See https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/130
I’m wondering about all the <groups> entries. Server is the only variant with those. (And I think we should delete the <arch>armhfp</arch> to make it clear, that Fedora no longer supports armhfp)
My question is, do we still need the groups at all? Isn't everything regulated via Kickstart files?
As far as I could decipher in the generation process, everything begins with a kickstart file
fedora-disk-server.ks
In https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/blob/main/f/fedora-disk-server.ks
Basically it includes fedora-disk-base.ks and that in turn a lot of other kickstart files. And each kickstart file includes/installs a lot of packages or package groups (from comps).
All of these seems to be quite old and could date back to the time before the differentiation into editions.
Wouldn't it be a good first step to systematize the comps files?
One idea is:
fedora-disk-server.ks // base für iso installation media
-- fedora-server-base hw //packages to ensure operability on hardware, kernel, firmware, hw driver, etc —- fedora-server-base-kvm //packages to ensure operability on KVM virtual machen: kernel—core —- fedora-server-base-sys //basic universal system: systems, bus, etc. for either hw and vm —- fedora-server-base-runtime // our minimal generic server packages: ipa, nfs-client, etc. And and some optional packages/group
We should create these groups as server-specific as possible. Currently, many of the groups used seem to be too general and more suited to Workstation. A lot of stuff is installed that we don't need and don't want.
-- 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