Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
1. The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things. This violates pretty much all of the lower technical specifications for the Fedora Server Edition.
2. There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
3. Funnily enough, a "wild collection" of groups is offered as sub-options for the server installation, ranging from various graphical user interfaces to special configurations such as video editing. All of this certainly has no place on a "Fedora Server Edition".
4. The compilation of options and sub-options does not give the impression that anyone has seriously considered their meaningfulness recently. (See image in https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/136)
5. And even worse, a major provider of rentable ROOT servers (Hetzner), which has just managed to bring Fedora back into its supported OS options, uses "Everything" because it's the best for customers. And thus produces user disappointment at a critical point. This thwarts our efforts to make Fedora Server Edition available on other platforms.
The minimum solution is to remove the option „Fedora Server Edition“ from the installation options and to rename the medium to „Fedora Selection“ or something similar.
In addition, it would certainly be beneficial to thoroughly revise the options. For example, if I select the "Fedora Cloud Server“ installation option and perform an installation, I get the following after booting the installation:
---------- Unexpected return from initial read: Device Error, buffer size 0 Failed to load image : Device Error Start_image() returned Device Error StartImage failed: Device Error ----------
I don't think that's the intention of Cloud Working Group.
Best Peter
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:17 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things.
The default values don't install a desktop environment. The default package set is "Fedora Custom Operating System", which is very similar to a minimal installation.
You probably meant that the default filesystem layout is the same as when installing a desktop environment. That's true. But that's just because btrfs is the default Fedora layout. Fedora Server images override it to lvm+xfs. But Everything netinst image doesn't (understandably, it's the most generic image), and selecting the Server package set has no effect on it, which means btrfs is used.
You can make Everything netinst image behave as if it was a Server image by adding "inst.profile=fedora-server" to kernel params when booting it. I just tested that, it has Server branding, the correct Server layout and package set. Perhaps this is worth documenting?
2.
There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
On one hand, if somebody is experienced enough to find alternative download images, they should kinda know what they're doing. On the other hand, it would be nice if anaconda provided more clarity about this. Either by allowing to pick one of available profiles right after selecting language (including a "generic" profile, which is the current behavior), or by asking the user whether to apply the profile values when they pick e.g. Server package set (acknowledging that e.g. partitioning might need to be re-done). File an RFE against anaconda?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 8:17 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this:
The installation falsely claims to install "Fedora Server Edition" and reports accordingly when booting. However, the default values install a desktop environment, so that our Fedora Server Edition comes with btrfs and a large /home subvolume, among other things. This violates pretty much all of the lower technical specifications for the Fedora Server Edition.
Desktops don't have their own net installer images. Therefore it was decided that the "everything" netinstaller would use the desktop default file system because it was more likely desktop users would use the default, where Server folks would most likely use the Server specific netinstaller or they'd check (and modify if desired) the storage configuration.
The way the installer works, the default file system is set on the specific installation media - not tied to a particular package set. I have no idea if this could be changed, or what would be involved to change it - it's an installer team question.
There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
OK but does your documentation steer them toward the Server specific net installer? If you have, then you've done all you can. You can't reduce human behaviors to zero - you can only do your best to steer them in the direction you want to go in.
Funnily enough, a "wild collection" of groups is offered as sub-options for the server installation, ranging from various graphical user interfaces to special configurations such as video editing. All of this certainly has no place on a "Fedora Server Edition".
*shrug*
A consequence of having downloaded the "everything" net installer?
And even worse, a major provider of rentable ROOT servers (Hetzner), which has just managed to bring Fedora back into its supported OS options, uses "Everything" because it's the best for customers. And thus produces user disappointment at a critical point. This thwarts our efforts to make Fedora Server Edition available on other platforms.
I agree that Server WG expects a different storage layout in its Technical Specification doc, from what the "Everything" net installer produces.
However, you realize that any provider or downstream can simply use kickstart to configure storage however they want, and then choose to install the Fedora Server Edition environment?
The storage configuration default is not really what makes for Fedora Server Edition - it's just a preselection. A user, provider, downstream picking some other configuration doesn't make it NOT Fedora Server Edition.
Am 30.04.2024 um 17:04 schrieb Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com mailto:lists@colorremedies.com>:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, at 8:17 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
Folks,
We distribute a distribution medium called „Everything“ at https://alt.fedoraproject.org/ and various subpages. This provides several (mutually exclusive) installation options, in addition to all desktop spins and labs also a "Fedora Server Edition". There are several problems with this: . . . 2. There are always users who download the "Everything" medium instead of the various edition-specific media. They rely on the "Fedora Server Edition" label and then complain that nothing works as it should and as it is described in our documentation.
OK but does your documentation steer them toward the Server specific net installer? If you have, then you've done all you can. You can't reduce human behaviors to zero - you can only do your best to steer them in the direction you want to go in.
I don’t want to reduce human behaviors to zero, but I don't want to mislead them either. And the Term „Fedora Server Edition“ makes every user legitimately expect to get the same as with the "Fedora Server Edition" installation medium. And that is not the case. And that's why we have to remove this option in this wording.
Every user is welcome to put together their own mix that they want to use for server tasks. But this is neither "Fedora Server Edition" nor "Fedora Server".
. . .
However, you realize that any provider or downstream can simply use kickstart to configure storage however they want, and then choose to install the Fedora Server Edition environment?
Yes, they can. But we are misleading them with the name. We are suggesting that they do not need their own Kickstart file to install a "Fedora Server Edition".
The storage configuration default is not really what makes for Fedora Server Edition - it's just a preselection. A user, provider, downstream picking some other configuration doesn't make it NOT Fedora Server Edition.
You are wrong here. "Picking some other configuration" does not produce a "Fedora Server Edition" but something else, whatever it is. And this refers not only to the storage configuration, but also to all other configuration options that are offered with everything netinstall.
A Fedora Edition, and thus also "Fedora Server Edition", is a well-designed and tested suite that provides a certain level of quality, reliability and maintenance when the user follows the suite's defaults and provided options. That's what makes a „Fedora Edition". And that's why we put so much effort into our Editions. And what we are doing here is a throwback to the pre-FedoraNext era.
Why not remove the "Fedora Server Edition" option? Why do you want to keep it?
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org mailto:PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 13:01 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
Hi Folks,
Here is my attempt at an updated brief summary of the current status as a first impetus for our discussion at the upcoming meeting on May
Our initial information that Kiwi can also be used for the generation of iso files is currently not applicable in this form. We will create the iso files in unchanged form for at least a few more releases.
Peter,
I'm a bit confused about what you are trying to say in the paragraph above. The meaning of the first sentence above escapes me. Would you kindly help out a senior citizen (me) with perhaps a rephrasing or a bit more detail?
If we don't want to spend another number of releases with the current outdated iso files (and that seems very bad to me), then we should start tackling the issues now, starting with the oldest one.
I seem to recall that the gentleman making the presentation and Kevin suggested starting by creating as an exact duplicate of a current iso as possible using the new kiwi features. Then begin tackle resolving differences between different installation methods and media.
Since both the presenter and Kevin volunteered to assist us and help "walk us though the media generation process", they seemed to feel this distributing Fedora Server with existing content was doable for F41 and rationalizing the installation results across the different images and media was a realistic goal for F42.
!proposed: So I suggest starting now with the oldest issue (#32, https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/32) and doing another video meeting soon.
We don't have to decide at the moment which tool we will use to create our images in the future. We would be busy with the iso files for the time being.
Instead, we could discuss with RelEng what tools are available and which is best. And in what timeframe the changeover needs to take place.
Kiwi may not be optimal for us as we would have to maintain another set of configuration files instead of using Kickstart files throughout. Therefore, our situation differs from Cloud, which does not need to create iso files for Cloud VMs. But there may be no other solution that is better for us. And in the end, it also comes down to choosing a solution that can be managed with the resources available to Fedora (i.e. releng).
!proposed: So I propose to postpone the decision about image generation for now.
If you have more information that was not presented at the video meeting that led to your conclusion, then I would welcome hearing that information.
John
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
-- _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Hi John,
Am 30.04.2024 um 18:09 schrieb John W. Himpel john@jlhimpel.net:
On Mon, 2024-04-29 at 13:01 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
Hi Folks,
Here is my attempt at an updated brief summary of the current status as a first impetus for our discussion at the upcoming meeting on May
Our initial information that Kiwi can also be used for the generation of iso files is currently not applicable in this form. We will create the iso files in unchanged form for at least a few more releases.
Peter,
I'm a bit confused about what you are trying to say in the paragraph above. The meaning of the first sentence above escapes me. Would you kindly help out a senior citizen (me) with perhaps a rephrasing or a bit more detail?
I try my best :-)
You can find different information about what Kiwi can and cannot do. In any case, Kiwi is currently built into the Fedora release engineering infrastructure to the extent that it can be used to create images of bootable file systems, transfer them to the appropriate repositories, create checksums and also perform some QA tests.Iso images are generated as before, without Kiwi being involved or being able to get involved. So we cannot use Kiwi in F41 for ISO images, even though Kiwi might be able to do this (I can find different statements on this). The same probably also applies to F42, if I imagine the amount of work involved in carrying out such a conversion. At present, this would not be available in the infrastructure. That's what I meant by 'not applicable'.
If we don't want to spend another number of releases with the current outdated iso files (and that seems very bad to me), then we should start tackling the issues now, starting with the oldest one.
I seem to recall that the gentleman making the presentation and Kevin suggested starting by creating as an exact duplicate of a current iso as possible using the new kiwi features. Then begin tackle resolving differences between different installation methods and media.
Yes, if Remember correctly we were discussing to start with Kiwi to create the KVM image at this point. And yes, try to make as exact a duplicate als possible of the ISO files.
Since both the presenter and Kevin volunteered to assist us and help "walk us though the media generation process", they seemed to feel this distributing Fedora Server with existing content was doable for F41 and rationalizing the installation results across the different images and media was a realistic goal for F42.
As far as I remember, we have found it feasible to migrate the configuration files. But not to actually use it in the infrastructure. Because we didn't know what the current status was. That's why we agreed to contact RelEng as soon as F40 was published and discuss the next steps.
We don't have to decide at the moment which tool we will use to create our images in the future. We would be busy with the iso files for the time being.
Instead, we could discuss with RelEng what tools are available and which is best. And in what timeframe the changeover needs to take place.
Kiwi may not be optimal for us as we would have to maintain another set of configuration files instead of using Kickstart files throughout. Therefore, our situation differs from Cloud, which does not need to create iso files for Cloud VMs. But there may be no other solution that is better for us. And in the end, it also comes down to choosing a solution that can be managed with the resources available to Fedora (i.e. releng).
!proposed: So I propose to postpone the decision about image generation for now.
If you have more information that was not presented at the video meeting that led to your conclusion, then I would welcome hearing that information.
I don't have more information, but this is a result of my mulling over the situation. Kiwi ist best for cloud, I suppose, because they need just one type of images. Releng has a broader view (and range of tasks), which may be more in line with our situation. We need different types of images. We should discuss the possible options with RelEng,
Best Peter
-- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy@fedoraproject.org
Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chris Murphy -
John W. Himpel -
Kamil Paral -
Peter Boy