=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-10-05) =================================== Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-10-05/fesco.2010-10-05-19.30.log.html Meeting summary --------------- * init process (nirik, 19:30:01) * mclasen will not be able to attend today due to a backhoe incident. (nirik, 19:30:48) * cwicket will also be unable to attend. (nirik, 19:30:59) * kylem is also unable to attend. (nirik, 19:31:13) * #473 new meeting time (redux) (nirik, 19:33:54) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/473 (nirik, 19:33:54) * ACTION: make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. (nirik, 19:46:09) * reminder: you can vote in tickets if unable to attend the meeting. (nirik, 19:46:22) * Updates policy / Vision implementation status (nirik, 19:46:48) * ideas wanted to improve stable N-1 wording/distinction. (nirik, 19:57:04) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs <-- only shows formatting rules, so some recommendations for their content might be nice. (gholms, 20:08:46) * AGREED: will asking testers/qa to be on the lookout for things not following the update_policy and notify us via a ticket for further discussion. (nirik, 20:09:54) * AGREED: will see if FPC is willing/able to expand on the changelog guidelines. (nirik, 20:12:47) * #472 About Mozilla's decision to not allow using the system's libvpx (nirik, 20:14:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 (nirik, 20:14:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 (nirik, 20:30:41) * AGREED: will vote on proposals in ticket. (nirik, 21:05:11) * Open Floor (nirik, 21:05:43) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4149 (gholms, 21:07:13) Meeting ended at 21:18:39 UTC. Action Items ------------ * make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. Action Items, by person ----------------------- * cwickert * make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (145) * pjones (69) * mjg59 (56) * notting (39) * gholms (31) * ajax (23) * hicham (22) * abadger1999 (17) * spot (10) * Oxf13 (10) * zodbot (8) * mdomsch (8) * mcepl (1) * rdieter (1) * SMParrish (0) * kylem (0) * mclasen (0) * cwickert (0) -- 19:30:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2010-10-05) 19:30:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Oct 5 19:30:01 2010 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:30:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:30:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco 19:30:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 19:30:01 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax pjones cwickert mjg59 19:30:01 <nirik> #topic init process 19:30:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 nirik notting pjones 19:30:06 * notting is here 19:30:36 * ajax waves 19:30:48 <nirik> #info mclasen will not be able to attend today due to a backhoe incident. 19:30:56 * pjones throws a trout at ajax 19:30:59 <nirik> #info cwicket will also be unable to attend. 19:31:12 <gholms> A backhoe incident? Ouch. 19:31:13 <nirik> #info kylem is also unable to attend. 19:31:21 <nirik> gholms: took out his home internet it seems. 19:31:30 <gholms> Ok, that's not *so* bad. 19:31:52 <notting> and kylem will not be here 19:32:19 <nirik> SMParrish: / mjg59: you guys here? 19:33:15 <mjg59> Afternoon 19:33:27 <nirik> Hello. :) Thats 5. 19:33:45 <nirik> Shall we start with meeting time? 19:33:54 <nirik> #topic #473 new meeting time (redux) 19:33:54 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/473 19:34:09 <nirik> has everyone updated their http://whenisgood.net/ee8prq/results/z5binx entry? 19:34:15 <ajax> i have 19:34:25 * nirik 's didn't really change any 19:35:04 <nirik> so, currently we have 0 times everyone can attend. ;) 19:35:18 <pjones> yeah :/ 19:35:22 <nirik> a few times with 1 person left out, but everyone else... 19:35:31 <pjones> and excluding one person doesn't really help that much 19:36:11 <nirik> I guess we need to confirm that everyone updated before we do anything else? 19:36:24 <notting> although one of the times where mclasen is the only holdout his update info says will become available in a couple of weeks 19:37:01 <nirik> oh? 19:37:12 <mjg59> Wait. I'm suddenly worried by the timezones here. 19:37:15 <nirik> wed 1-2? 19:37:17 <pjones> So can we move to that time and then hope that he can make do responding to trac until then? sounds not that great. 19:37:27 <nirik> mjg59: yeah, the site is confusing. 19:37:28 <pjones> mjg59: yeah, the site's representation of timezones is weird. 19:37:30 <notting> nirik: 2-3 your time. unless i'm forgetting what your time is 19:37:31 <nirik> I think it's in my local time. 19:37:39 <pjones> nirik: right. 19:37:41 <pjones> it's in mountain 19:37:49 <nirik> yeah. 19:38:04 <notting> nirik: he says 5-6PM e(d|s)t will become available for him in mid-ocyt 19:38:06 <pjones> but on the individual pages you can set it to a different local time. 19:38:10 <gholms> whenisgood allows you to set time zones. 19:38:54 <mjg59> notting: I don't think that actually helps 19:38:55 <nirik> I see 1-2my time on wed being just him unable to attend... so one hour of that would work. (Althought thats sure late for you guys) 19:38:56 <pjones> notting: uh, pretty sure I didn't have 5-6pm EST5EDT selected as okay 19:39:16 <pjones> (given that the meeting often takes two hours, I didn't select anything after 3) 19:39:22 <notting> pjones: i may have been confusing the displayed TZ as PDT 19:40:18 <nirik> so, everyone here has updated? and I am pretty sure mclasen has and I know kylem has. 19:40:30 <nirik> that leaves cwickert and SMParrish as unknowns? 19:40:49 <notting> SMParrish did 19:40:55 <notting> (mouse over their names) 19:41:09 <nirik> ah yes. 19:42:32 <nirik> so, make sure cwickert updated and then go from there? and/or ask everyone else to doublecheck that they can't be available more times? 19:43:04 <mjg59> nirik: I've left the entire working day other than lunchtime 19:43:23 <mjg59> So I think I'm relatively unable to add more at this point :) 19:43:38 <nirik> tue 11-12 has either cwickert or kylem unavailable... if we do that block they could both attend, just not for the entire time. ;) 19:44:27 <nirik> mjg59: yeah, mostly me too. 19:44:42 <notting> and, of course, we'll have elections in about a months time 19:44:46 <nirik> so, how much time is left in this term. 19:44:47 <nirik> yeah. 19:45:28 <nirik> so, let me make sure cwickert updated, and then see if we can get any times then? revisit next week? 19:45:42 <mjg59> Ok 19:45:59 <nirik> any objections? 19:46:08 <ajax> nope 19:46:09 <nirik> #action make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. 19:46:22 <nirik> #info reminder: you can vote in tickets if unable to attend the meeting. 19:46:46 <nirik> ok, moving on. 19:46:48 <nirik> #topic Updates policy / Vision implementation status 19:46:48 <nirik> .fesco 351 19:46:48 <nirik> .fesco 382 19:46:49 <zodbot> nirik: #351 (Create a policy for updates) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351 19:46:53 <zodbot> nirik: #382 (Implementing Stable Release Vision) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/382 19:46:59 <nirik> Our fun updates tickets. :) 19:47:09 <nirik> So, I have several things here: 19:48:11 <nirik> There was a suggestion made to add/clarify https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy about stable release N and stable release N+1 19:48:29 <nirik> currently it's just "stable releases" 19:48:46 <nirik> do we want to specifically say N+1 should be treated any differently than N ? 19:49:22 <nirik> Thoughts? 19:49:28 <ajax> i do, but the impression i got from the list was... disappointing 19:49:56 <nirik> what would we do differently? 19:50:28 <nirik> The suggestion I got was to say that N+1 should get 'less' updates... but didn't say how. 19:50:33 <ajax> right. 19:51:04 <ajax> what i was hearing was "that doesn't make any sense", which is just bizarre to me 19:51:07 <gholms> Should it? 19:51:23 <ajax> since all my experience says that eventually you stop being able to fix things in place without massive upheaval 19:51:42 <ajax> so the amount that you _can_ fix in older releases naturally falls off 19:51:50 * nirik nods. 19:52:09 <ajax> but apparently that's just, like, my opinion, man. 19:52:12 <pjones> yeah, that's pretty much how I see it as well 19:52:16 <nirik> not just yours... ;) 19:52:48 <nirik> so, is there any way to codify this into the policy aside from the "The update rate for any given release should drop off over time, approaching zero near release end-of-life." sentence? 19:53:17 <pjones> I hope so; I don't imagine a statement like that will have any credence. 19:54:03 <ajax> yeah, i just can't think of a better way to word it 19:55:12 <nirik> updates to N+1 releases should only fix serious bugs or security issues. updates to N releases could additionally fix more minor bugs if all the other criteria are met? 19:55:20 <notting> ... surely you mean n-1 19:55:27 <nirik> right, sorry. 19:55:30 * nirik fails math 19:55:48 <pjones> notting: somehow I was assuming that the whole time without saying anything. Yeah, obviously n-1 19:56:12 <nirik> anyhow, not sure we can/will decide this today. I guess I will ask for more input from the people who asked for this and try and get a concrete wording. 19:57:04 <nirik> #info ideas wanted to improve stable N-1 wording/distinction. 19:57:31 <nirik> So, the next thing I had: we have an updates policy. Yea! What do we want to do about enforcing/educating maintainers about it? 19:58:07 <gholms> Another round of package reviews! :P 19:58:12 * gholms runs 19:58:17 <nirik> riiiight. 19:58:46 <nirik> I was thinking a first easy step would be to ask proventesters to look out for things that don't fit the stable release policy and bring them to our attention. 19:59:02 <nirik> some things it's hard to tell though. 19:59:38 <nirik> some examples: dracut was updated in f12/13 with a bunch of patches. Were those all bugfixes? 19:59:59 <pjones> if it's hard to tell, that means either a) we need to think about how to make a generic exemplar of that case, or b) the packager needs to be telling us more about the update 20:00:07 <nirik> NetworkManager rebases to a git snapshot in all of f12/f13/f14/rawhide at the same time. 20:00:19 <pjones> And I think both of those are "b" there. 20:00:59 <nirik> right, so more education... 20:01:12 <mjg59> Ideally we'd have some means of identifying this 20:01:14 <pjones> (obviously, there could be more classes of things; feel free to bring them up if they're of consequence) 20:01:28 <mjg59> But insisting that all changelog elements be flagged with a bug just encourages people not to mention things in changelogs 20:01:46 <nirik> yeah. 20:02:05 <pjones> mjg59: If your changelog looks like this, it's "b" in my list: 20:02:07 <pjones> * Wed Sep 22 2010 Harald Hoyer <harald@xxxxxxxxxx> 005-4 - backported a lot of bugfixes from git 20:02:31 <pjones> insisting that there's an actual changelog might be a start? ;) 20:02:51 <mjg59> pjones: Yeah, but how? Name and shame? 20:03:00 <pjones> this specific case is obviously bad regardless of the updates policy - how would a user know if they should update it? 20:03:01 <mjg59> It doesn't seem obvious how to do this in an automated way 20:03:10 <nirik> yeah, automating this is doomed. 20:03:10 <pjones> no, it's really not obvious how to automate it. 20:03:14 <hicham> would have been best to list the bugs at least 20:03:38 <mjg59> Well, we can certainly insist that the update request has something in the update description that isn't just a cut and paste of the changelog 20:04:20 <pjones> so it looks like we need to focus some on changelog quality as well as update request text quality 20:04:49 <notting> but for now, just... raise exceptions to fesco? 20:04:59 <mjg59> Guess so 20:05:13 <nirik> of course after something is found, what do we do? 20:05:40 <nirik> unpush it? 20:05:41 <mjg59> Ask people not to do it again? 20:05:57 <mjg59> I don't think there's a hard and fast rule 20:06:00 <pjones> educate them? (a clockwork orange style?) 20:06:02 <mjg59> In some cases unpushing may be worse 20:06:10 <mjg59> It's partially a social expectations change 20:06:26 <mjg59> We need people to be more aware of what they're doing 20:06:43 <nirik> ok, so any objections to me asking testers/qa to be on the lookout and let us know via a ticket for now? 20:07:03 <pjones> that seems like a good start. 20:07:05 <ajax> sure 20:07:08 <gholms> As a packager I would appreciate some documentation on *what* should go in changelogs. It varies enough between people that I don't know what would be best to do. 20:07:30 <nirik> Changelog in the package should be changes to the packaging. 20:07:35 <pjones> gholms: good point 20:07:41 <nirik> ie, updated to version 10 added patch for foo, etc 20:08:46 <gholms> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs <-- only shows formatting rules, so some recommendations for their content might be nice. 20:08:53 <nirik> yeah. 20:09:11 <nirik> Note that the update could have more info about the update rather than just package changes. 20:09:54 <nirik> #agreed will asking testers/qa to be on the lookout for things not following the update_policy and notify us via a ticket for further discussion. 20:09:58 <nirik> ok, shall we move on? 20:10:11 <nirik> gholms: perhaps we should ask FPC to clarify contents there. 20:10:42 <gholms> I would certainly appreciate that. It's up to you folks what to do. 20:11:05 <pjones> I'm +1 to asking FPC to expand that section to be more instructive. 20:11:24 * nirik is +1 to them looking into it if they can. 20:12:19 <nirik> any other votes/comments on that? 20:12:24 <ajax> fine with me 20:12:28 <notting> wfm 20:12:47 <nirik> #agreed will see if FPC is willing/able to expand on the changelog guidelines. 20:13:20 <nirik> ok, on ticket #467 Make Feature Freeze happen sooner, I don't see any new info... should we skip it this week? 20:14:25 <ajax> sure 20:14:32 <nirik> I can ping on the ticket again. 20:14:40 <nirik> #topic #472 About Mozilla's decision to not allow using the system's libvpx 20:14:40 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 20:15:03 <ajax> i do love how people can only see code duplication when it's named /lib.*/ 20:15:03 * pjones sighs. 20:15:08 <pjones> ajax: no shit 20:15:34 <pjones> I'm still +1 to letting this skate for now, though with a bit more nuance than what I said in the ticket. 20:15:53 * nirik is wanting more info I think... 20:15:59 <nirik> do we have any of the firefox maintainers here? 20:17:02 <pjones> I guess the real question is: what's the holdup on the libvpx side? 20:17:14 <pjones> --- [blizzard] idle 135:15:48, signon: Thu Sep 23 14:03:32 20:17:17 <pjones> well, that won't help. 20:17:45 <nirik> yeah, and can we not use the system version in fedora if they can temp have their patches against it? what else in the repo uses it? 20:18:01 <hicham> gstreamer 20:18:17 <nirik> and is this going to be fixed by f15? or go longer? 20:18:33 <mjg59> I think approaching this discussion in this manner isn't really helpful 20:18:46 <mjg59> The real question is "Does Mozilla matter to us more than the bundling policy" 20:19:08 <hicham> i think it does matter a lot, as stransky said 20:19:21 <mjg59> And that's what we should answer, rather than trying to argue that Mozilla kind of adheres to the bundling policy in spirit if not in reality if we take a sufficiently holistic view 20:19:39 <pjones> mjg59: I wasn't arguing that. At all. 20:19:46 <mjg59> I'm going to say that Mozilla matters to us more, and we should just leave it at that 20:19:52 <gholms> Enough so that your answer would be different if this happened to a less prominent package? 20:19:59 <hicham> if our libvpx matches mozilla's copy, I don't see where is the problem 20:20:15 <mjg59> gholms: Yes. I have no qualms at all about saying that Mozilla gets to follow different rules, just like the kernel does. 20:20:33 <notting> of note is that (afaik) all the bundled libs in mofoco sw are *modified* ones 20:20:37 <mjg59> In the same way that finding a licensing problem with glibc doesn't result in us dropping glibc 20:20:53 <notting> the ones where they aren't modified they have --enable-system-<foo> and we use that (hey, that's why we keep updating nss) 20:21:14 <Oxf13> also, those modifications might not be suitable for all other consumers of said bundled libraries 20:21:17 <mjg59> And given that our Mozilla maintainers have indicated that they have no interest in maintaining a fork, and nobody else has demonstrated that they'd be able to provide sufficient support for a fork, I really don't see the point in arguing the case 20:21:27 <Oxf13> so just taking those modifications and throwing at our system libraries isn't exactly the best course of action. 20:21:29 <mjg59> We ship Mozilla even though it has bundled libraries. End of story. 20:21:39 <hicham> I don't see another solution than to grant an exception since mozilla folks refused for now 20:21:40 <mjg59> The alternatives are all dreadful. 20:21:41 <nirik> Oxf13: could be... I don't know what changes they have made... 20:22:02 <pjones> the real question is if splitting out their library changes and making them work in the system libraries is more trouble than it's worth. I think the answer is almost certainly "yes". 20:22:20 <hicham> i am against shipping an unbranded firefox or ice<***> for this reason 20:22:21 <pjones> since, you know, that's exactly what mozilla upstream is working on. 20:22:37 <Oxf13> nirik: by and large, I would assume that if the changes were suitable for all consumers, those changes would be upstream, like previous cases with mozilla. 20:22:52 <nirik> Oxf13: they specifically mentioned "security fixes" 20:22:58 <nirik> which seems very odd to me. 20:23:19 <hicham> so their patches are not upstreamed yet 20:23:19 <pjones> Oxf13: isn't this the nature of the problem? that seems to be obviously the case but there are some upstream maintainers dragging their feet? 20:23:31 <nirik> " We prefer to ship our own copies of the media 20:23:31 <nirik> libraries, as if necessary we can cherry-pick a critical security fix and push 20:23:31 <nirik> out a release quickly, rather than relying on the distros to update their 20:23:31 <nirik> libraries. We can guarantee the safety and stability of our libraries this way." 20:23:41 <Oxf13> nirik: a security fix that works for Mozilla's narrow use case may not be suitable for other use cases. 20:23:58 <pjones> I think you're in the weeds with that one. 20:24:09 <nirik> who me? 20:24:14 <pjones> no, Oxf13 20:24:25 <notting> nirik: they're doing the right thing as application developers 20:24:33 <pjones> I mean, there's a remote chance, but. 20:24:40 <nirik> notting: right, but they aren't letting us as distributors do what we think is right. 20:24:46 <pjones> notting: yeah, that's the conclusion I came to as well - but it sortof sucks for us. 20:25:06 <Oxf13> pjones: fair enough. 20:25:08 <notting> nirik: is 'use a library version they don't develop, ship, or test against' right? 20:25:16 <nirik> ie, if this was a normal case, the fedora maintainer would unbundle and be responsible for getting the unbundled thing in fedora updated 20:25:57 <pjones> nirik: (with apologies to kde) there's something to be said for the size of the project here. 20:26:00 <nirik> notting: no. But they are developing it in this case right? it's their internal fork? 20:26:12 <ajax> normal apps have neither the complexity nor the visibility of firefox. 20:26:20 <ajax> i don't have any problem saying ff is more equal. 20:26:37 <notting> nirik: i believe it's a vendor branch, in SCM parlance 20:27:45 <nirik> well, on the plus side it sounds like they are heading the right way. 20:28:35 <nirik> so, what do we want to do here? vote on something? or gather more info? or ? 20:29:53 <pjones> we could vote on letting them bundle it; I think most of us are widely in support of it, and we're discussing reasoning more than anything else here. 20:29:56 <notting> i'm surprised... where are the opposing viewpoints? 20:30:17 <nirik> notting: our FPC folks are against the exception. 20:30:24 <pjones> nirik: oh? 20:30:36 <nirik> see ticket, toshio and spot 20:30:41 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 20:30:42 <pjones> (I mean, yes, I see that in the thread, but... where are they? ;) 20:30:49 <pjones> it's not like toshio doesn't know where our meetings are. 20:31:09 <nirik> spot is in channel, not sure if he's around. 20:32:54 <nirik> I kinda wish we had more info... like if there's a timeline on when they would use system, the security thing seems weak to me. 20:33:04 * nirik summoned abadger1999 20:33:11 * abadger1999 here 20:33:27 * abadger1999 notes that spot is the one that corresponded with mozilla... and the libvpx package maintainer. 20:33:47 <gholms> Well, look at how long other media libraries have remained forked. 20:34:11 <nirik> gholms: sure, but note in the ticket that they say they are close to unbundling those. 20:34:31 <nirik> abadger1999: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-10-05/fesco.2010-10-05-19.30.log.txt has the log/backscroll. 20:34:33 <gholms> If that's the case then you know about how long to expect. 20:34:45 <abadger1999> nirik: not all of them. 20:34:48 <nirik> not really. I don't know if this is the same sort of case. 20:35:26 * nirik notes we are over 15min... votes to continue? 20:35:29 * abadger1999 tries to find tickets with some info 20:35:36 <nirik> +1 from me. I would like to hear from abadger1999. 20:36:38 <abadger1999> Hmm... so should ask spot since blizzard's quoted reply doesn't say which libraries are close to being unbundled. 20:37:07 <abadger1999> I do know that mozilla has extended libpng in their copy so that's unlikely to be pushed to the system for a while. 20:37:25 <pjones> maybe we should put this off for a week and invite blizzard to come here and talk to us directly. 20:37:30 <pjones> since this sounds a lot like playing telephone. 20:37:32 * nirik would like that. 20:38:44 <notting> if we can't get everyone here today... who wants to do herding for next week? 20:40:42 <pjones> I'm not against putting it to a vote now, but nirik sounded like he wants more info first. 20:41:04 * abadger1999 finishes reading logs 20:41:13 <abadger1999> pjones: +1 to inviting others. 20:41:24 <nirik> I kinda do, but if no one else wants to, we can vote I suppose. 20:41:25 <abadger1999> i'd like spot and blizzard if possible. 20:42:02 <ajax> sure, let's have a party. 20:42:30 <hicham> invite kkofler also 20:42:35 <abadger1999> Since they're the two that have been doing the communication in the background. 20:42:59 <nirik> hicham: I don't think that would be productive. 20:43:08 <gholms> ... 20:43:37 <hicham> so no decision for today ... 20:43:57 <hicham> I thought that gecko-maint would be here 20:44:22 <nirik> I can invite people, but if someone else knows/talks to those involved, they could do that and I would be happy. ;) 20:44:50 <abadger1999> notting: So I don't 100% agree with your thought that they're doing what's best for app development. But it's pretty nuanced so we might just be coming at the same ideas from different angles. 20:45:49 <hicham> nirik : what are the possible solutions for this case ? 20:46:17 <abadger1999> basically, When you as a developer are releasing an app to a platform, then you do want to have control over what is being used. 20:46:38 <mjg59> Well, options seem to be "Grant Mozilla a broad exemption", "Grant Mozilla a limited exemption", "Don't grant Mozilla an exemption" 20:46:48 <nirik> right. 20:47:01 <pjones> and the latter two make a lot of work for somebody. 20:47:03 <hicham> mjg59: I don't think the third one is possible 20:47:04 <mjg59> With the third of those meaning "Remove Mozilla", the second meaning "Let's have the same conversation again in 6 months" and the first meaning "Nobody working on Mozilla really cares" 20:47:04 <nirik> ok, I guess I will mail people to come next week. 20:47:21 <abadger1999> But when a system admin is deploying things (or we as packagers are proxying for the system admin) we want to make sure that our workload as a whole system is as low as possible. 20:47:23 <mjg59> I'm in favour of keeping Mozilla and not having this conversation every 6 months 20:47:34 * spot is here 20:47:38 <abadger1999> So we want the ability to unbundle those libraries. 20:47:40 <spot> is there a question for me? 20:47:57 <mjg59> abadger1999: Yeah, and we also want bug free software, maintainers and users 20:48:04 <mjg59> All of these things are tradeoffs 20:48:06 <abadger1999> spot: Talking libvpx (in specific) bundled libraries in general as it applies to mozilla. 20:48:08 <hicham> well, yes, you are the one who mailed mozilla folks spot 20:48:10 <notting> hicham: re: gecko-maint, caillon had other commitments, most other members are in wrong timezone 20:48:44 <mjg59> #proposal: Mozilla gets to do whatever it wants with its packaging, up to (but not including) deleting user data 20:48:50 <spot> fwiw, i don't at all like mozilla's attitude towards bundling. 20:49:10 <abadger1999> mjg59: We'll never ever have bug-free software though -- so the question is what's most beneficial to our workload and to the workload of the system admins. 20:49:36 * nirik is uneasy by it, since it seems they aren't trying to hard to work with us on it. 20:49:40 <mjg59> abadger1999: Well, what's beneficial to *my* workload is having a working web browser that's maintained by people who have proved they can maintain it 20:50:03 <pjones> abadger1999: mjg59: can we not try to make this as abstract as possible? we don't really need a discussion about the nature of software bugs. We know firefox is a file. ;) 20:50:18 <notting> (note: i have to leave in ~15 mins or so) 20:50:20 <abadger1999> pjones: haha :-) 20:50:27 <mjg59> pjones: I'd prefer to be specific. I think Mozilla is a special case and I think we should explicitly acknowledge that. 20:50:36 <spot> mjg59: is chromium also a special case? 20:50:42 <mjg59> spot: Right now? No. 20:50:47 <mjg59> In a couple of years? Maybe. 20:50:50 <spot> mjg59: because to be fair, they're doing the same as mozilla on a much larger scale. 20:51:02 <nirik> notting: we have no other items after this... so just open floor. 20:51:03 <notting> spot: aren't they bundling things we can't ship in any case? 20:51:12 <mjg59> Firefox has significant brand recognition that we genuinely benefit from 20:51:12 <ajax> spot: where by "the same" you mean "bundling" not "being a web browser", i assume 20:51:15 <spot> notting: those items are removable. 20:51:24 <mjg59> I don't think Chromium provides that 20:51:25 <spot> ajax: well, technically both, but yes. 20:51:25 <rdieter> spot: I read somewhere today chome's marketshare went ahead of firefox today 20:51:37 <hicham> mozilla isn't doing what google is doing 20:52:05 <mjg59> rdieter: Remember that Chrome -> Chromium = Firefox -> Iceweasel 20:52:07 <pjones> rdieter: so *completely* not relevant. 20:52:25 <mjg59> We can't ship Chrome 20:52:27 <hicham> mjg59: i don't think that this is a fair comparison 20:52:34 <nirik> back to the topic, I'd like to hear more from upstream as to why they are bundling in this case. The security argument seems poor. I'd also like that they had a roadmap to unbundle. 20:53:02 <notting> well, in staying close to upstream, you're at the mercy of upstream. c.f. kde not maintaining security updates for older releases 20:53:13 <spot> nirik: i'd be happy to pass along the contact info, but i would not expect much more info from them on this. 20:53:28 <hicham> i am just wondering if we can't ask mozilla for an exception instead of granting them an exception ... 20:53:36 <mjg59> hicham: We did. 20:53:39 <mjg59> They said no. 20:53:44 <nirik> It's hard to get too much from: "It sounds like we're still finding issues with our fuzzers from time to time and there are still changes coming to the library. So we're going to keep it close for a while yet." 20:54:18 <mjg59> nirik: I think the assumption that we can change their mind on this by demonstrating that a specific rational argument doesn't support their position isn't obviously true 20:54:26 <hicham> mjg59: we asked them to allow building against libvpx, not to patch xulrunner to use the system vpx 20:54:34 <nirik> I suppose not. ;( 20:54:42 <mjg59> hicham: Why do you believe the answer would be different? 20:55:01 <spot> nirik: i can only assume they feel that the system libvpx will in some way make firefox work poorly, and they are unwilling to permit anyone to do that and still call the resultant product "firefox" 20:55:11 <hicham> mjg59: because if our vpx matches their vpx we might have an agreement 20:55:23 <pjones> nirik: I think it's pretty clear that they choose to bundle the libraries with higher volatility (in terms of changes), and they think libvpx is under a lot of flux 20:55:25 <notting> i'm sure someone with sufficient skill could send a patch that adds --enable-system-vpx 20:55:32 <mjg59> Fundamentally, we are an entirely insignificant part of MoFo's market share, they've shown little historical interest in adhering to our whims on this point and we need them more than they need us 20:55:40 <nirik> notting: they did. it was rejected. 20:55:42 <spot> notting: that patch was sent and rejected 20:55:59 <mjg59> So could we please just vote on this? 20:56:02 <pjones> and in order to carry it ourself, we've basically got to redbaron it. 20:56:06 <pjones> +1 to voting on it. 20:56:12 <pjones> (and I'm still +1 to granting them the exception) 20:56:16 <notting> pjones: i think that lapsed 20:56:23 <pjones> notting: details. 20:56:48 <notting> pjones: just saying, if it hadn't, and we *did* go the iceweasel route... that would be the obvious way 20:57:25 <notting> i'm for voting on non-comical proposals. does someone have one? 20:57:26 <nirik> ok, so we are voting then? 20:57:32 <mjg59> And can we be clear what we're voting on? 20:57:40 <nirik> proposal: grant firefox a exception to bundle libvpx 20:57:51 <mcepl> mjg59: I have my doubts about their opinions on Linux share of MoFo users, but that's besides the point. I would say on MoFo defense (what did you expect?) that comparing to Google/Chromium they have some history of after some time pushing patches upstream. 20:57:51 <pjones> +1 to nirik's proposal. 20:57:54 <mjg59> I think we should start with a vote for a generic exception, and then if that fails do so for a limited one 20:58:15 <nirik> mjg59: ok, you have one? 20:58:34 <mjg59> proposal: Mozilla be exempted from FPC's policy on library bundling 20:58:40 <gholms> A carte blanche? 20:58:43 <mjg59> Yes 20:58:48 <gholms> Interesting... 20:58:49 <nirik> -1 here 20:59:15 <pjones> there's only 6 of us here, right? 20:59:27 <mjg59> +1 20:59:33 <hicham> that would solve future conflicts, I agree with mjg59 20:59:43 <mjg59> pjones: Yeah, so +5 is still possible 20:59:49 <nirik> pjones: I thought we only had 5 exactly... but I could have miscounted. 21:00:07 <nirik> SMParrish isn't active, but is in channel. ;) 21:00:12 <pjones> Oh, okay. 21:00:15 <pjones> so this can't pass. 21:00:24 <notting> i'm leery of carte blanche in case they do something really dumb. but i suppose that could be an exception 21:00:29 <Oxf13> needing unanimity kind of sucks. 21:00:43 <pjones> notting: we can always *revoke* it. 21:00:44 <nirik> well, you could try again next week when more folks were around. 21:00:47 <ajax> who said unanimity. 21:01:18 <gholms> How about bringing up and voting on both proposals both here and in the ticket? There's no reason you can't vote on both types of exceptions. 21:01:53 <notting> i'm ok with voting in ticket in an attempt to get quorum 21:01:58 <mjg59> Yeah 21:02:04 <ajax> wfm 21:02:11 <nirik> just as a side note, does anyone have problems with an iceweasel package being in fedora provided it passes review, etc? 21:02:21 <pjones> nirik: yes 21:02:37 <gholms> It would need to update side-by-side with firefox. 21:02:38 <nirik> ok would someone like to update the ticket? 21:02:45 <pjones> Seriously, if we're against having dupicate libraries, how can we be fore having duplicate application code? 21:02:45 <hicham> i am against such a package 21:02:47 <nirik> pjones: out of curiosity, what? 21:02:53 <pjones> for 21:03:06 <hicham> ice* browsers are useless 21:03:12 <mjg59> I would be in favour of out firefox package being *trivially* rebrandable 21:03:18 <hicham> just rebranding+destructive patches 21:03:22 <notting> nirik: it strikes me as a petty waste of resources 21:03:28 <mjg59> So that downstreams can handle this more easily 21:03:47 <nirik> if an iceweasel package was in, was well maintained and had an active community of packagers, I would be much more likely to drop firefox. (ie, find out if it's viable before we move to it) 21:04:04 <nirik> anyhow, I guess I am going off topic. 21:04:04 <notting> mjg59: can you put your global and local(vpx-only) proposals in the ticket for voting 21:04:13 <mjg59> notting: Sure 21:04:22 <pjones> nirik: we know it's /viable/, don't we? since debian does it within reason. 21:04:56 <notting> nirik: imo, it makes sense to have ff or iw. not both 21:04:57 <nirik> I don't know how well it works there... 21:05:07 <ajax> i feel like we've now spent more time talking about this than it would require to patch both the firefox and system versions of vpx in the event of a security problem. 21:05:11 <nirik> #agreed will vote on proposals in ticket. 21:05:28 <nirik> shall we move on then? 21:05:32 <ajax> please. 21:05:36 <notting> ajax: i have no doubts about mofoco's ability to push new security releases at a rapid pace 21:05:39 <pjones> yes. 21:05:41 <pjones> move on. 21:05:43 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 21:05:48 <nirik> anyone have anything for open floor? 21:06:00 * gholms raises hand 21:06:07 <nirik> gholms: go ahead 21:06:48 <gholms> I have a rel-eng ticket that could result in very a minor distro-wide change. If any of you have any input on it I would appreciate hearing from you. 21:06:52 <gholms> .releng 4149 21:06:52 <zodbot> gholms: Ticket #4120 (task closed): Override tag request for rubygem-hoe || Ticket #4156 (task closed): task 2513514 stuck in tests || Ticket #4158 (task created): tag banshee-1.8.0-4.fc14 gio-sharp-0.2-2.fc14 libgpod-sharp-0.7.95-1.fc14 gudev-sharp-0.1-3.fc14 gkeyfile-sharp-0.1-3.fc14 gtk-sharp-beans-2.14.0-2.fc14 || Ticket #4157 (task created): Please tag nss-softokn-3.12.8-1.fc12 nss-softokn-3.12.8-1.fc13 (12 more messages) 21:07:07 <gholms> Err, that didn't work so well. 21:07:13 <gholms> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4149 21:07:35 <Oxf13> .rel 4149 21:07:36 <zodbot> Oxf13: #4149 (Need a way to point EC2 instances to specific mirrors) - Fedora Release Engineering - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4149 21:07:45 <gholms> Thanks 21:08:00 * nirik is happy with whatever solution folks interested come up with there. ;) 21:09:25 <notting> yeah, i'm ok with whatever the yum and MM people agree on 21:09:41 <ajax> up, enter 21:10:11 <notting> gholms: have the MM maintainers chimed in yet? 21:10:47 <gholms> mdomsch added the needed MM support already. 21:11:18 <gholms> It isn't released yet, but it's there. 21:11:37 <pjones> totally okay with it then. 21:11:38 <mdomsch> yep 21:11:47 <notting> sweet. if you need the repo def changed, plz file a blocker bug against fedora-release 21:11:53 <mdomsch> needs some testing, but is pretty straightforward 21:12:04 <mdomsch> notting: with the config plugin, we shouldn't need to 21:12:11 <gholms> How soon should such a bug be filed? 21:12:12 <mdomsch> and I prefer not to 21:12:27 <notting> i thought the yum folks said they'd prefer a non-plugin solution 21:12:39 <gholms> mdomsch: skvidal and Oxf13 are saying avoiding a plugin would be better. 21:13:01 <mdomsch> oh? I missed that. I thought skvidal was on board, exactly so we get 21:13:07 <mdomsch> a) dynamic operation 21:13:13 <mdomsch> b) no munging the config file 21:13:23 <Oxf13> I defer to skvidal on how it should operate 21:13:31 <Oxf13> my only contribution that I like was adding a tag to the MM url string 21:13:35 <mdomsch> a) being that we can grab the value every time yum runs, rather than when the AMI is created 21:13:38 <Oxf13> how that tag gets added isn't as much of a concern of mine 21:13:42 <gholms> With the currently-favored solution we change the *stock* repo configs. 21:13:59 <notting> gholms: right, which is a blocker bug against fedora-release 21:14:00 <nirik> anyhow, sounds like we are fine with whatever you guys come up with. ;) 21:14:01 <gholms> Those can stay the same, and the value gets filled in a different file at boot time. Simple! 21:14:08 <gholms> Sounds good. 21:14:08 <notting> gholms: (or, you do it in appliance-tools) 21:14:21 <gholms> notting: Read the wiki page; there are problems with that approach. 21:15:02 <pjones> mdomsch: okay, so it sounds like you and skvidal need to make sure you're on the same page - aside from that, I think a lot of us will defer to you two. 21:16:07 <nirik> Any other open floor items? 21:17:34 * nirik will close the meeting in a minute if nothing else comes up. 21:18:39 <nirik> #endmeeting
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
