Items we will be discussing:
- Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
- Intrepid Specification Status (I'd like to hear from people about where we are and will be glad to discuss mine) - ScottK
- Open Discussion
- Agree on next meeting date and time.
Openldap 2.4 SRU
zul filed a bug to start an SRU for openldap 2.4.9 for hardy. The SRU was accepted by the SRU team. However there was some issues with the uploaded package which was rejected.
mathiaz added that openldap 2.4.10 had just been released - the changelog is rather short and consists of bug fixes only. There was some discussion whether 2.4.10 instead of 2.4.9 should be used for the SRU. As the SRU for 2.4.9 is already accepted, it was decided to go on with 2.4.9 and get 2.4.10 in hardy at a later time.
ACTION: zul to go ahead with 2.4.9 in hardy as an SRU.
Intrepid Specification Status
ScottK2 asked about giving a quick status on the specifications worked on. He's been working on a Server Flavor spec, which is based around d-i to perform a minimal server install and then use FAI to further customize the install into a specific task (mail server for example). mathiaz added that he wrote 4 specs about network authentication and identity managment. kirkland finished his specs about encrypted directory, booting in degraded mode and swapfile in the installer.
kirkland has also been working on providing an online version of all the manpages available in Ubuntu. He plans to integrated this in his documentation search page.
nealmcb has been looking into the Ubuntu Centralized Server Administrator spec. mathiaz suggested to look into the Augeas project, which could be used as the backend to read and write configuration files. nealmcb wondered if ebox could integrate with this project.
ACTION: mathiaz to invite the ebox developer, nxvl and dan shearer to the meeting to discuss system adminstration framework.
mathiaz reminded that the development team is focusing on merges nowadays: there were 299 outstanding merges in main and 298 in universe. Anyone interested in packaging should have a look at these lists.
Intrepid Alpha 1
mathiaz reminded that Alpha 1 isos are been worked on and should be released on Thursday. Iso testing of the server images will be done during the next few days. Help in this area is greatly appreciated - coordination is done via the Iso testing tracker and in #ubuntu-testing on Freenode.
Agree on next meeting date and time
Next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 17th at 15:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.
16:08] <mathiaz> #startmeeting [16:08] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:10. The chair is mathiaz. [16:08] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:08] <mathiaz> \o/ [16:08] <owh> Well, perhaps that's a whole discussion point in itself, freenode stability for meetings. [16:09] <mathiaz> today's agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting [16:09] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:09] <MootBot> New Topic: Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:09] <mathiaz> Last meeting log: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20080604 [16:10] <mathiaz> so there was an action about openldap 2.4.9 [16:11] <mathiaz> this is has been done IIRC [16:11] <nijaba> zul did it, yes, I saw the bugmail about it [16:11] <mathiaz> nijaba: right - but I don't find the bug number anymore [16:11] <ivoks> nijaba: do you have bug number? [16:12] <nijaba> bug #237688 [16:12] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 237688 in openldap2.3 "[SRU] openldap 2.4.9 from 8.04.1." [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/237688 [16:12] <ivoks> ok, nice... [16:12] <mathiaz> ok - so the issue is that it won't make it for 8.04.1 [16:12] <nijaba> so Pitti has acepted the rationale [16:13] <mathiaz> and upstream has just released 2.4.10 [16:13] <mathiaz> which has more bug fixes [16:13] <nijaba> mathiaz: really? it is already in proposed [16:14] <mathiaz> nijaba: not in hardy-proposed [16:14] <nijaba> you may be right, must be mistaking then [16:14] <mathiaz> nijaba: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openldap2.3 [16:15] <mathiaz> nijaba: zul uploaded a new package in -updates that fixes some bugs [16:15] <mathiaz> nijaba: but it's still 2.4.7 [16:15] <ivoks> right, 2.4.10 is fixes-only [16:15] <nijaba> mathiaz: ok, I got it mixed up [16:15] <mathiaz> now that 8.04.1 is out-of-reach for 2.4.9 [16:15] <mathiaz> it may be worth uploading 2.4.10 to hardy [16:16] <ivoks> for .2? [16:16] <mathiaz> ivoks: for whenever we want [16:16] <ivoks> oh, ok [16:16] <nealmcb> the only difference is whether it is on the iso? when would it be in -updates? [16:17] <mathiaz> nealmcb: What do you mean ? [16:17] <mathiaz> nealmcb: .1 would be on the iso yes [16:17] <nealmcb> if it is in -updates, then everyone would get it except right on install from the 8.04.1 iso [16:17] <mathiaz> nealmcb: 2.4.10 would be in -updates when the SRU is done [16:17] <mathiaz> nealmcb: correct [16:17] <nealmcb> righe - so when would that be? [16:17] <nealmcb> long delay or pretty soon? [16:18] * nealmcb cares less about the iso than getting a good ldap out ther [16:18] <nealmcb> *there [16:18] <mathiaz> nealmcb: it's up to us really - if we take the steps to do the SRU we can get it in quickly [16:18] <mathiaz> nealmcb: yes. first we'd had to get it into intrepid [16:18] <mathiaz> nealmcb: once it's in intrepid, we can SRU it in hardy [16:19] <nealmcb> or we could just go with 2.4.9? [16:19] <mathiaz> IMO we want 2.4.10 in hardy anyway - it has some good fixes [16:19] <nealmcb> ok [16:19] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I guess we could upload 2.4.9 to hardy [16:19] <mathiaz> nealmcb: and later do 2.4.10 [16:19] <nealmcb> depends on the timing [16:20] <nealmcb> but if it fixes big bugs and is approved.... [16:20] <nealmcb> but churn is also best avoided... [16:21] <mathiaz> zul is not around - but I think we should get 2.4.9 uploaded [16:21] <mathiaz> and then when 2.4.10 is in intrepid we can another SRU [16:21] <ScottK2> If 2.4.10 doesn't fix any regressions in 2.4.9, then that'd be a good sign to go ahead with 2.4.9 while we work out if we can do 2.4.10 [16:21] * mathiaz nods [16:22] <mathiaz> [ACTION] zul to go ahead with 2.4.9 in hardy as an SRU [16:22] <MootBot> ACTION received: zul to go ahead with 2.4.9 in hardy as an SRU [16:22] <nealmcb> ScottK2: good point [16:22] <ivoks> that was only action? [16:23] <mathiaz> ivoks: AFAICT yes [16:23] <nijaba> I had one with elmo. I filed and RT and am waiting for the server to be setup for limeurvey [16:23] <ivoks> urgh... i have to leave, sorry... i wasn't expecting this... bbl [16:24] * mathiaz waves at ivoks [16:24] <mathiaz> Let's move on then [16:24] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Intrepid Specification Status [16:24] <MootBot> New Topic: Intrepid Specification Status [16:25] <mathiaz> So ScottK2 asked whether we could do a status on the specifications [16:25] <ScottK2> Yes [16:25] <mathiaz> As of now, all specifications proposed for intrepid should be in pending aproval mode with dendrobates as an aprover [16:26] * ScottK2 is working on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerFlavorSpec [16:26] * ScottK2 isn't sure why it didn't get done otherwise. [16:26] <ScottK2> I thought we'd agreed to it at UDS. [16:26] <ScottK2> The draft is pretty solid up through the use cases. The rest still needs work. [16:27] <mathiaz> ScottK2: the spec relies on FAI - any reason why tasksel is not enough ? [16:27] <ScottK2> Yes. [16:28] <ScottK2> With tasksel we can install packages. [16:28] <ScottK2> With FAI we can install a set of packages and configure them for a specific use. [16:28] <nijaba> because of policy conflicts, IIRC [16:28] <ScottK2> Right. [16:29] <ScottK2> taskel is a package and can't touch other package configs [16:29] <ScottK2> FAI is part of the installer acting effectively as an agent for the user. [16:29] * ScottK2 hopes siretart will jump in any time. [16:29] <mathiaz> ScottK2: so that would mean to bring FAI into main [16:31] * CrummyGummy has read the spec. [16:31] <CrummyGummy> This is a good idea. I might loose my job... [16:31] <ScottK-palm> I'm having some laptop trouble right now. [16:32] <ScottK-palm> Last thing I saw was about FAI in main. [16:32] <nealmcb> ScottK I don't know much about FAI, but it looks good - makes it easy for folks to further customize the flavors [16:32] <mathiaz> Ok - so what other specs people have been working on ? [16:32] <ScottK2> He and Yes [16:32] <ScottK-palm> I think it gives us a good basis for scalability in the enterprise. [16:33] <nealmcb> We have had lots of discussion about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCentralizedServiceAdministrator [16:33] <mathiaz> I've written up 4 specs about network authentication and identity managment [16:34] <mathiaz> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~mathiaz/+specs?role=drafter - in pending approval mode [16:34] <nealmcb> is this the place that should have links? https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/~dendrobates [16:34] <mathiaz> nealmcb: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~dendrobates/+specs?role=approver [16:34] <nealmcb> great - that helps [16:34] <mathiaz> kirkland: what your specs ? [16:35] <kirkland> mathiaz: what about my specs? I have written 3 [16:35] <kirkland> mathiaz: 1) Encrypted ~/Private directory [16:35] <kirkland> mathiaz: 2) Boot into Degraded Mode [16:35] <kirkland> mathiaz: 3) Swapfile in the installer [16:36] <mathiaz> kirkland: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~kirkland/+specs?role=drafter lists 5 [16:36] <kirkland> mathiaz: true, the remaining 2 are documentation related, and I'm mostly working on those in my spare time [16:36] <kirkland> mathiaz: 4) is the documentation search, http://people.ubuntu.com/~kirkland/search.html [16:37] <kirkland> mathiaz: 5) is the Ubuntu Manpage Repository, http://ubuntu.dustinkirkland.com/manpages/hardy/ [16:37] <kirkland> mathiaz: as for 4), newz2000 is doing something similar, based on this for search.ubuntu.com [16:38] <mathiaz> kirkland: is your man page site ready for a wide audience / [16:38] <mathiaz> kirkland: ? [16:39] <mathiaz> jdstrand: have you written up any spec for ufw in intrepid ? [16:39] <jdstrand> sorry, I had a power 'event' here and am back online [16:39] <jdstrand> I have no backlog [16:40] <jdstrand> mathiaz: no spec for ufw as what was discussed was just refining the old spec [16:40] * nijaba wonder if the power event is chipmunk related [16:40] <Koon> the return of the revenge of the chipmunk [16:40] <jdstrand> I think it is more lightning-related [16:40] <mathiaz> Koon: any news on the j2ee front ? [16:41] <kirkland> (sorry, I have a nasty kernel hang that has bitten me 3 times during this meeting) [16:41] <Koon> mathiaz: dendrobates was supposed to push the question up [16:41] <jdstrand> just a guess [16:41] <mathiaz> Koon: right - so your technical investigation is finished [16:42] <Koon> mathiaz: yes. The final impression is that it's a costly move, but technically (alwaysà possible [16:42] <Koon> s/à/) [16:42] <mathiaz> Koon: ok. [16:42] <nealmcb> this one from soren looks like it is old - perhaps dendrobates should be removed as approver or something? https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntu-easy-business-server [16:42] <mathiaz> Anyeone else wants to add something about spec for intrepid ? [16:43] <mathiaz> nealmcb: may be - but only him can do that [16:43] <nealmcb> several others like that I guess [16:43] <ScottK-palm> I'd just like to hear from dendroabtes that mine is being considered. [16:43] <mathiaz> nealmcb: he said he would clean up all the blueprints [16:44] <sommer> mathiaz: the intrepid-serverguide spec [16:44] <sommer> I've got a good start on the samba sections... just fyi [16:45] <nealmcb> on the spec front I'm mainly interested in the plan for gui admin - I've seen several.... [16:45] <Koon> mathiaz: did Dan Shearer convert his ideas to the blueprint format somewhere ? [16:45] <Koon> forget it, I found them. [16:46] <kirkland> Koon: i got several emails from danshearer pointing to specs that he started [16:46] <lukehasnoname> nealmcb: I think the only conclusion reached is that it won't be X based [16:46] <mathiaz> nealmcb: right - have you seen http://augeas.net/ ? [16:47] <lukehasnoname> Whether it's based on ebox or written in CLI with a front end has yet to be decided [16:47] <nealmcb> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/~danshearer [16:47] <mathiaz> nealmcb: that seems like a good approach on the backend side [16:47] <nealmcb> mathiaz: yeah - briefly - I linked to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCentralizedServiceAdministrator [16:48] <nealmcb> I wonder what ebox thinks of augeas [16:49] <nealmcb> perhaps next week we can get nvxl and the ebox guy and dan and make that an agenda item? [16:50] <nealmcb> and continue to discuss on the wiki and mail list in the meantime... [16:50] <mathiaz> nealmcb: we could - may be start a thread on the ml [16:50] <nealmcb> :) [16:50] <mathiaz> nealmcb: right - I'll add an item to the meeting agenda and make sure to invite them to the meeting [16:51] <mathiaz> [ACTION] mathiaz to invite the ebox developer, nxvl and dan shearer to the meeting to discuss system adminstration framework [16:51] <MootBot> ACTION received: mathiaz to invite the ebox developer, nxvl and dan shearer to the meeting to discuss system adminstration framework [16:51] <nealmcb> ...and gui... [16:52] <mathiaz> Anything else on the spec front ? [16:53] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Open Discussion [16:53] <MootBot> New Topic: Open Discussion [16:53] <mathiaz> We're still doing a lot of merges [16:54] <mathiaz> main has 299 outstanding merges [16:54] <mathiaz> http://merges.ubuntu.com/main.html [16:54] <MootBot> LINK received: http://merges.ubuntu.com/main.html [16:54] <mathiaz> and universe has 298 outstanding merges [16:54] <mathiaz> http://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html [16:54] <MootBot> LINK received: http://merges.ubuntu.com/universe.html [16:55] <mathiaz> anyone interested in packaging should have a look at these lists [16:56] <mathiaz> And it's time to get prepared for some iso testing [16:56] <Hobbsee> \o/ one merge on there for me [16:56] <Koon> mathiaz: I will have a look at that [16:56] <Koon> (the merges) [16:56] <mathiaz> as we're hoping for an Alpha1 release on thursday [16:57] <mathiaz> So don't forget to stop by #ubuntu-testing and the iso testing tracker to help out [16:57] <mathiaz> http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/ [16:57] <MootBot> LINK received: http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com/ [16:58] <mathiaz> That's all folks [16:58] <nijaba> thanks mathiaz [16:58] <nealmcb> question [16:59] <nealmcb> with an emphasis on virtualization, what part of iso testing could/should be done with vms? [16:59] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I tend to do all the software testing in vms [16:59] * nealmcb should read that link again first :) [16:59] <nijaba> nealmcb: vm for 99% of the tests [16:59] <nealmcb> I guess I mean ubuntu-vm-builder.... [16:59] <mathiaz> nealmcb: such as testing the different use cases outlined in the Server Install page [17:00] <mathiaz> nealmcb: u-v-m doesn't help [17:00] <nijaba> nealmcb: uvb does not apply as we are talking iso [17:00] <mathiaz> nealmcb: as it doesn't exercise the iso [17:00] <nealmcb> if we are pushing it, more testing of/with it might make sense [17:00] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I use vms with preseeded iso and set the vm to boot from the iso === greeneggsnospam is now known as jsgotangco [17:00] <nealmcb> thanks [17:01] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Agree on next meeting date and time. [17:01] <MootBot> New Topic: Agree on next meeting date and time. [17:01] <CrummyGummy> Is there any work being done to get vendors to support ubuntu-server? [17:01] <mathiaz> Next week, same place, same time ? [17:01] <owh> mathiaz: Earlier would be good :) [17:01] <nijaba> owh: not for mathiaz ;) [17:02] <Koon> I like that time :) [17:02] * owh is at midnight, but I understand the pain others have gone through, so I'll tough it out if I have to. [17:02] * owh is normally asleep by 9pm :) - awake at 5am :) [17:03] <owh> Seriously, don't change it for me alone. [17:03] <mathiaz> owh: well - as of now, this time slot suits most of the people [17:04] <mathiaz> so see you next week, same time, same place. [17:04] <mathiaz> thanks for attending and happy merging ! [17:04] <sommer> thanks mathiaz, later on all [17:04] <owh> Thanks all. Thanks mathiaz [17:04] <owh> o/ [17:04] <Koon> o/ [17:04] <mathiaz> #endmeeting