[Freeipa-devel] FreeIPA server package group

[Rob Crittenden]

Martin Kosek wrote:
> On 08/29/2013 12:22 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>> On 08/29/2013 11:55 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2013 12:20 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>> On 08/28/2013 12:03 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>> On 08/28/2013 11:46 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/26/2013 10:14 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:12:09 AM CEST, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/26/2013 09:54 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I cooked up a patch for comps that adds a FreeIPA package group.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please chime in if you're OK with package selection / description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For illustration, see the attached image. FreeIPA will be added as an
>>>>>>>>> add-on in an installer under the Infrastructure server environment,
>>>>>>>>> that means, in the included images it will be at the same level
>>>>>>>>> as DNS or FTP server.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It will also appear in the Software Selection tool (PackageKit).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It should also be available under as yum groupinstall "FreeIPA
>>>>>>>>> server",
>>>>>>>>> and in PackageKit, as I understand comps is also source for that too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_groups
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3630
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO the Audit part in the description is false advertisement. Same
>>>>>>>> issue is in package descriptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know, it's taken directly from there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd rather have it consistent, if we're going to change it here, we
>>>>>>> should do
>>>>>>> there too, so that we do not end up with multiple (seemingly
>>>>>>> incomplete)
>>>>>>> descriptions at various places.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anybody else does have any other concerns? We need to move with this
>>>>>> effort since string freeze for F20 is coming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm particulary dubious about including the freeipa-tests package.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that should be included, developer tests are unnecessary
>>>>> for a server.
>>>>>
>>>> It was marked as optional in the initial proposal, but I agree it's
>>>> unnecessary for
>>>> it to be there at all.
>>>>>> We discussed the A (as Audit) part in the description with Rob. The
>>>>>> fact is
>>>>>> that this is taken from the freeipa-server package description and
>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>> complained in 7 years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Updated tests attached.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, one more thing I remembered just now -- is it too late?
>>> We should include bind-dyndb-ldap (which pulls in bind). Preferably as default.
>>>
>>
>> I included it there.
>>
>> If anyone else wants to chime in, please do now, I'll create a ticket with
>> rel-eng at the end of the day.
>>
>
> Thanks for this effort. What is the status of the bug - did you create the
> request already?
>
> We will need to do one more change and remove freeipa-server-strict package as
> up on the decision on today's developer meeting we decided to drop this
> subpackage in Fedora 20 and later and depend on our new FreeIPA Continuous
> Integration system instead.

I missed that meeting so maybe I'm re-hashing things, but I don't see 
how CI solves the problem that the strict subpackage does. Sure, it 
won't be as much a surprise to us when other packages are updated, but 
this doesn't prevent a user from also updating to the package. The 
strict package prevents upgrade until we've confirmed that things are 
actually working. CI does not.

rob