Fedora Board Recap 2008-JUN-10

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-06-10

== Roll Call ==

* Attendees: Steve Dickson, Chris Aillon, Matt Domsch, Bill Nottingham,
John Poelstra, Paul Frields, Seth Vidal, Karsten Wade, Jeff Spaleta

* Regrets: Dennis Gilmore

== Followup to Previous Business ==

=== Fedora Organizational Structure (2008-06-03) ===
* Joint meeting with Board and FESCo held on 2008-06-09
** http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-06-09
** Proposed roles: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/Drafts/Roles
* The board has not change its stance that FESCo owns the feature process
* Lengthy discussion about the path forward

== Future Business (discuss at a future meeting) ==

=== Codeina (2008-05-13) ===
* Need to restart discussion on fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com to get
plans in place at the start of F10
* Chris Aillon to make contact with Bastien Nocera to find out what
current plans are



=== Secondary Architectures ===
* ia64 is close to coming online and two issues need to be resolved to
move forward:
# Packages are signed with a fedora-ia64 specific key and the repository
keys are hard coded in the fedora-release package as the main Fedora and
Fedora beta keys.
# The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are correctly
handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).
Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.
* Is this a board issue to resolve or simply an information update to
the board to keep them updated?


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:22 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:
> # The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are correctly
> handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).

Okay.

> Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.

Wait, what?

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 13:03 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:22 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:
> > # The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are
> correctly
> > handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).
>
> Okay.
>
> > Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.
>
> Wait, what?

The URL thing is less of a concern than the fedora-release package and
the gpg key. We're going to have to change the way fedora-release puts
gpg keys on the file system to accommodate secondary arches.

For the URL, we'll likely need a redirect for the secondary arch
folders, but the problem there is that we don't directly control the
http servers that run for download.fedora.redhat.com. So there is
discussion about changing the baseurl= entry in the yum repo files to
instead make use of mirrormanager, which has some disadvantages in
putting all our eggs into mirrormanager, and if it goes down, there is
no pre-listed baseurl to fall back to.

We're going to hash out some of these things at FUDCon.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:22 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:

>
>
> === Secondary Architectures ===
> * ia64 is close to coming online and two issues need to be resolved to
> move forward:
> # Packages are signed with a fedora-ia64 specific key and the repository
> keys are hard coded in the fedora-release package as the main Fedora and
> Fedora beta keys.

We have possible solutions for this but we are going to discuss this at
fudcon to be sure what we do makes sense in the long run.

> # The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are correctly
> handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).
> Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.

Huh? Even I don't understand this. We have no problems spinning
releases.

- Doug


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 13:24 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 13:03 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:22 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:
> > > # The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are
> > correctly
> > > handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).
> >
> > Okay.
> >
> > > Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.
> >
> > Wait, what?
>
> The URL thing is less of a concern than the fedora-release package and
> the gpg key. We're going to have to change the way fedora-release puts
> gpg keys on the file system to accommodate secondary arches.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board

On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 14:11 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 11:22 -0400, John Poelstra wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > === Secondary Architectures ===
> > * ia64 is close to coming online and two issues need to be resolved to
> > move forward:
> > # Packages are signed with a fedora-ia64 specific key and the repository
> > keys are hard coded in the fedora-release package as the main Fedora and
> > Fedora beta keys.
>
> We have possible solutions for this but we are going to discuss this at
> fudcon to be sure what we do makes sense in the long run.
>
> > # The download baseurl (outside of the mirror lists, which are correctly
> > handled) will be at secondary.fedoraproject.org (or whatever).
> > Therefore they can not spin a release from Fedora packages.
>
> Huh? Even I don't understand this. We have no problems spinning
> releases.

But you can't use the stock fedora-release package since it doesn't have
the repo definitions or keys you need.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board