20090224

Agenda

Items we will be discussing:

  • Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
  • Review progress made on the specification listed on the Roadmap.

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

Minutes

Postfix and Dovecot integration

ivoks created a wiki page for ideas about improving the mail server task post-jaunty, available at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/MailServer. This will be the base of the discussion for future (Karmic Koala) improvements. He reported all known concerns about this integration as being addressed.

Get rid of old libdb versions

ScottK and vorian reported good progress on that project. There is still an issue with ldiskfsprogs dependency on libdb4.4 that needs to be worked out.

Virtualization

soren announced that Eucalyptus recently entered the archive, which gives us a free implementation of EC2 and S3 that you can deploy on your own infrastructure. This is convenient for testing things before pushing them to the real EC2, or if you want to offer computing resources internal in your organization, but policies forbids putting data or code on something as public as EC2. He welcomes alpha testers, however at that point there is no "getting started" pointers yet, as some things need fixing before it's ready for mass testing.

ClamAV update

ScottK reported imminent release of clamav 0.95. There are still a few issues with libclamav rdepends to iron out.

Open discussion

Two subjects were raised during the open discussion. ivoks mentioned users complaining on our effort on supporting LTS. Bugs get fixed in development releases but are only rarely the object of an LTS SRU. Part of the problem is that bugs in Fix Released state tend to disappear from default launchpad bug views, and that the nomination system doesn't really result in clear tracking of bugs affecting a given release. This interesting discussion would benefit from being a future meeting agenda point by itself, so that we can also invite some QA members to the discussion.

ACTION: ivoks to add to next week agenda an item about better SRU bugtracking

The second subject was raised by ScottK and is about Landscape integration into MOTD. Is it a good idea for Ubuntu to allow packages to output links to proprietary add-ons ? dendrobates answered that the decision on that matter was outside this meeting realm of control, but that this opinion would be reported up and could make a good UDS discussion. ScottK replied that this, affecting the server product, was in our realm of control and would have preferred this matter to be resolved before Jaunty release.

Agree on next meeting date and time

Next meeting will be on Tuesday, March 3rd at 16:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.

Log

[16:07] <ttx> #startmeeting
[16:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:07. The chair is ttx.
[16:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:07] <ttx> Today's agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[16:07] <ttx> Last week minutes: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20090217
[16:08] <ttx> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:08]  * ttx frantically reads up last meeting minutes
[16:09] <ttx> Postfix and Dovecot integration: ivoks to create a wiki page for ideas about improving the mail server task post-jaunty
[16:09] <ivoks> here
[16:09] <ttx> ivoks: ?
[16:09] <ivoks> well, i've set up a wiki
[16:09] <ivoks> small, but a start
[16:09] <ivoks> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/MailServer
[16:09] <ivoks> which is for karmic, so no much point in discussing now
[16:10] <soren> ivoks: cjwatson had concerns about the approach used in the dovecot/postfix integration. Were they adressed?
[16:10] <ivoks> soren: when? 2 weeks ago?
[16:10] <soren> ivoks: Think so, yes.
[16:10] <ivoks> soren: we've solved the whole thing according to his advice
[16:10] <dendrobates> we can address them at UDS, if not.
[16:11] <ivoks> unless there are some new
[16:11] <ivoks> which i'm unaware of :)
[16:11] <ttx> sounds good
[16:11] <soren> ivoks: No, nothing new.
[16:11] <ivoks> ok
[16:11] <ttx> Power management: kirkland to blog about using suspend/resume for servers.
[16:12] <dendrobates> ttx: he is not here, but is blocked on me.
[16:12] <soren> I was just checking. I haven't had a time to review it myself.
[16:12] <soren> ivoks: ^
[16:12] <dendrobates> I will give him approval as soon as I manage to talk to him.
[16:12] <ttx> ok.
[16:12] <ttx> [TOPIC] Roadmap review
[16:12] <MootBot> New Topic:  Roadmap review
[16:12] <ivoks> soren: test it, should be fully functional and i don't think there'll be anything else for jaunty
[16:13] <dendrobates> or if he reads these minutes, go ahead.
[16:13] <ttx> Anyone has a status report on part of the roadmap that would be assigned to himself ?
[16:14] <sommer> the doc.u.c site is updated and ready for reviews :)
[16:14] <ScottK> vorian has been doing some good work on the libdb consolidation.
[16:15] <ttx> The roadmap page looks a little... oudated
[16:15] <vorian> yes, slight snag with libdb4.4 though
[16:15] <ttx> outdated, even.
[16:16] <vorian> ldiskfsprogs seems to only want to build/work with libdb4.4
[16:17] <ttx> ok. Soren, want to do an update on the virtualization front ?
[16:17] <soren> I could. :)
[16:17] <soren> So, since we last saw each other, Eucalyptus entered the archive.
[16:18] <soren> This gives us a free implementation of EC2 and S3 that you can deploy on your own infrastructure.
[16:18] <soren> This is convenient for testing things before pushing them to the real EC2 or if you want to offer computing ressources internal in your organisation, but policies forbids putting data or code on something as public as EC2.
[16:19] <soren> Alpha testers are very welcome.
[16:20] <sommer> soren: what's need to test?
[16:20] <ttx> soren: is there any start page / instructions for first-time testers ?
[16:20] <soren> ttx: No, not yet. There's still some things that needs fixing before it's ready for mass testing.
[16:20] <ivoks> i might test that :)
[16:20] <soren> Once they're sorted out, I'll post a call for testing.
[16:21] <ttx> ok.
[16:21] <ivoks> soren: if i got you right, one can't offer S3 like service
[16:22] <ivoks> soren: but can use it inside it's own web project?
[16:22] <ivoks> s/it's/its/
[16:22] <soren> ivoks: Yes, you can offer this to other people as well.
[16:23] <ivoks> oh
[16:24] <ttx> soren: anything else ?
[16:24] <soren> No, I'm good.
[16:24] <ttx> ok. We are missing a lot of people, anyone else has a roadmap item he wants to give an update on, now that feature freeze is in effect ?
[16:25] <ScottK> I'll just toss out that clamav 0.95 is imminent.
[16:25] <ScottK> I expect an RC this week or next.
[16:25] <ScottK> It's known to break all the libclamav rdepends.
[16:25] <sommer> the last thing for the serverguide is the cloud stuff, can you ping me when it's ready to test soren?
[16:26] <ttx> ScottK: i suppose it was accepted as a FFe ?
[16:27] <ScottK> If we can get the rdepends working, I'm sure it will be.
[16:27] <ScottK> We'd really rather not release with an obsolete clamav.
[16:27] <soren> sommer: Yes, I will.
[16:27] <ttx> I agree with that.
[16:27] <sommer> soren: awesome, thanks :)
[16:27] <ivoks> +1 for clamav
[16:28] <ttx> ok, then lets' move on to:
[16:28] <ttx> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[16:28] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[16:28] <ivoks> i have one thing...
[16:28] <ttx> Good.
[16:28] <ivoks> there are some users that complaing on our effort on supporting LTS
[16:29] <ttx> ivoks: as in: not SRUing enough ?
[16:29]  * kirkland is here now
[16:29] <ivoks> if we could give more love to LTS somehow, that would be great
[16:29] <ivoks> ttx: well, they do have a point with on thing
[16:29] <ttx> most complains I've seen are for backports
[16:29] <ScottK> As in wanting more?
[16:29] <ivoks> if we fix a bug in lts+ release, we don't backport that fix
[16:30] <ivoks> and we just mark bug as fixed
[16:30] <ivoks> while, in LTS it's not
[16:30] <ttx> ScottK: as in "please ship that new version, it's so good the LTS needs it"
[16:30] <ScottK> Well we do have backports for this.
[16:30] <ivoks> no, i'm against new versions
[16:30] <ttx> ScottK: that's my usual answer, but they usually don't like it.
[16:31] <ivoks> i'm for fixing bug in current and lts release, not just declaring it fixed since it is fixed in, for example, intrepid or jaunty
[16:31] <zul> yes well if thats the case then the backports need more testing that backports dont break things
[16:31] <ScottK> Which is why backports is great.  You don't have to have them.
[16:31] <ScottK> zul: backports very rarely break things.
[16:31] <dendrobates> and we don't have to include them in the point releases.
[16:31] <ScottK> Yes.
[16:32] <ivoks> (fwiw, i didn't talk about backports)
[16:32] <ScottK> OK
[16:32] <ttx> ivoks: so your point is that we lose sight of valid SRU bugs because their development-release task is Fix Released ?
[16:32] <ivoks> ttx: correct
[16:32] <ScottK> If any of you are MOTU and interested in getting involved in the backports process, we need more people to review backports requests.  Please contact me.
[16:33] <ivoks> i'm just saying, maybe we should pay more attention on these things
[16:34] <ttx> We could have a review of fixed bugs and decide if they make likely/badly-wanted/not wanted candidates for the SRU process
[16:34] <sommer> ivoks: is there a list of such bugs?  I can probably help with them
[16:34] <ivoks> or ask users what they think about LTS releases?
[16:34] <sommer> err help test anyway
[16:34] <ScottK> ivoks: Users generally don't find it OK to leave any bugs unfixed.
[16:34] <ivoks> sommer: i don't have a list, these were complaints on #ubuntu-server 2 days ago
[16:35] <ivoks> sommer: from couple of users
[16:35] <sommer> ivoks: okay, I may have missed them, I'll try and find them
[16:35] <ttx> I agree we tend to lose sight of the fixed-in-development-release bugs. And the nomination process doesn't really help.
[16:35] <ivoks> sommer: check sunday
[16:37] <ttx> any suggestion on a process we could use to better track that ?
[16:38] <sommer> could we add tags like hardy-needed, intrepid-needed, etc then remove them when the fix is committed?
[16:38] <ttx> like systematically nominating for relevant releases, and have a session where we look at them and accept/deny them ?
[16:38] <sommer> not sure if that fits, but just a suggestion
[16:38] <ttx> sommer: theorically that's what nominations are for
[16:39] <sommer> ttx: yep, that's better than :)
[16:39] <ivoks> right, nominations should be fine for that
[16:39] <ivoks> if bug is reported in LTS, then fix it in LTS and development-release
[16:39] <ivoks> not just development-release
[16:40] <ivoks> i'm just acting on users feedback :)
[16:40]  * ttx misses the LP-foo required to not losing sight of fixed-in-development-release bugs. Any way to get a list of "nominated for hardy" bugs ?
[16:41] <soren> ttx: Yes. Hang on.
[16:41] <ttx> hm.
[16:42] <ttx> we can't really nominate all relevant bugs and then jave a session of acceptance/denial
[16:42] <ttx> s/jave/have/
[16:42] <soren> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+nominations I think.
[16:42] <ttx> since for people with superpowers, nominating also does accept the nomination.
[16:42] <soren> s/edge// if you're not cool enough for that.
[16:43] <ttx> :P
[16:43] <dendrobates> I can approve nonimations.
[16:43] <soren> It seems I can, too.
[16:43] <ivoks> i can too :)
[16:44] <dendrobates> soren: really?
[16:44] <dendrobates> hmm.
[16:44] <ivoks> wow, i have superpowers!
[16:44] <ttx> dendrobates: the problem is not really approving. Suppose a core-dev wants to say "this one affects hardy" but not really say "this is a good SRU candidate".
[16:44] <dendrobates> I thought it was restircted to drivers.
[16:44] <ivoks> :)
[16:44] <soren> dendrobates: That page I just linked to shows radio buttons that I can click on. I haven't tried it, but LP usually only shows you these things if you can actually change thenm.
[16:44] <ttx> if the core-dev nominates, it will be automatically accepted, no ?
[16:45] <soren> dendrobates: ubuntu-core-dev is listed as driver as well.
[16:45] <soren> dendrobates: https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy
[16:45] <dendrobates> ahh, I think that is new.
[16:45] <ttx> so you can't really say "affects hardy" and let the bug-reviewing department decide on SRU potential
[16:45] <soren> I do, too.
[16:46] <ttx> ivoks: that's a good point, I propose you add it as a proper agenda item for next week session.
[16:46] <ivoks> ok
[16:46] <ttx> and we can brainstorm during the week.
[16:46] <soren> ivoks: I'm curious why you can, though. You're not core-dev, are you?
[16:46] <ivoks> soren: i'm not
[16:46] <ttx> We could have some QA people joining us
[16:47] <soren> ivoks: *shrug*
[16:47] <ivoks> ttx: imho, we should reach to our users and ask them what they want; push brainstorm.u.c a bit more
[16:47] <ivoks> that's the easiest and best way to world domination :)
[16:47] <dendrobates> ivoks: but only if we are going to take the suggestions seriously.
[16:48] <ivoks> dendrobates: right
[16:48] <ttx> ACTION: ivoks to add to next week agenda an item about better SRU bugtracking
[16:48] <ttx> [ACTION] ivoks to add to next week agenda an item about better SRU bugtracking
[16:48] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ivoks to add to next week agenda an item about better SRU bugtracking
[16:49] <ttx> bah bot
[16:49] <ScottK> I'm somewhat reluctant to do this, but I'm going to bring up Bug 268447 - I think it makes a poor initial impression for new Ubuntu Server users.
[16:49] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 268447 in landscape-client "MOTD should not point to https://landscape.canonical.com if you are not a customer" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/268447
[16:49] <ScottK> I'm not arguing what's there isn't allowable, just I don't think it's a good idea for Ubuntu.
[16:50] <ttx> ivoks: if you'er MOTU you can apparently accept nominations for universe packages.
[16:50] <ivoks> ttx: right
[16:51] <ivoks> ScottK: i understand you, and from community point of view, that might not be best thing to pop onto new users; but i personaly don't have anything against that line :|
[16:51] <ttx> ScottK: if it's not a bug, then that should be raised in more "discussion" channels, I guess
[16:51]  * ScottK didn't file it as a bug.
[16:52] <ttx> ScottK: I did ;)
[16:52] <ScottK> This would be doing that (raising it in discussion channels).
[16:52] <nealmcb> I agree with ScottK.
[16:53] <ScottK> Just consider if we want every package that writes to stdout to include links to proprietary add-ons?
[16:53] <ScottK> I'm pretty sure we don't, but as long as that's there, it's very hard to argue against it.
[16:53] <ivoks> like firefox on BBC?
[16:53] <ivoks> you have a link to launchpad inside every app on desktop
[16:53]  * ScottK gets his BBC news via email, so dunno.
[16:54] <ScottK> But Launchpad is used by Ubuntu for stuff.
[16:54] <ScottK> Landscape is a seprate product.
[16:55] <ScottK> At least for me the only Launchpad stuff I find in apps is about filing bugs.
[16:55] <dendrobates> This is outside of our realm of control.  But your opinion will be noted and report up.
[16:55] <nealmcb> What would be more appropraite for the MOTD would be a link to server documentation either on the web or via a local help application - I forget where that discussion ended up
[16:55] <dendrobates> We did our best to make it as innocous as possible, but I understand your concern.
[16:56] <ScottK> dendrobates: If it's in an Ubuntu Server package, I disagree.
[16:56] <ScottK> It is exactly in our realm of control.
[16:56] <ivoks> would 'Find out how to manager your server on http://www.ubuntu.com/manager' be better?
[16:56] <ivoks> and from there, offer canonical and 'community' solutions?
[16:56] <ScottK> Yes, I think it would if it offered both.
[16:57] <ivoks> but, we don't have community way of doing this :(
[16:57] <nealmcb> and launchpad doesn't cost money and will be open source within 6 months
[16:57] <dendrobates> ivoks: I agree, I will try and push that. We should discuss it briefly at UDS.
[16:57] <ivoks> s/manager/manage/ lol
[16:58] <ivoks> dendrobates: web site could provde more information about landscape, so should be even better for canonical
[16:58] <ttx> ok, let's wrap up
[16:58] <ScottK> If you scroll up to the tech board meeting just before us sabdfl made it clear when discussing Landscape that he didn't want it to get special priviledges because it was Landscape (and a Canonical product), but that it might be an example of more general cases.
[16:58] <ScottK> dendrobates: I'd like to see this resovled before release, so UDS is a bit late.
[16:58]  * ScottK stops
[16:59] <nealmcb> ivoks: good idea - it could combine my "help" idea and the more active management that motd readers might want
[16:59] <ttx> it's a complex subject for an open discussion item, I guess
[16:59] <ttx> [TOPIC] Agree on next meeting date and time
[16:59] <MootBot> New Topic:  Agree on next meeting date and time
[16:59] <ttx> next week, same time, same place ?
[16:59] <ivoks> +1
[16:59] <ttx> hopefully mathiaz won't lose network connection 5 minutes before the meeting starts.
[17:00] <ttx> and the meeting will look better prepared :)
[17:00] <ivoks> escuses :)
[17:00] <ivoks> excuses
[17:00] <ttx> #endmeeting
[17:00] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:00.

MeetingLogs/Server/20090224 (last edited 2009-02-25 11:08:45 by ttx)