Items we will be discussing:

  • Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
  • Spec status/review (ScottK again)
  • Proposed ubuntu server team PPA (Chuck)
  • text browser on the server cd - MathiasGug

  • Open Discussion
  • Agree on next meeting date and time.


Openldap 2.4 SRU

mathiaz announced that openldap 2.4.9 had been uploaded to hardy-proposed. Testing and reporting on the results is more then welcomed. He added that he'd like to get 2.4.10 in hardy as well, but that would have to wait for 2.4.10 to hit intrepid. zul also mentioned that three bug fixes from 2.4.10 are already included in the 2.4.9 sru uploaded to hardy.

mathiaz mentioned that the nss_ldapd feature discussed at UDS had been committed to upstream cvs. It should be available in 2.4.11. nijaba suggested that we should target 2.4.11 for inclusion in intrepid.

Ebox and Ubuntu centralize server administrator spec

nxvl wasn't able to make it to the meeting. There was some discussion about using Augeas as a backend for ebox.

ACTION: mathiaz to send send an email to the ebox devs about augeas

Spec status/review

ScottK asked what was the status of specification approval for intrepid. dendrabates said he was still working on finalizing the list. ScottK listed some of the specs he wrote server-flavors, clamav-spamassassin-in-main, amavisd-dkim and waits for their approval to start implementing them.

Proposed ubuntu server team PPA

zul brought up the idea of having a PPA for the ubuntu-server team. mathiaz asked what it would be used for. zul said he'd see it used as a staging area for -proposed. mathiaz asked zul to ping him if he came across a package that would fit in an ubuntu-server ppa and not in a personal ppa.

text browser on the server cd

mathiaz highlighted the recent thread on -devel and -server about moving w3m out of the standard seed. After some discussion it became clear that the Server team would like to keep w3m installed by default on Ubuntu Server.

The discussion drifted to the topic on seed review. Once the -server seeds are created, -standard and -minimal should be reviewed to make sure that server related packages are not installed on desktop and vice-versa.

ACTION: mathiaz to send a reply to the thread with the position of the server team.

ACTION: dendrobates to review seeds wrt to the creation of the server seeds.

Agree on next meeting date and time

Next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 24th at 15:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.


[16:02] <mathiaz> #startmeeting
[16:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:05. The chair is mathiaz.
[16:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:03] <mathiaz> Today's agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[16:03] <mathiaz> Last week's meeting - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20080610
[16:04] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] openldap 2.4 SRU
[16:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  openldap 2.4 SRU
[16:04] <mathiaz> openldap 2.4.9 has been uploaded and accepted into -proposed
[16:04] <mathiaz> next step is to get 2.4.10 into hardy as well
[16:04] <mathiaz> but we'd have to wait for 2.4.10 to be uploaded in intrepid first
[16:06] <mathiaz> I don't know when this will be done - I haven't seen anything on the debian front
[16:06] <mathiaz> so we may wanna upload 2.4.10 directly
[16:06] <mathiaz> there is some work been done on the cn=config migration - it may land at the same time
[16:07] <mathiaz> that's all I have for the openldap sru
[16:07] <ScottK> I'd suggest don't sweat 2.4.10 until 2.4.9 is in hardy-updates.
[16:07] <ScottK> Maybe Debian gets it done in the mean time.
[16:07] <mathiaz> ScottK: for hardy - I aggree
[16:07]  * sommer_ can report that 2.4.9 works fine
[16:07] <ScottK> For Intrepid there is no rush.
[16:07] <mathiaz> but we have some spec related to openldap for intrepid
[16:07] <zul> mathiaz: I wouldnt rush with 2.4.10 since I think it has like 5 fixes
[16:07] <zul> (for hardy)
[16:08] <mathiaz> zul: right - I don't think we should rush either
[16:08] <nijaba> zul: any reported bug that would match thise 5 fixes in 2.4.10?
[16:08] <ScottK> I don't think the spec stuff needs 2.4.10
[16:08] <zul> 3 of those fixes have been backported anways
[16:08] <zul> nijaba: not yet :)
[16:08] <nijaba> +1 on let's wait, then
[16:09] <mathiaz> nijaba: right - anyway we have to get 2.4.10 in intrepid first
[16:09] <mathiaz> the other interesting bit is that 2.4.11 will probably have the nss ldapd backend available
[16:09] <zul> mathiaz: debian ok to the changes I have only seen one or two about it
[16:10] <mathiaz> it has been commited in upstream cvs - so it should be available in the contrib/ directory in 2.4.11
[16:10] <nijaba> mathiaz: yes, I think that is the one we should target for intrepid
[16:10] <zul> dont forget to enable the test suite for intrepid as well :)
[16:11] <mathiaz> zul: right - :)
[16:11] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Ebox and Ubuntu centralize server administrator spec
[16:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ebox and Ubuntu centralize server administrator spec
[16:12] <mathiaz> so I was supposed to invite a bunch of people to discuss this
[16:12] <mathiaz> and I haven't done so
[16:12] <nealmcb> from what little I know it seems that getting folks testing the cn=config migration early would help
[16:12] <mathiaz> nxvl sent me an email he wouldn't make it for the meeting
[16:12] <mathiaz> he's been looking into the different suggestions (augeas, etc...)
[16:13] <nijaba> mathiaz: did you have a look at augeas?  it looks likes it could be a great backend
[16:13]  * nijaba realizes the colision
[16:13] <nealmcb> still seems worthwhile getting the folks together to compare notes - next week?
[16:13] <mathiaz> nijaba: I just rapidly looked over the website - and indeed it looks promising
[16:14] <mathiaz> nealmcb: well - nxvl won't make it either
[16:14] <nealmcb> the backend is indeed pretty important - and getting a common backend with both rpm and apt- centric systems would be great
[16:14] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I think the big question we'd ask to the ebox developer is whether they consider switching to ageas
[16:14]  * nealmcb nods
[16:14]  * nijaba too
[16:14] <mathiaz> nealmcb: that could probably be done on their mailing lists
[16:14] <nealmcb> nxvl won't be here next week?
[16:15] <nijaba> mathiaz: and/or on #ebox
[16:15] <mathiaz> nealmcb: IFAIU he won't - he doesn't have access to IRC at this time of the day
[16:15] <ScottK> Could we have a link for augeas?
[16:15] <mathiaz> nealmcb: so I'll send an email to the ebox developer
[16:16] <mathiaz> ScottK: http://augeas.net/
[16:16] <zul> augeas.net
[16:16] <nealmcb> ScottK: see nxvl's spec....
[16:16] <nijaba> mathiaz: could we call another exceptional meeting a a time that works for nxvl on this subject?
[16:16] <mathiaz> and report back their answer
[16:16] <nealmcb> nijaba: +1
[16:16] <mathiaz> nijaba: that would be another option - but what would we discuss
[16:16] <mathiaz> nijaba: we can use his spec for more discussion
[16:16] <nijaba> mathiaz: ok
[16:17] <mathiaz> nijaba: we may not need a formal meeting
[16:17] <mathiaz> nijaba: I think we should ask him first
[16:17] <ScottK> I'd suggest getting something like that into Ubuntu for a release cycle on it's own before we try to integrate it.
[16:17] <nealmcb> I see this as the broader discussion of really making u-server easy to use, which I think implies a gui, and I'd like more than just a few folks there
[16:17] <mathiaz> [ACTION] mathiaz to send an email to the ebox devs about augeas
[16:17] <MootBot> ACTION received:  mathiaz to send an email to the ebox devs about augeas
[16:18] <nealmcb> ..easy to use for folks new to linux...
[16:18] <Brazen> seems more geared to a home server, than an smb server, though
[16:18] <nealmcb> and I think having more people behind fewer projects would be better....
[16:19] <mathiaz> nealmcb: right - that's a broad topic that could be discussed for hours, if not days
[16:19] <mathiaz> let's move on
[16:19] <ScottK> Yes, but with volunteers, one doesn't always get the fewer projects choice.
[16:19] <nealmcb> easier to use at multiple levels - both home and enterprise
[16:19] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Spec status/review
[16:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  Spec status/review
[16:19] <nealmcb> ScottK: sure - I'm just hoping that more cross-fertilization will help
[16:20] <mathiaz> ScottK is around to ask what is targeted for intrepid
[16:20] <ScottK> Yes.
[16:20] <mathiaz> dendrobates: any news on this front ?
[16:20] <dendrobates> mathiaz: not yet.
[16:21] <ScottK> So far I've not gotten significant feedback on what I wrote up.  I don't know if anyone else is in a different position.
[16:21] <mathiaz> ScottK: what's the link to your spec ?
[16:22] <ScottK> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-flavors
[16:22] <mathiaz> I'm planning to write another post about intrepid spec
[16:22] <mathiaz> ScottK: I could include some of your specs there
[16:22] <mathiaz> ScottK: it may get a wider coverage
[16:22] <ScottK> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/clamav-spamassassin-in-main and https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/amavisd-dkim are trivial to implement.  I just need approval.
[16:23] <ScottK> I'm more interested in dendrobates approval at this point.  For the first one manpower will be an issue, but without official backing, I'm not going to invest time in it.
[16:23] <mathiaz> ScottK: if they're trivial, why not just do it ?
[16:24] <mathiaz> ScottK: clamav-spamassin-in-main makes sense and was discussed at UDS
[16:25] <ScottK> Because if Canonical is going to move these packages into a supported catagory, I think I need a Canonical approval.
[16:25] <nealmcb> ScottK: could there be a useful connection between augeas or other gui config backends and the config part of your flavors stuff?
[16:25] <ScottK> For the MIR, I want to be able to say the rationale is approved spec.
[16:25] <ScottK> nealmcb: I can see where it would be potentially useful.
[16:26] <mathiaz> ScottK: hm - right - having a rationale that says the ubuntu server team thinks that spamassin is usefull for our mail server and thus should be included into main makes sense
[16:26] <ScottK> I think we all agree.  I just need dendrobates to flip the bit in Launchpad.
[16:28] <mathiaz> Ok - so is there any other specs that are worth mentioning ?
[16:28] <mathiaz> I've already got a list of kirkland's spec and some of them are alreay coming along
[16:28] <zul> not me
[16:28] <kirkland> mathiaz: yeah, i just started working on them, got something started
[16:28] <mathiaz> I'll also mention the ldap related spec
[16:28] <ScottK> mathiaz: I intend to hold off on work on those specs until they are approved.
[16:28] <kirkland> mathiaz: if they don't get approved, i'll stop working on them for intrepid
[16:28] <zul> Im still stuck on hardy ;)
[16:29] <kirkland> mathiaz: and the framework will be there for someone else to do in spare time for Intrepid + N
[16:29] <mathiaz> kirkland: great - at the least the spec are written
[16:30] <mathiaz> let's move on
[16:30] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Proposed ubuntu server team PPA
[16:30] <MootBot> New Topic:  Proposed ubuntu server team PPA
[16:30] <mathiaz> zul: is your PPA getting too small ?
[16:30] <ScottK> Is there a written proposal on this?
[16:31] <mathiaz> ScottK: this = ?
[16:31] <zul> mathiaz: well, its more of an offical/unoffical testing ppa that I can point users to rather than my ppa because mine is in a constant state of flux
[16:31] <ScottK> The proposed server team PPA.
[16:31] <zul> ScottK: no there isnt
[16:31] <ScottK> zul: Why not just make a new one called zul-stable.
[16:32] <mathiaz> zul: what would be the difference between yours and ubuntu-server ppa ?
[16:32] <nxvl> is it possible?
[16:32] <ScottK> Make a new Launchpad account.
[16:32] <zul> ScottK: because my ppa would not be a good place to ask users to try out bug fixes
[16:32] <nxvl> i think you can only use a ppa with your account name/team
[16:32] <Koon> nxvl: you can have a ppa for a team in LP
[16:32] <ScottK> So make a new one.
[16:32] <nxvl> Koon: that's what i said
[16:33] <mathiaz> zul: what would you put in ubuntu-server ppa and not in zul ppa ?
[16:33] <ScottK> Before proceeding, please make sure you aren't going to flood the rest of us with mail from LP as a result.
[16:33] <zul> mathiaz: widely tested bug fixes for samba for example
[16:33] <nealmcb> nxvl: welcome!  We were talking before about when to schedule an irc meeting about you and ebox and server gui stuff, but thought this was a bad time for you.
[16:33] <mathiaz> zul: isn't that what -proposed is for ?
[16:34] <zul> mathiaz: true but that can take a couple of days to get in
[16:34] <nxvl> nealmcb: it is
[16:34] <nxvl> nealmcb: but, i'm breaking some rules in here
[16:34] <nxvl> :D
[16:34] <nealmcb> :)
[16:34] <ScottK> zul: I feel pretty strongly that PPA shouldn't be used for anything other than transitional testing of packages sign the releases files aren't signed.
[16:34] <nxvl> nealmcb: there is no proxy or security system that can control a geek
[16:35] <mathiaz> zul: but in zul ppa there is broken stuff ?
[16:36] <zul> mathiaz: its not fine polished before it gets uploaded to -proposed, its more of a staging area
[16:36] <mathiaz> zul: currently I see one package in zul ppa
[16:36] <mathiaz> zul: I don't see what we would gain by adding a ubuntu-server ppa
[16:36] <zul> mathiaz: thats because I deleted alot the other day
[16:37] <zul> mathiaz: fine with me, just an idea to throw it out there
[16:37] <mathiaz> zul: well - I'm not convinced of having yet another place to publish packages
[16:37] <ScottK> zul: I'd suggest just make a new LP account and call it zul-working or some such and then point users at your current PPA once stuff is ready for testing.
[16:38] <zul> mathiaz: cool
[16:38] <mathiaz> ScottK: well - why would there be something not ready for testing in a ppa ?
[16:38] <mathiaz> you're not using ppa to make sure your packages build correctly
[16:38] <ScottK> I thought that was what he wanted a new PPA.
[16:39] <ScottK> mathiaz: Ask zul.
[16:39] <mathiaz> zul: next time you come accross a package that would require a new ppa, could you point it to me ?
[16:40] <zul> mathiaz: sure will do
[16:40] <mathiaz> zul: I'm interested to know when that would happen
[16:40] <mathiaz> zul: and for which reasons
[16:41] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] text browser on the server cd
[16:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  text browser on the server cd
[16:41] <mathiaz> there was a recent thread on -server and -devel about removing w3m from the standard seed
[16:41] <mathiaz> the consensus seemed that w3m should be removed from standard
[16:41] <nxvl> i find w3m really useful
[16:41] <ScottK> We've got plenty of room on the server CD, right?
[16:41]  * nijaba votes for moving it to the server seed
[16:42] <mathiaz> the question is wheter we should includ it in the server seed
[16:42]  * nxvl votes for it also
[16:42] <sommer_> it is useful for reading the html serverguide :)
[16:42] <mathiaz> or drop it from the server seed
[16:42] <nijaba> nealmcb: had some interesting questions thogh
[16:42] <zul> elinks is on the server cd isnt it?
[16:42]  * jdstrand thinks it should be on the cd
[16:42] <nijaba> elinks for example
[16:42] <mathiaz> so one question: should w3m be installed by default in ubuntu server ?
[16:43] <jdstrand> (or at least one text browser
[16:43] <jdstrand> )
[16:43] <kirkland> i believe that one of lynx/elinks/w3m should be in the default server install
[16:43] <nealmcb> choice, security issues, etc.  when the network is down it is nice to not be stuck on a system without a text browser
[16:43] <ScottK> It's there now.  We shouldn't remove it without a good reason.
[16:43]  * Brazen thinks it should not be on the server cd
[16:43]  * sommer_ concurs with kirkland
[16:43] <ScottK> Why not?
[16:43] <kirkland> i have stood at a console of a server, in a lab, and needed a web browser
[16:43] <nealmcb> last I saw, w3m seemed best, but I heard those arguments for elinks and want to know more
[16:43] <zul> the qa tests for the cd uses w3m btw
[16:44]  * nijaba agrees with kirkland
[16:44]  * jdstrand too
[16:44] <kirkland> i did a cursory look over lynx/elinks/w3m ... w3m seemed nicest... cools, keybindings, etc.
[16:44] <zul> nealmcb: elinks works with things like gmail
[16:44]  * nealmcb is amazed
[16:44] <kirkland> lynx is very, very basic.  elinks is a logical followon of lynx
[16:44] <Brazen> It's easy enough to install with aptitude
[16:44] <nxvl> yep
[16:44] <nxvl> +1 for this idea
[16:44] <kirkland> i definitely don't think we need more than one of those on the server by default, though
[16:44] <ScottK> Brazen: That assumes a network.
[16:45] <nxvl> we need a text browser and w3m is the coolest
[16:45] <Brazen> ScottK: but if you think it is necessary, you can install it beforehand
[16:45] <ScottK> Brazen: What benifit is there to removing it?
[16:45] <nealmcb> elinks depends on libperl, liblua, libruby
[16:45] <Brazen> nxvl: but you ask 3 different sysadmins which is coolest, and you get 3 different answers
[16:45] <Koon> so the use case is "I need a text web browser even if the network is down", then it should be left in
[16:45] <ScottK> Brazen: If I knew in advance when I wasn't going to have a network, then I'd probably do that.
[16:46] <ScottK> Yes, I can read html in vim, but prefer to avoid it.
[16:47] <nealmcb> do we have a sense for the security exposure and support costs of the different options?
[16:47] <Brazen> ScottK: maybe I'm just a little too paranoid on security, and used the mindset that a browser is about the second worst thing to have on a server next to an X stack
[16:47] <nxvl> Brazen: mm, you are right
[16:47] <mathiaz> allright - so it seems that we have consensus on installing w3m by default during a server install
[16:47] <nealmcb> what do other distros do?
[16:47] <ScottK> I disagree.  It's only a risk if it's running and that takes an admin.
[16:47] <kirkland> nealmcb: install all of X
[16:48] <nxvl> r give you the option to choose package on installation
[16:48] <kirkland> nealmcb: RHEL default server includes gnome + firefox
[16:48] <ScottK> mathiaz: We already install it by default.  There is clearly no consensus to stop doing that.
[16:48] <Brazen> as someone on the ml put it, on servers less is more
[16:48] <mathiaz> ScottK: right - we're already doing it -
[16:48] <Brazen> That's probably the biggest issue I have with RHEL
[16:48] <mathiaz> so the next step is to modify the seed and move w3m from -standard to -server
[16:49] <ScottK> Personally I'd put a web server well about a web browser in terms of security risk.
[16:49] <mathiaz> nijaba: has the -server seed already been created ?
[16:49] <nealmcb> kirkland: amazing....
[16:49] <Brazen> kinda hard to have a server without any services though
[16:49] <nijaba> mathiaz: I have made a proposal to cjwatson, wainting for his feedback
[16:49] <jdstrand> IIRC w3m is not actively maintained upstream (it's been at 0.5.1 since  dapper). elinks is, but has had 3 minor security vulnerabilites in the last 2 years
[16:49] <ScottK> Brazen: True, but there are lots of services that aren't web services.
[16:50] <mathiaz> nijaba: ok
[16:50] <nijaba> mathiaz: it includes more changes in the suported seed though
[16:50] <kirkland> jdstrand: that was one of the reasons that mdz asked about removing it entirely (non-active upstream)
[16:50] <Brazen> ScottK: I don't put a web service on any server that isn't a web server
[16:50] <jdstrand> Brazen: I think it is entirely approriate to have software that allows you to read the manual that is mentioned in motd
[16:51] <jdstrand> I'd pick elinks, but don't personally care either way
[16:51] <mathiaz> ok - so to sumarize: w3m can be removed from the -standard seed and moved to the -server once it's created
[16:51] <nijaba> yes
[16:51] <mdz> kirkland: actually, someone else brought that up; I didn't realize upstream was in question
[16:51] <kirkland> mdz: sorry, my bad ... /me goes check the thread
[16:51] <Brazen> jdstrand: I would expect to be able to read the manual on a workstation, or a testing server.
[16:51] <mdz> mathiaz: I think there are probably other packages which fall into this same category
[16:51] <mathiaz> jdstrand: that brings up the other question of text browser in main
[16:51] <mdz> I think the standard and minimal seeds should get a thorough review for things which are desktop- or server-specific
[16:51] <mathiaz> jdstrand: we should only have one
[16:51] <cjwatson> w3m has a pretty excellent feature set and doesn't seem to have very much wrong with it, maintained or not
[16:52] <nxvl> well, need to run i have a meeting in 5 minutes
[16:52] <nxvl> see you later!
[16:52]  * nijaba waves at nxvl
[16:52]  * kirkland changes attribution of "w3m upstream is dead" from mdz to "Steven Harms" ... sorry
[16:52] <mathiaz> mdz: agreed - I looked through the seeds during the hardy cycle and nothing stood out
[16:53] <mathiaz> mdz: but it wasn't with the split between desktop and server in mind
[16:53] <Brazen> with all that said, I prefer lynx (just not on a production server :D )
[16:53] <mathiaz> mdz: so once the -server seed is created we should defintely revisit this issue
[16:53] <mdz> mathiaz: really?  I see a few more things which are questionable
[16:53] <mdz> mathiaz: ntfs-3g isn't of much use on servers
[16:54] <nijaba> mathiaz: as said, I have done that for supported and was planning on doing it for standard/minimal as well
[16:54] <mathiaz> mdz: IIRC there was wpa-supplicant
[16:54] <sommer_> don't people share ntfs mounts through samba?
[16:54] <dendrobates> mdz:  I do as well.  We discussed having a review at UDS.
[16:54] <mdz> inputattach says it is for serial mice
[16:55] <mathiaz> dendrobates: right - has this happened ?
[16:55] <cjwatson> sommer_: that use doesn't require ntfs-3g
[16:55] <dendrobates> mathiaz: not yet.
[16:55] <sommer_> cjwatson: yep, spoke too soon :)
[16:55] <Keybuk> mdz: joysticks, isn't it?
[16:55] <cjwatson> sommer_: unless you mean that the NTFS filesystem is hosted on the server itself
[16:55] <Keybuk> oh, right, and legacy mice
[16:56] <Brazen> I think the default server install should be more akin to JEOS (but with full hardware support) and give an option to install a set of "useful administrative packages"
[16:56] <sommer_> cjwatson: that is what I was thinking, just remember some bugs about it a while back
[16:56] <cjwatson> serial mice> more common on servers than anywhere else, I'd expect; ancient hardware lying around in DCs
[16:56] <nealmcb> sommer_: and in that case folks can install ntfs support themselves...
[16:56] <Keybuk> cjwatson: but X servers? not so common
[16:56] <sommer_> nealmcb: sure, just thought I'd mention the use case
[16:56] <Brazen> Keybuk: good call
[16:57] <cjwatson> Keybuk: true
[16:57] <Keybuk> inputattach is basically for making them visible to the X server by making /dev/input/blah devices for them
[16:57] <Keybuk> I don't think gpm uses that
[16:57] <mdz> cjwatson: util-linux-locales is a bit pointless in minimal, since all its files are stripped out into langpacks
[16:57] <mdz> dendrobates: sorry, don't mean to hijack your meeting for a general seed review
[16:58] <cjwatson> mdz: yes, it should be in supported just so that it stays in main and gets langpack-stripped
[16:58] <mdz> cjwatson: and I agree with mathiaz that wpasupplicant ought to move
[16:58] <mathiaz> allright - so there seems to be a need for genered seed review - which won't be finished in the next 2 minutes
[16:58] <nealmcb> But I think Brazen's suggestion of e.g. a minimal server with a tasksel option for stuff like w3m might make sense
[16:59] <mathiaz> so let's move on
[16:59] <mathiaz> so is there any ACTION item on this point ?
[16:59] <nealmcb> have to figure out what would be in the "useful admin packages" section
[16:59] <cjwatson> nealmcb: the standard seed, clearly
[16:59] <mathiaz> it seems that we're waiting for the creation of the -server seed
[16:59] <cjwatson> (that's the obvious way to implement it right now and it's a trivial configuration change. I'm not saying I agree with it BTW)
[16:59] <ScottK> mathiaz: Add w3m to the server seed when created.
[17:00] <cjwatson> w3m (or generally a text browser) belongs in standard
[17:00] <mathiaz> and then we'll be able to move things around (w3m being amongst the first one)
[17:00] <cjwatson> IMO
[17:00] <cjwatson> I would want it in desktop too
[17:01] <mathiaz> hm - so the position of the server team is that we'd like to have w3m on server installs
[17:01] <dendrobates> mathiaz: yes, someone needs to review the seeds and report back to the group.
[17:01] <mathiaz> we're happy to have it in the -server seed - if the desktop team wants it also it could be move to the standard seed
[17:02] <mathiaz> that seems to be a broader question that may need to be discussed on -devel
[17:02] <cjwatson> mathiaz: by saying that it should be moved to the server seed, that is equivalent to saying that the desktop team doesn't want it
[17:02] <cjwatson> which I don't think this meeting is empowered to do ...
[17:02] <mathiaz> cjwatson: aggreed
[17:02]  * nealmcb forgets which seed it is in now....
[17:02] <ScottK> Prefix it all with "If removed from standard"
[17:02] <Keybuk> I don't think the desktop should have a text-based web browser
[17:02] <cjwatson> feel free to put it in server *as well* to assert that you guys want it anyway
[17:02] <Keybuk> (or a text-based e-mail client, irc client, etc.)
[17:03]  * Brazen high-fives Keybuk
[17:03] <mathiaz> so I'll send a reply to the email thread on -devel with the position of the server team
[17:04] <mathiaz> [ACTION] mathiaz to send a reply to the thread with the position of the server team
[17:04] <MootBot> ACTION received:  mathiaz to send a reply to the thread with the position of the server team
[17:05] <mathiaz> [ACTION] the seeds should be reviewed wrt to the creation of the server seeds
[17:05] <MootBot> ACTION received:  the seeds should be reviewed wrt to the creation of the server seeds
[17:05] <ScottK> Who's action?
[17:05] <mathiaz> ScottK: I'm sure dendrobates will find someone
[17:06] <dendrobates> mathiaz: my action for now.
[17:06] <Keybuk> ScottK: ITYM "Whose action?"
[17:06] <mathiaz> [ACTION] dendrobates to review seeds wrt to the creation of the server seeds
[17:06] <MootBot> ACTION received:  dendrobates to review seeds wrt to the creation of the server seeds
[17:06] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Open discussion
[17:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open discussion
[17:06] <ScottK> Keybuk: Yes.
[17:07] <mathiaz> Anyone came with crazy ideas for Intrepid ?
[17:07]  * ScottK has spec'ed his crazy idea.
[17:08] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] #
[17:08] <mathiaz> Agree on next meeting date and time.
[17:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  #
[17:08] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Agree on next meeting date and time.
[17:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Agree on next meeting date and time.
[17:08] <Brazen> in regards to Augeas: I just thought I would throw this out there, but would is it too far out there to say - use dpk-reconfigure as a configuration backend?
[17:08] <mathiaz> same place, same time, next week ?
[17:08]  * Brazen crap, too late
[17:09] <nealmcb> Brazen: it would be nice to have something usable on rpm systems also, but I don't know how much complexity that would add etc
[17:10] <nxvl> here again
[17:10] <nxvl> :D
[17:11] <nealmcb> nxvl: does it make sense to you to consider server config stuff next week? would this time work?  with dan and ebox also?
[17:11] <nxvl> nealmcb: nop
[17:11]  * nealmcb would prefer to also have skeptics like scottk there :)
[17:11] <nxvl> nealmcb: i have a lot of problems at this time of day
[17:11] <nxvl> need to run
[17:12] <mathiaz> ok - so same place, same time, next week
[17:12] <sommer_> mathiaz: I'm all for it
[17:13] <mathiaz> #stopmeeting
[17:13] <nealmcb> thanks all
[17:13] <nijaba> #endmeeting maybe ?
[17:13] <mathiaz> #endmeeting
[17:13] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:16.

MeetingLogs/Server/20080617 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:59:49 by localhost)