devel January 2020

devel@lists.centos.org

46 participants
41 discussions

Re: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
by Neal Gompa 12 Jan '20

12 Jan '20

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:13 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 03:13:53PM -0500, Karsten Wade wrote: > > As a centralizing effort, the Board agreed to revisiting the goals > > document created five years ago, and to undergo an effort to refresh those > > goals in the light of the project’s evolution. The Board will be inviting > > various stakeholders into these discussions as we undergo a public > > revision of the goals at the start of 2020. > > Wow, five years goes fast! I'd like to raise an idea for discussion and > thought, and possible further discussion between the Fedora Council and the > CentOS board. [I'm posting this in both groups.] > > Around the same time the CentOS goals were being created, Fedora was working > on plans for "Fedora.next", which included among other things Fedora Server. > I won't rehash all that here, but in short: while that succeeded at some of > its goals, it never really had the user adoption we'd hoped for. Of course, > some of that is simply a matter of lifecycle: while a fast-moving server OS > is useful in some very real cases, it's decidedly niche. > > When Fedora launched that plan, CentOS wasn't really in the "family", and > after, we just kind of existed in parallel, with some very loose > collaboration in areas like EPEL. > > Of course, things are different now. Therefore, I propose that in this next > decade, we make that collaboration stronger. Together, we have a very nice > answer to the fundamental problem of unified operating systems. That is, > some parts move too fast and other parts move too slowly. Between Fedora and > CentOS, we have answers to both! And, with the in-progress dist-git merge, > we even have both _in the same place_. > > Specifically, I'd like to suggest three things. > > First, let's replace Fedora Server as a user-focused artifact with CentOS > Stream. There's still a need for a Fedora Server as an upstream, but most > users of Fedora as a server are making custom builds (or using the basic > Cloud image), not using Fedora Server per se. So, I think we should stop > marketing that to users, and steer people with server use cases outside of > the fast-moving niche to CentOS Stream. The current story of CentOS and > Fedora is pretty confusing to users, and Stream only makes it more so. Let's > simplify things! > > Second, where there's overlap, let's look at merging Fedora and CentOS SIGs > into joint bodies. We have groups like the cloud image SIGs which are > basically doing the exact same thing in two different ways. Same thing with > containers. We also have huge overlaps in documentation and community user > support and all sorts of non-technical project areas. I'm not saying these > all need to be smooshed together, but where it makes sense let's work > together. This, too, brings simplification to the "what's with CentOS vs. > Fedora" story: rather than making contributors pick, we can welcome all with > open arms. > > And finally, let's really take advantage of a merged dist-git repository, > and the capabilities that Modularity gives us. SIGs building things for > CentOS should be able to directly reference Fedora branches where > faster-moving software is useful — and people building things in Fedora > should be able to pull in branches from Stream where a slower-moving version > would make sense. And we could even make additional shared branches where > necessary, using modularity to make optional streams which could be used in > CentOS SIGs, EPEL, or a Fedora OS. > > What do you think? > First, sorry that this email probably doesn't thread will with either one or the other target mailing lists... I had to pick one to thread with, and other slightly loses. The downside of the initial email not being sent to both MLs at once. :( In concept, I certainly see value in bringing CentOS and Fedora closer. However, I think eliminating Fedora variants in favor of CentOS Stream ones (aka rhel-rawhide based variants) is probably premature. There are several issues with doing this as it currently stands: 1. CentOS Koji is pretty closed to a couple of folks in CentOS and Red Hat. This also includes blocking the download of artifacts from Koji. For reasons I don't understand, CentOS is still gated by the RHEL QE folks, and thus RPMs built in Koji cannot be downloaded until they are finally published. This ruins any testing/development before releasing to users. The CBS is a worthless substitute since it's purely for addons. I've been around long enough to remember when Fedora was like this, and back then, it wasn't really considered "okay" for Fedora to be like that (the intent was always there to fix it, and we eventually did!). Today, however, it is considered "okay", and that's a problem. 2. The CentOS community is simply not mature enough to take on the role Fedora does in any meaningful capacity. We already know that this is a problem even with Fedora EPEL, and I strongly believe the issue would be massively magnified if those transitioned to the CentOS Project. The CentOS community is largely a user community that takes and does not give back much, if at all. I've experienced variations of this issue when people (even from Red Hat!) have done finger-pointing to *me* with my packages in EPEL without any acknowledgement that they could have helped. It's depressing that even some Red Hatters consider EPEL not worth contributing to, but still worth being upset about. 3. Today, the CentOS Project is (sadly) a community project in a very superficial sense. Aside from the Virt SIG's Xen subgroup, all SIGs are basically Red Hat product teams, with varying degrees of allowances for community contributions. The community processes within CentOS are mostly nonfunctional because they've had no reason to develop it. There has been very little community development for CentOS. Even with Fermilab and CERN shutting down Scientific Linux, I haven't seen anything from those people coming "into the fold". There's been no outreach or collaboration with other CentOS based derivatives, commercial or otherwise. The private discussions I've had on the matter seem to indicate that there's still ambivalence, if not outright antipathy and hostility toward the broader ecosystem of CentOS derivatives. What I'm more concerned about is that if you eliminate Fedora from any meaningful server based development, you strip all the opportunities for people to iterate on server-oriented changes before they go into rhel-rawhide and push into CentOS Stream. You also essentially kneecap any motivation for other things related to server environments to iterate faster (such as language stacks that are heavily used for web service software) because you've eliminated the major ability for that to ship to users and contributors. It also further accelerates a trend that I think we need to reverse where people consider Fedora unacceptable for server roles. If anything, Fedora is a lot better at being used for servers then it was five years ago. I've personally *stopped* using CentOS for servers because Fedora has gotten so good at it. Upgrades are a breeze and stuff generally works. When it doesn't, it's fixable! That last part is key. With CentOS, it's not, because it has to bounce back into Red Hat first. And Red Hat doesn't really care about issues discovered by CentOS users, and there are no "CentOS developers". So, what this long email is actually saying is that I think it's an interesting idea to bring the two projects together, but eliminating aspects of Fedora in favor of CentOS is premature because CentOS has not actually developed as a community project. Maybe it's worth revisiting after six years of actual community development? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

14 30

Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting
by Karsten Wade 10 Jan '20

10 Jan '20

>From https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/minutes-for-centos-board-of-directors-2019-… Public minutes On 2019-12-18 the CentOS Board of Directors held the final meeting of the 2019 calendar year. The meeting was focused primarily on how the Board can lead the project further into being a contributor-centric open source project while continuing to deliver value to our community of users. Of particular interest is growing participation in CentOS Streams in addition to ongoing efforts around CentOS SIGs. As a centralizing effort, the Board agreed to revisiting the goals document created five years ago, and to undergo an effort to refresh those goals in the light of the project’s evolution. The Board will be inviting various stakeholders into these discussions as we undergo a public revision of the goals at the start of 2020. In support of these efforts, the Board came to the following decisions, resolutions, and agreements: 1. Image creation, signing, and distribution: 1. AGREED: Board agrees there is a significant technical debt in the content flow. To address this the Board authorizes Community Platform Engineering (CPE) to commit engineering toward addressing this in early CY 2020. 2. ACTION: Jim to work with Fabian/CPE to begin working on a signing and release solution for SIGs, work starting in Jan 2020. 3. ACTION: Prioritize transparency and reporting to foster a better understanding of the build process for CentOS Linux 8, with an emphasis on the update lag/point release challenges 2. Project strategic goals: 1. AGREED: Undergo a revision of the project goals, to include a range of topics from technical to social/cultural. Do this work transparently, reaching out to specific community members and stakeholders such as RHEL Engineering. 3. Consent agenda items: 1. AGREED: Secretary role revitalized -- not formally in the governance yet, role is delegated meeting organization and management duties from the Chair to include calling for meetings, managing the private and public agenda for meetings, and handling the creation and release of private and public minutes. Karsten Wade has volunteered to take this role until approximately June 2020. 2. ACTION: Early in 2020 Karsten & KB to draft governance updates to reflect the Secretary role. AGREED: Board confirms support for planning a shift to sharing auth backends with the Fedora Project. -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://theopensourceway.org gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig

9 15

Re: [CentOS-devel] keepassxc dependency issue
by Andy Hall 09 Jan '20

09 Jan '20

On Wed 8 Jan 2020 Troy Dawson wrote... "I wonder if it's a matter of epel-playground vs epel. It looks like you have to have both enabled if you want to install it." That was exactly it - thanks very much.

1 0

[cloudSIG] Meeting Logs
by Rain Leander 09 Jan '20

09 Jan '20

Mostly chatting, nothing urgent. If you're keen to join, we're thinking of shifting the meeting one hour earlier and we'd love your input. Please let us know! #centos-meeting: CentOS Cloud SIG meeting (2020-01-09)Meeting started by leanderthal at 15:02:32 UTC (full logs <https://www.centos.org/minutes/2020/January/centos-meeting.2020-01-09-15.02…> ). Meeting summary 1. *rollcall* (leanderthal <https://www.centos.org/minutes/2020/January/centos-meeting.2020-01-09-15.02…>, 15:02:40) 2. *open floor* (leanderthal <https://www.centos.org/minutes/2020/January/centos-meeting.2020-01-09-15.02…>, 15:10:33) Meeting ended at 15:20:11 UTC (full logs <https://www.centos.org/minutes/2020/January/centos-meeting.2020-01-09-15.02…> ). Action items 1. (none) People present (lines said) 1. leanderthal (21) 2. smooge (10) 3. centbot (3) -- K Rain Leander OpenStack Community Liaison Open Source Program Office https://www.rdoproject.org/ http://community.redhat.com

1 0

Update from CentOS PaaS SIG
by Gleidson Nascimento 09 Jan '20

09 Jan '20

Hello from CentOS PaaS SIG! We have recently published an update on CentOS blog [1] about OKD v4 and its current state on CentOS. [1] https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/centos-paas-sig-quarterly-report-2/ Thanks, Gleidson

4 3

Re: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
by Patrick Laimbock 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

-----Original message----- >From: Carl George<carl(a)redhat.com> >Sent: Wednesday 8th January 2020 17:01 >To: The CentOS developers mailing list. <centos-devel(a)centos.org> >Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting] > >> While I agree with consolidation, over time, of the SIGs, I do think the name >> should be “Enterprise Linux Community SIGs” or similar. I get that Red Hat has >> a massive influence in all four flavours (Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, Streams), but >> for someone new to the communities, it could be confusing to refer to them as >> “Red Hat”, as most people outside the community see “Red Hat” as referring only >> to “RHEL” and not the wider Enterprise Linux ecosystem. > >Fedora is not Enterprise Linux. To me, the name "Enterprise Linux Community" >excludes Fedora. Im not married to the name "Red Hat Community", but its the >best name I can think of that accurately conveys the scope. What term would >you use to describe the entire ecosystem of Fedora, RHEL, CentOS, CentOS >Stream, and EPEL? Ive always called this the "Red Hat ecosystem". To me the Red Hat ecosystem has always been RHEL plus all RHXXX products plus upstream work. The entire ecosystem is all RPM based but "RPM Community SIGs" is not inclusive enough so does not do it for me. How about "Open Community SIGs" or "Open Linux Community SIGs"? It's neutral. It's Open. This is the way :-) Best, Patrick

1 0

keepassxc dependency issue
by Andy Hall 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

please advise if there is a repo which needs enabling on centos 8 for this to work $ cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core) $ sudo yum install keepassxc [sudo] password for ahall: Last metadata expiration check: 0:12:51 ago on Wed 08 Jan 2020 07:52:00 GMT. Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides libsodium.so.23()(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 - nothing provides libargon2.so.1()(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 - nothing provides libykpers-1.so.1()(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 - nothing provides libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.0)(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 - nothing provides libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.5)(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 - nothing provides libykpers-1.so.1(LIBYKPERS_1.8)(64bit) needed by keepassxc-2.4.3-4.epel8.playground.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) I don't see the required packages for 8 here: https://pkgs.org/download/libsodium https://pkgs.org/download/libargon2 https://pkgs.org/download/libykpers-1 thanks very much

3 2

clusterlabs & HA
by lejeczek 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

hi everybody, I see there is a ticket for resurrection of HA in 8 but I was hoping devel could clarify or maybe even officially declare the future of HA stack(as we have it in 7) with regards to 8. Please? many thanks, L.

2 2

[cloudSIG] Proposal to Change CloudSIG Meeting Time
by Rain Leander 08 Jan '20

08 Jan '20

Hello all During the winter time, there are collisions with the schedule for a few community members as well as a quite late time for a few members. So, I'd like to propose a change in the meeting time, to start one hour SOONER than it does now. Proposal: Thursday 14:00 UTC (1500 CET / 1930 IST / 0900 EST) Current: Thursday 1500 UTC (1600 CET / 2030 IST / 1000 EST) Please let us know if this proposal works for you by replying to this email or reaching out directly to leanderthal on IRC #centos-devel. Thanks so much! -- K Rain Leander OpenStack Community Liaison Open Source Program Office https://www.rdoproject.org/ http://community.redhat.com

1 0

CentOS Stream panel discussion at the FOSDEM Dojo
by Rich Bowen 07 Jan '20

07 Jan '20

With the lovely conversation going about what we want to change/refresh/burn down in 2020, I want to be sure that you're aware of the CentOS Stream panel discussion which will be the first session at the upcoming Dojo in Brussels. If you're not already aware, the Dojo will happen on Friday, December 31st - the day before FOSDEM - and will be held at the Marriott Grand Place. Registration is free, but we ask you to sign up, so that we can plan for catering. Details are at https://wiki.centos.org/Events/Dojo/Brussels2020 The CentOS Stream panel will include people from the board, from Red Hat engineering, and from the community, who will discuss what is happening in CentOS Stream, hear your feedback, and help shape what the future of the project looks like. So, please join us, share your thoughts, and learn what is planned, and what our target dates are for various deliverables. See you in Brussels! -- Rich Bowen - rbowen(a)redhat.com @CentOSProject // @rbowen 859 351 9166

1 1

C8 updates / CentOS-announce
by Leon Fauster 07 Jan '20

07 Jan '20

Do package updates for C8 get announced via centos-announce list? If not whats the new communication "channel"? I see updates but no corresponding announcement ... -- Leon

7 15

Re: [CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]
by Neal Gompa 07 Jan '20

07 Jan '20

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:48 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:11 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > What I'm more concerned about is that if you eliminate Fedora from any > > meaningful server based development, you strip all the opportunities > > for people to iterate on server-oriented changes before they go into > > rhel-rawhide and push into CentOS Stream. You also essentially kneecap > > any motivation for other things related to server environments to > > iterate faster (such as language stacks that are heavily used for web > > service software) because you've eliminated the major ability for that > > to ship to users and contributors. It also further accelerates a trend > > that I think we need to reverse where people consider Fedora > > unacceptable for server roles. If anything, Fedora is a lot better at > > being used for servers then it was five years ago. I've personally > > *stopped* using CentOS for servers because Fedora has gotten so good > > at it. Upgrades are a breeze and stuff generally works. When it > > doesn't, it's fixable! That last part is key. With CentOS, it's not, > > because it has to bounce back into Red Hat first. And Red Hat doesn't > > really care about issues discovered by CentOS users, and there are no > > "CentOS developers". > > > > > > So, what this long email is actually saying is that I think it's an > > interesting idea to bring the two projects together, but eliminating > > aspects of Fedora in favor of CentOS is premature because CentOS has > > not actually developed as a community project. Maybe it's worth > > revisiting after six years of actual community development? > > > I don't think Matthew suggested that we'd stop development of server > technologies in Fedora. I think he was saying that we'd drop the > "Fedora Server Edition" as a user-targeted deliverable. This is an > important distinction. We'd instead focus on server technology > development atop the container and Fedora Cloud Edition use-cases. Today's Cloud Edition is mostly a further stripped down Server Edition variant with different words in the branding. It's our deliverable for clouds like AWS and cloud-like VPSes like DigitalOcean. However, Fedora Server Edition is what people use to run their *own* servers with Fedora, and that also includes things like VMs in more traditional hypervisor setups (oVirt/RHV, VMware, XCP-ng/XenServer, etc.). The key difference between Server and Cloud Edition is the usage of Anaconda to install Fedora. I'm pretty sure we still want to be continually validating *that* works, especially since it's a different codepath in Anaconda from the desktop flavors. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

2 1

Agenda for CentOS Board of Directors 2020-01-08 meeting
by Karsten Wade 07 Jan '20

07 Jan '20

As published here: https://blog.centos.org/2020/01/agenda-for-centos-board-of-directors-2020-0… Public agenda On Wednesday 08 January 2020, the CentOS Board of Directors will hold its first meeting of the decade and 2020 calendar year. Below is the agenda for that meeting that can be shared with the community and wider public. 1. Adopt minutes from 2019-12-18 2. Build pipeline changes 1. Update from Jim/KB 3. Project goals refresh 1. Working session with the draft process doc 2. Planning to announce and begin process in coming weeks 4. Rolling (last from 2019-12-18, new items to the rolling agenda highlighted as [NEW]): 1. [NEW] Reporting on and better understanding the build process for CentOS Linux 8 and the update lag / point release challenges 2. [NEW] Trademark Guidelines review: 1. What works & what does not. 2. What do we want to get fixed; who wants to work on that. 3. [NEW] Looking at new Board membership and structure (ongoing) 1. On hold while goals discussion is held, which includes a review and update of governance. We’ll figure out what model we want from that and how this idea might fit. 4. Any other topics aka What other things do you want on our key initiatives list? 5. New branding work underway 1. Website update work: https://github.com/areguera/centos-style-websites 2. Framework proposed into logo discussion: https://git.centos.org/centos/Artwork/issue/1#comment-62 6. Stepping-up our meeting norms (ongoing) 7. Transparency initiatives (ongoing) -- Karsten Wade [he/him/his]| Senior Community Architect | @quaid Red Hat Open Source Program Office (OSPO) : @redhatopen https://community.redhat.com | https://next.redhat.com | https://theopensourceway.org gpg: AD0E0C41 | https://red.ht/sig

1 0

centos-packager update for Fedora 31?
by Matthias Runge 04 Jan '20

04 Jan '20

Hi there, is there an updated centos-packager version somewhere, that works with Fedora 31? sudo dnf install centos-packager Last metadata expiration check: 1:35:13 ago on Thu 02 Jan 2020 05:30:08 CET. Error: Problem: package centos-packager-0.5.5-2.fc28.noarch requires python-centos, but none of the providers can be installed - conflicting requests - nothing provides python-urllib3 needed by python-centos-0.1.1-2.fc28.noarch - nothing provides python-lockfile needed by python-centos-0.1.1-2.fc28.noarch - nothing provides python-munch needed by python-centos-0.1.1-2.fc28.noarch (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages) Best, Matthias

3 6

CentOS Stream: Respin and new kernel features
by Brian Stinson 04 Jan '20

04 Jan '20

Hi Folks, First a bit of administrivia: If you have installed CentOS Stream from the initial spin, please be sure that you have centos-release-stream installed on your system. We had a bug in that compose that caused centos-release-stream to not get laid out on-disk at install time. Please run: `dnf install centos-release-stream` followed by `dnf update` For this respin of CentOS Stream we want to highlight new work in the kernel that enables Pressure Stall Information accounting: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/accounting/psi.html Give this a test! If there are comments related to this feature, feel free to start a discussion here on centos-devel. The latest CentOS Stream content is still seeding to the mirror network, but we expect it to coalesce over the next days. You can download install DVDs from the download page: https://www.centos.org/download/ A final note about CentOS Linux 8.1.1911: we are working diligently to get this ready for release. Stay tuned here for more information. We've included much of the same content as 8.1.1911 in this CentOS Stream respin both for your comments, and to help us promote CentOS Stream as a continuous feed of new features. Cheers! -- Brian Stinson

5 5

Re: [CentOS-devel] Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-11-13 Meeting
by Patrick Laimbock 03 Jan '20

03 Jan '20

Hi Karsten, Thank you for the update. > Topics covered in the meeting and via email are discussed below, and > remain open on the Board’s rolling agenda for future conversation and > actions: > > 1. Board membership: > 1. The Board has been considering for some time adjusting the > membership of the Board, in particular by adding new Directors. > Discussions with potential new Directors will begin. That's great news. Will the process be similar to how it's done in the Fedora Project [1]? So with a public list of nominees, published interview with each nominee and public voting results? Is there a way for the Community to (self-)nominate? For better Community coverage perhaps CentOS Board related postings could also be sent to the centos-announce and centos mailinglists? Thanks, Patrick [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/elections/

6 7

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

devel January 2020