server
Working
>> Group  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. The only two contingencies we have are
"Don't ship Fedora Server" or "Delay the release of Fedora 21".

I think FESCo will need to discuss those two options carefully...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlND9MsACgkQeiVVYja6o6MeUwCffMXu4chS+1TnZn3RiWD+c1AD
c6AAn0OBD3VGOafyhCtk7z9iQsVkPoHX
=JDtw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[drago01]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik  wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role Deployment =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment
>
> Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working
> Group 
> 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).
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

[Jaroslav Reznik]

= Proposed System Wide Change:  Framework for Server Role Deployment =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment

Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working 
Group 
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
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct