[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Draft: umce linux mtg minutes, March 9th, 2004
I'm sorry I don't have time to go over these minutes this week, so if
you find errors let me know. I'll collect them and send out another
Attendance: Kevin, Rodger, Willie, Sean, Katarina, Bill, Tony, Liam,
Jane, Patrick, Andrew, Gavin, Dan, Wes, Gab, Aaron, Albert
Thursday the 18th 11am-1pm Higher ed linux distro conference
(Announcement) (Wes to inform)
Update on CVS Meeting (Wes)
jane: quick solution
wes: minimize effort input to Staff servers
kevin: effort into legacy solutions
( see notes, wes mailed them )
something in place by 3/19
Patrick & Gavin volunteer to check out and report back on Subversion
and report back to CVS committee
next meeting 2004-03-19 1:30-3pm.
Update on Whiteboard Meeting
Talked about goals of UMCE LFS 2.0
Mailing group announcement (umce-linux-makeworld@xxxxxxxxx)
Request for feeling about direction and timeline
Goals (not prioritized):
Existing documentation starts after bootstrap & initial build
*Egg ideal: yolk as core/base/minimum software
CD as specialized overload
Various flavored egg whites
Currently our eggs are scrambled
*Choose better packages
*Involve more people in the process
Time frame of base rebuild
Should we rebuild everything from scratch periodically?
How rigorously do we need to move forward? Should we
move forward on principle or prioritize stability?
Bugs in glibc, gcc, etc may force an emergency rebuild.
Should we script a rebuild process?
Cost/Benefit of automating process
Are we just creating work and add another layer, or is this
important to our environment?
ALFS - XML Tool to 'script' process
Is the LFS process compatible with our goals?
List of packages sent out by Aaron K. to mailing list 2004-03-8
We would like the subgroup to justify their assumptions
and describe options/recommendations
Next meeting 2004-03-15 2-3:30pm (Room 2701, Building 1)
RC Meeting Update (Sean)
Decided to put what we have into 'bandaid' mode
(eg fix halt-done by marcus, red text-will be done by marcus, etc)
We are not going to attempt to bring current scripts into
a maintainable process.
Group is encouraged to fix current transcript as needs arise.
We decided to investigate available rc options based
on some desired features and requirements:
1) management friendly (radmind friendly)
3) file-by-file management (modularity)
4) lights out (scripts assume that hardware running unattended)
4b) desktop sets
5) watch dog
6) run levels
7) what runs is easily accessible
8) cd compatible
Keep personality files as special files and leave them out of
email list: umce.linux.rc@xxxxxxxxx
next meeting: TBD
Kernel Type Update (discussion) (Jane)
very generic kernel
differentiation between server and kernel?
unknown. we don't know what we need.
Marcus hopes to support diverse hardware and many modules
Hardened Kernel/User kernel?
"Other" kernel group will bring back a delta list and we'll
discuss merging possibilities at this point.
Fork = maintenance.
Wes would like us to make fork avoidance a shared goal.
server specific stuff in the base
lilo.conf - not in transcript, but in file store
inittab - in both file store and transcript
Negative transcripts - lfs-negative.T should be what people are moving
which compiler version (how do we choose this?)
proposal for the next meeting. Justification is more
useful than statement of choice or declaration of defeat.
Update on LFS transcript naming & cleanup (Sean)
Sean made a template for notes and notes on naming
Patrick reports that subdir transcript support is close
and embedded command files are close as well (oh really?)
so this will likely effect our plans for organization of
Sean will prepare a proposal after he tests the subdir functionality.
Discuss External sharing of UMCE work - Kevin, Sean, Wes, Andrew, Jane
- meet as a subgroup
Thursday the 18th 11am-1pm Higher ed linux distro conference call
(Announcement) (Wes to provide more detail)
- Subgroup results should come back to the group
- People who can't make meetings should make sure that they learn and
take into consideration the reasons that are presented by those who
were at the meeting.