While I'm fine with the retirement of Zezere, the Change needs to be renamed. People need to stop using the word deprecate when they mean remove or retire. It sends the wrong message.

Moreover, the discussion on devel@ makes it clear nobody understands what people are supposed to do post-zezere removal.

I'm tentatively +1 to this Change, but it definitely needs more information and a change in title to be more accurate.

While I'm fine with the retirement of Zezere, the Change needs to be renamed. People need to stop using the word deprecate when they mean remove or retire. It sends the wrong message.

Moved to "Retire Zezere" and all instances of "deprecate" have been replaced.

Moreover, the discussion on devel@ makes it clear nobody understands what people are supposed to do post-zezere removal.

Tried to make this clearer.

I'm tentatively +1 to this Change, but it definitely needs more information and a change in title to be more accurate.

+1

+1

For the moment, I'm -1 on this Change. I played around last week with setting up a Fedora IoT device (a headless RPi 4) and was unable to follow the directions for setting up FDO, so I ended up falling back to Zezere because it was super easy.

Many IoT devices are set up headless and this would force people to use FDO in that situation, without providing guidance on how to do it. I've replied in the Discourse discussion that I'd like to see them work with Fedora Server SIG on enhancing linux-system-roles to set up the server-side pieces of FDO enrollment.

For the moment, I'm -1 on this Change. I played around last week with setting up a Fedora IoT device (a headless RPi 4) and was unable to follow the directions for setting up FDO, so I ended up falling back to Zezere because it was super easy.

Zezere does not work with IPv6 or networks with multiple users connecting through the same IP- users affected include Fedora QA.

Many IoT devices are set up headless and this would force people to use FDO in that situation, without providing guidance on how to do it. I've replied in the Discourse discussion that I'd like to see them work with Fedora Server SIG on enhancing linux-system-roles to set up the server-side pieces of FDO enrollment.

FDO is definitely not easy to set up, and we can look at any gaps in the documentation - but users can also use Ignition or the Fedora ARM installer script for headless installations.

For the moment, I'm -1 on this Change. I played around last week with setting up a Fedora IoT device (a headless RPi 4) and was unable to follow the directions for setting up FDO, so I ended up falling back to Zezere because it was super easy.

We're proposing replacing it with systemd-firstboot not with FDO, FDO is already an option, but not one that you'd use for a single device, there is also ignition, but neither of those are really good (nor is zezere TBH) for a home user with 1-2 devices.

Many IoT devices are set up headless and this would force people to use FDO in that situation, without providing guidance on how to do it. I've replied in the Discourse discussion that I'd like to see them work with Fedora Server SIG on enhancing linux-system-roles to set up the server-side pieces of FDO enrollment.

A system role maybe something worth doing, in fact in the FDO github there's already ansible stuff, but it is unrelated to this change.

Marking for tomorrow's meeting due to -1 votes.

17UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org matrix room

change approved, but note that we would really like a better headless install/story if at all possible (+5,0,0)