[04:06] <Jester45> idk if anyone is here but would it be ok if i left my bot to log in here?
[04:51] <Jester45> could you remove the ban or put it as jester*@vidd.vidd.us
[04:51] <Jester45> i will not bring it back
[08:49] <kraut> moinm
[11:06] <juliux> @schedule berlin
[11:06] <ubotu> Schedule for Europe/Berlin: 28 Aug 17:00: Ubuntu Server Team meeting | 28 Aug 21:00: Technical Board | 29 Aug 22:00: Edubuntu | 03 Sep 15:00: Community Council | 08 Sep 02:00: MOTU Team | 08 Sep 19:00: Xubuntu Developers
[04:57] <mathiaz> hi all
[04:57] <popey> o/
[04:58] <jdstrand> hi
[04:58] <sommer> hello
[04:58] <zul_> heylo
[04:59] <soren> o/
[05:00] <Hobbsee> hey!
[05:00] <nealmcb> saluton!
[05:01] <soren> :p
[05:01] <Mithrandir> Hobbsee: I've already run off.
[05:01] <nealmcb> handy link:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[05:01] <popey> don't be fooled jdstrand, he looks about 12
[05:01] <jdstrand> heh
[05:01] <soren> popey: Careful now.. :)
[05:02] <mathiaz> #startmeeting
[05:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:53. The chair is mathiaz.
[05:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC] , [IDEA] , [ACTION] , [AGREED] , [LINK] , [VOTE] 
[05:02] <mathiaz> let's get started... dendrobates is not here for now
[05:02] <mathiaz> he'll join us a little bit later
[05:02] <soren> slacker..
[05:02] <soren> :)
[05:02] <mathiaz> hi keescook
[05:03] <soren> Hey, kees.
[05:03] <keescook> heya folks
[05:03] <keescook> I was sitting in the #server-team channel wondering where everyone was.  ;)
[05:03] <mathiaz> so the agenda for today's meeting is  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[05:03] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
[05:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting.
[05:04] <mathiaz> The previous meeting logs are here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20070814
[05:04] <mathiaz> well. we didn't organise a doc day as suggested by jono during last meeting.
[05:05] <soren> ACTION: Tell MootBot the correct time. :)
[05:06] <mathiaz> let's try to get one organized next friday.
[05:06] <mathiaz> the 7th of september
[05:07] <soren> Sounds good to me.
[05:07] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  organise a doc day for Friday, September 7th
[05:07] <MootBot> ACTION received:  organise a doc day for Friday, September 7th
[05:08] <mathiaz> jdstrand: what's the state of the default LAMP install page ?
[05:08] <jdstrand> infinity (who doesn't seem to be here now) expressed an interest in the meeting that he wanted to do it
[05:08] <jdstrand> I talked to him after the meeting and we decided he would
[05:09] <nealmcb> mootbot: for the record, the time is now 15:09:00 UTC so you are about 9 minutes slow....
[05:09] <soren> Is there a bug about it? That would make it easier to track it..
[05:09] <jdstrand> I followed up with him, and he said he will still do it, but hasn't had time yet
[05:09] <mathiaz> I think there is a bug about it
[05:09] <mathiaz> at least there is a bug about the default apache2 website.
[05:10] <mathiaz> jdstrand: could you file a bug about this ?
[05:10] <soren> mathiaz: That's sort of different, though.
[05:10] <jdstrand> mathiaz: yes
[05:11] <jdstrand> I'll follow up with infinity on it as well
[05:11] <soren> mathiaz: I expect the LAMP one will use PHP and MySQL for stuff. The default apache2 should not make any assumptions about the presence of neither PHP nor MySQL.
[05:11] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  jdstrand will file a bug for a default page for the LAMP tasks and follow up with infinity
[05:11] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jdstrand will file a bug for a default page for the LAMP tasks and follow up with infinity
[05:12] <mathiaz> I've updated the factoid about webmin
[05:12] <mathiaz> !webmin
[05:12] <ubotu> webmin is no longer supported in Debian and Ubuntu. It is not compatible with the way that Ubuntu packages handle configuration files, and is likely to cause unexpected issues with your system
[05:12] <mathiaz> does this seem correct ?
[05:13] <nealmcb> mathiaz: thanks - that is better.  I'm still hoping to be able to point people to specific problems it has caused, if anyone has any stories...  or mentioning debconf or something.
[05:13] <soren> Well, yes. I thought it would just shout "NOOOOO!!", though :)
[05:13] <nealmcb> :-)
[05:14] <mathiaz> I haven't seen any other factoid that needs to be updated. Ideas ?
[05:14] <nealmcb> I imagine there are some things for which it or something similar would be useful.  e.g. how do people allow clerks to update /etc/aliases?
[05:14] <soren> nealmcb: clerks?
[05:14] <soren> nealmcb: Like junior admins?
[05:14] <nealmcb> i.e. folks who know who should get email, but don't know how to log in with ssh and edit files
[05:15] <nealmcb> soren: yeah
[05:15] <soren> nealmcb: I have a web interface for that.
[05:15] <soren> nealmcb: I don't use /etc/aliases. I store that sort of config in a mysql db.
[05:16] <soren> I've been planning to make a package for that, but haven't worked on it for over a year.
[05:16] <soren> I should probably write a spec about it for gutsy+1.
[05:16] <nealmcb> soren: well, a solution we could point small site admins to that works with supported packages would be nice.
[05:16] <soren> dendrobates: Hey, rick.
[05:16] <dendrobates> hello all.
[05:16] <nealmcb> could ebox do that?
[05:16] <mathiaz> there is a list of all the factoids: http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi
[05:16] <mathiaz> dendrobates: hi.
[05:17] <dendrobates> dsl still not fixed, so I could drop at any time.  But I 'll come back asap.
[05:17] <nealmcb> mathiaz: I posted a list of other missing factoids on the previous agenda - I'll look
[05:17] <mathiaz> nealmcb: ok. So you'll look throught the server related factoid and see if anything could be improved ?
[05:18] <soren> nealmcb: Yes, eBox has a mail module. I haven't really looked much at it, though.
[05:18] <nealmcb> oops - my confusion - it's still there on the agenda :-O
[05:18] <nealmcb> webmin, mail, mua, mta, pop, imap, nic, openssl, inetd.
[05:18] <mathiaz> what about adding a task to the documentor section of the roadmap ?
[05:18] <nealmcb> I've seen  many email conversations and being able to get ubotu to clarify mta and mua would be handy
[05:19] <nealmcb> I can do that
[05:19] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  nealmcb will add a task to the documentor section about updating the factoids for server related questions
[05:19] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nealmcb will add a task to the documentor section about updating the factoids for server related questions
[05:19] <mathiaz> as for the openssh task,
[05:20] <mathiaz> it's been added to tasksel.
[05:20] <soren> Right. Suggestions for additional tasks are welcome.
[05:20] <mathiaz> It hasn't made it for tribe-5, due to bad timing.
[05:20] <mathiaz> But it's on the server cd now.
[05:20] <keescook> :)
[05:20] <nealmcb> great
[05:21] <mathiaz> dendrobates: you wanted to talk about new tasks ?
[05:22] <dendrobates> yes.  I wated to discuss possible tasksle tasks, now that ssh-server is sucessfully added.
[05:23] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  New tasks for tasksel
[05:23] <MootBot> New Topic:  New tasks for tasksel
[05:23] <dendrobates> Does anyone see a need for any more install tasks?
[05:23] <dendrobates> Perhaps a samba file server?
[05:24] <jdstrand> dendrobates: this is for gutsy, not gutsy+1 or farther?
[05:24] <soren> Gutsy.
[05:24] <mathiaz> I could think of a file server, mail server
[05:24] <dendrobates> gutsy: if we have a important task, it could still be added.
[05:24] <soren> Yes, mail server seems obvious, but is a bit tricky.
[05:24] <mralphabet> proxy server?
[05:25] <mathiaz> file server would just include installing samba ?
[05:25] <dendrobates> I think we should think about low hanging fruit.  Things that will be fairly easy, but make installation easier for admins.
[05:25] <soren> We have to settle on one mail server to rule them all :)
[05:25] <jdstrand> should file-server also nfs?
[05:25] <jdstrand> s/also/also include/
[05:26] <dendrobates> I consider that a different task, but it could be argued.
[05:26] <soren> I agree with dendrobates. It's a different task.
[05:27] <mathiaz> adding new tasks to tasksel that would just install one package is not really a good idea
[05:27] <soren> Neither should be called "File server", of course.
[05:27] <dendrobates> I think samba would be the most helpful, esp. since we are putting off ebox.
[05:27] <mathiaz> Well - I think it would make sense to have a file server task that would install samba and nfs.
[05:28] <jdstrand> I agree with not pulling in both, but agree with soren that it should not be named 'file-server'
[05:28] <dendrobates> We need to name it in a way that is both truthful and would be understood by a novice admin.
[05:28] <jdstrand> dendrobates: yes
[05:28] <mathiaz> yeah.. that's why I'd install both nfs and samba
[05:28] <soren> dendrobates: Something like "Samba (Windows file sharing)" ?
[05:28] <mathiaz> so that a novice user can serves his file to windows client and unix clients
[05:29] <jdstrand> then there are three
[05:29] <mathiaz> that's what you get when you buy a NAS appliance
[05:29] <jdstrand> what soren said, "Unix File Server' and "General Purpose FIle Server"  or similar
[05:29] <nealmcb> but what other things will they run into?  all the authn and AD stuff etc
[05:29] <dendrobates> Is the samba package simple enough to configure, that it would make a good task.
[05:29] <soren> jdstrand: "General Purpose File Server"? Is that NFS?
[05:29] <dendrobates> nealmcb: that's what I mean.
[05:30] <jdstrand> soren: both
[05:30] <soren> jdstrand: Oh. :)
[05:30] <jdstrand> soren: obviously the wording would have to be better since you didn't get it!  :)
[05:30] <jdstrand> "Samba + NFS (Windows and Unix file sharing)
[05:31] <mathiaz> I'd call it 'File server'
[05:31] <dendrobates> mathiaz: you are familliar wirth the samba package.  Could it be easily configured to be useful.
[05:31] <mathiaz> dendrobates: it works OOTB
[05:31] <jdstrand> maybe this Samba + NFS is good for the task, since just smaba or just nfs are installing one package
[05:32] <jdstrand> do those separately
[05:32] <mathiaz> jdstrand: +1
[05:32] <nealmcb> why would people want both samba and nfs?
[05:32] <mathiaz> nealmcb: to server windows client and unix clients
[05:32] <dendrobates> I have seen both in certain situations, but we only need to worry about the most common use cases for tasks.
[05:33] <sommer> Would you enable a Samba share by default?
[05:33] <nealmcb> of course some will, but as one of the few "tasks" I'm afraid folks would end up with either nfs that they don't want, or samba that they don't want.
[05:33] <dendrobates> sommer: no
[05:33] <nealmcb> dendrobates: right
[05:33] <sommer> gotcha
[05:33] <dendrobates> user should be able to select at install, maybe.
[05:34] <mathiaz> hum... It seems that this needs more discussion. Who would like to look into this and send a proposal to the mailing list ?
[05:35] <dendrobates> It would need to be pretty quick.
[05:35] <mralphabet> Could Task Select set up a default read only share?  Then the script could say "To view your files on the network, browse to //{server ip or hostname}/default_share/"
[05:35] <jdstrand> perhaps the question of whether or not single package tasks to make it easier for users is worth exploring more
[05:36] <mathiaz> from what I understood from tasksel, tasks should not be used to install just one package
[05:36] <mathiaz> openssh was an exception to the rule I think
[05:36] <jdstrand> most devs seem to not like it-- but the convenience for users is obviously a good thing
[05:36] <dendrobates> However it is the easiest way to get an option into the installer, afaik.
[05:36] <nealmcb> for ssh server it made sense since that is necessary to even do more remote installs.  but the argument for other single-package tasks is harder
[05:37] <dendrobates> We need to thank about the users.  We don't want useless cruft, but if it makes things easier it is a good idea.
[05:37] <mathiaz> so.. noone wants to draft something and start the discussion ?
[05:37] <nealmcb> but I'm not arguing against single-package tasks, if they help novice sysadmins and don't get them in trouble
[05:39] <sommer> I can do it if no one else is wants to.
[05:39] <sommer> the ml discussion that is.
[05:39] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  sommer will send a draft to the mailing list about a file server task in tasksel
[05:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  sommer will send a draft to the mailing list about a file server task in tasksel
[05:40] <mathiaz> sommer: just a mail to kickoff the discussion
[05:40] <mathiaz> sommer: and may be you could add an item to the roadmap ?
[05:40] <nealmcb> sommer: thanks
[05:40] <sommer> mathiaz: sure no problem
[05:41] <soren> A task can't "do" anything.
[05:41] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  sommer will update the roadmap to add a task for the file server.
[05:41] <MootBot> ACTION received:  sommer will update the roadmap to add a task for the file server.
[05:41] <soren> A task is simly a "selection of packages".
[05:41] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  review the triagger section of the roadmap
[05:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  review the triagger section of the roadmap
[05:41] <soren> To have it automatically add a share of any sort, there would need to be a package doing the hard work and the task would have to include that package.
[05:42] <mathiaz> so we had decided to triagge bug for apache2
[05:42] <mathiaz> that took me a couple of hours to do.
[05:42] <mathiaz> so I've updated the roadmap for php5.
[05:42] <soren> mathiaz: You're done?
[05:43] <mathiaz> soren: for the apache2 bug in New,Unconfirmed yes
[05:43] <soren> Cool!
[05:43] <mathiaz> soren: that doesn't mean I've fixed or triagged all of them
[05:43] <dendrobates> mathiaz: your'e a mad bug triager.
[05:43] <mathiaz> I've just had a look at it.
[05:43] <mralphabet> soren: ahh, that makes more sense, thanks
[05:43] <mathiaz> anyway - we're on php5 bugs now.
[05:44] <dendrobates> we should all try to help him more.
[05:44] <soren> Alright. PHP5 it is.
[05:44] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  review the packager corner
[05:44] <MootBot> New Topic:  review the packager corner
[05:45] <mathiaz> I think there is nothing new for the watch files.
[05:45] <mathiaz> and fernando doesn't seem to be around
[05:45] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  review the tester corner
[05:45] <MootBot> New Topic:  review the tester corner
[05:45] <dendrobates> I sent all the ldap-auth-client stuff upstream to Debian.
[05:46] <mathiaz> I'd like to discuss hardware testing for tribe-6
[05:46] <dendrobates> mathiaz: I have repaired my sparc box.
[05:46] <mathiaz> I'm trying to organize hardware coverage for tribe-6.
[05:47] <mathiaz> so who has some 'server' hardware that could be used to some iso testing ?
[05:47] <dendrobates> mathiaz: we should try a very specific post to the mailing list.
[05:48] <mathiaz> The idea is to know if ubuntu-server can be installed on the main brands (dell poweredge, hp proliant, ibm xserver, etc...)
[05:48] <soren> I have a Dell Poweredge 1750 (I think), that's just collecting dust. I could fire it up, I guess.
[05:48] <mathiaz> dendrobates: and also a very simple testing and reporting infrastructure.
[05:49] <mathiaz> I've looked into smolt to gather hardware profiles.
[05:49] <dendrobates> mathiaz: also a request in the the forums, might be useful.
[05:49] <mathiaz> I'm still wondering what's the best way to manage the reports for tribe-6.
[05:50] <mathiaz> There is the ServerTesting team, that uses wiki pages for each model
[05:50] <mathiaz> it's modeled after the LapTop testing team.
[05:50] <nealmcb> is it mainly about new servers, or do regressions happen often for older server hardware?
[05:50] <mathiaz> both
[05:51] <soren> REally? Are there a lot of regressions?
[05:51] <soren> I didn't know.
[05:51] <mathiaz> the more we have hardware coverage, the better
[05:51] <dendrobates> sometimes vendors repair older models with slightly different chip versions.
[05:52] <mathiaz> well. I still have to work on it.
[05:52] <dendrobates> but, I wouldn't think we would have many regressions.
[05:52] <soren> Sure, sure, but that's not a regression on our part. I was thinking more along the lines of stuff that worked on edgy which doesn't work on Gutsy.
[05:52] <dendrobates> in the older hardware.
[05:52] <dendrobates> soren: I know.
[05:53] <dendrobates> I'm just talking about reasons to test the older models.  To a customer it is the same.
[05:53] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  review documentor section
[05:53] <MootBot> New Topic:  review documentor section
[05:54] <mathiaz> sommer: what's the state of the wiki pages ?
[05:54] <mathiaz> sommer: I've seen you've done some work on the server guide also.
[05:54] <sommer> I updated the page on Dovecot and added a page to configure Dovecot to use LDAP
[05:54] <soren> dendrobates: Sure.
[05:55] <sommer> also sent a patch with some very minor changes for the official Dovecot Doc
[05:55] <sommer> sort of ran out of ideas after that on what to edit
[05:55] <mathiaz> sommer: I've used it to setup a dovecot. It worked :). Thanks for your help.
[05:55] <sommer> started looking through the CategoryCleanup articles
[05:56] <sommer> mathiaz: welcome :)
[05:56] <mathiaz> sommer: is there a lot of server related pages in the cleanup category ?
[05:56] <sommer> There really didn't seem to be to many
[05:57] <mathiaz> hum.. may be we could target the server guide then.
[05:57] <sommer> CategoryCleanup looked mostly to be desktop things, but I haven't look very close
[05:57] <mathiaz> I'm still pointing people to the server guide to install basic tasks.
[05:58] <mathiaz> So it may worth checking the server guide is up to date for gutsy.
[05:58] <sommer> Since PHP5 is the current Bug theme I can look through and work on updated any guides for PHP.
[05:58] <mathiaz> sommer: that seems great... :)
[05:58] <dendrobates> I will certainly need to update any info on ldap auth
[05:59] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  sommer will look through the documentation to update php5 related pages.
[05:59] <MootBot> ACTION received:  sommer will look through the documentation to update php5 related pages.
[05:59] <sommer> I also think a gutsy server guide review is a good idear
[05:59] <mathiaz> sommer: could you list the wiki pages that would need to be updated in the roadmap ?
[05:59] <mathiaz> sommer: so that people can start working on it if they want.
[05:59] <sommer> mathiaz: sure
[06:00] <mathiaz> [TOPIC]  review the developer corner
[06:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  review the developer corner
[06:00] <mathiaz> sommer: thanks.
[06:00] <mathiaz> for AppArmor, I'm blocked on the latest version of the kernel
[06:01] <mathiaz> there are some problems with unionfs and the live cd.
[06:03] <sommer> so is AppArmor going to be part of gutsy?
[06:03] <mathiaz> sommer: it's already there.
[06:03] <mathiaz> sommer: it's just not the latest version.
[06:03] <sommer> ah...AppArmor is on my list of things to learn
[06:04] <mathiaz> sommer: there is a guide on help.ubuntu.com
[06:04] <mathiaz> sommer: you're welcome to read through it and poke around.
[06:04] <dendrobates> As for ebox, we have decided that there is not enough time to get it ready for Gutsy, so it is deferred.
[06:04] <dendrobates> But soren is still working on it, and can give us updates.
[06:06] <soren> Well, I haven't really looked at it since I got home from my honeymoon. Um..
[06:06] <dendrobates> I don't mean an update now.
[06:06] <dendrobates> I mean going forward.
[06:06] <soren> Well, major parts of it are ready, but there are a few obstacles in the way, that makes it impossible for me to upload certain parts of it.
[06:06] <soren> I may keep working on it during the gutsy cycle (in my own time), but as dendrobates said, it's deferred for now.
[06:07] <soren> dendrobates: Oh, I thought that was my cue. :)
[06:07] <dendrobates> I had only told you, so I needed to say something.
[06:07] <mathiaz> ok. we're running out of time.
[06:07] <jdstrand> mathiaz: soren's comments about tasks gave me an idea regarding the file server tasks.  If you don't mind, I'll send the email to the ml.
[06:08] <mathiaz> jdstrand: ok.
[06:08] <dendrobates> jdstrand: Go ahead.
[06:08] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  jdstrand will send a email to the ml regarding the file server task
[06:08] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jdstrand will send a email to the ml regarding the file server task
[06:08] <dendrobates> anything else, before we go?
[06:10] <mathiaz> Next meeting will be held in two weeks
[06:10] <mathiaz> same time, same place.
[06:10] <nealmcb> who is organizing the doc day?
[06:10] <soren> dendrobates: Ah, ok. I've blogged about it, too.
[06:11] <dendrobates> soren: cool
[06:11] <mathiaz> nealmcb: I'll send an email about it.
[06:11] <nealmcb> cool
[06:11] <mathiaz> [ACTION]  mathiaz will organize the doc day.
[06:11] <MootBot> ACTION received:  mathiaz will organize the doc day.
[06:11] <nealmcb> :-)
[06:12] <nealmcb> mathiaz: you're doing a great job!
[06:12] <mathiaz> Alright. Thanks all for your attention.
[06:12] <soren> See you next time!
[06:12] <mathiaz> See ya in two weeks.
[06:12] <sommer> later all
[06:13] <jdstrand> bye!
[06:13] <keescook> bye
[06:13] <mathiaz> #endmeeting
[06:13] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:04.
[06:13] <mathiaz> nealmcb: thanks.
[09:04] <mjg59> Ok, just waiting to see if anyone else is actually going to turn up...
[09:04] <stgraber> @schedule Zurich
[09:04] <ubotu> Schedule for Europe/Zurich: Current meeting: Technical Board | 29 Aug 22:00: Edubuntu | 03 Sep 15:00: Community Council | 08 Sep 02:00: MOTU Team | 08 Sep 19:00: Xubuntu Developers | 10 Sep 21:00: Screencast Team
[09:08] <Daviey> mjg59: It's okay.. i'm here now - we can start :D
[09:09] <mjg59> Looks like we don't have enough members to be quorate, I'm afraid
[09:09] <mjg59> mdz is busy at a mobile meeting in the US, I haven't heard anything from Scott or Mark
[09:11] <popey> thats a shame
[09:11] <mjg59> And don't seem to have current phone numbers for either of them
[09:13] <popey> I have scotts
[09:17] <Daviey> I'm suprised mdz isn't here for this meeting
[09:17] <mjg59> He's stuck in a meeting in Boston
[09:17] <mjg59> Scott's in the gym
[09:17] <mjg59> (He thought we were next week)
[09:17] <mjg59> So I think we'll have to defer
[09:17] <Daviey> 2 weeks time?
[09:18] <mjg59> Probably, yes
[09:18] <mjg59> Sorry about that!
[09:19] <popey> np
[10:14] <sabdfl> hi all
[10:14] <sabdfl> did i get the time wrong?
[10:15] <Mithrandir> about an hour wrong, yes.
[10:22] <sabdfl> all done?
[10:23] <popey> postponed
[10:24] <popey> 20:17:40 < mjg59> So I think we'll have to defer
[10:24] <popey> 20:17:55 < Daviey> 2 weeks time?
[10:24] <popey> 20:18:12 < mjg59> Probably, yes
[10:24] <popey> 20:18:38 < mjg59> Sorry about that!