Sorry about that, the minutes were cut off. Here's the complete log: kevin -- 17:30:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2011-06-01) 17:30:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jun 1 17:30:01 2011 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:30:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:30:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco 17:30:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:30:01 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano 17:30:01 <nirik> #topic init process 17:30:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting 17:30:08 <notting> hello all 17:30:26 <nirik> morning everyone 17:30:36 <kylem> yo. 17:30:38 * mclasen is here for a change 17:30:52 <mmaslano> hello 17:31:22 * cwickert is here 17:31:52 <nirik> ok, I guess lets dive in. we have a pile of features today. ;) 17:31:58 <nirik> #topic #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags 17:31:58 <nirik> .fesco 563 17:32:00 <zodbot> nirik: #563 (suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/563 17:32:08 <nirik> I guess ajax was looking into this more... 17:32:35 <tibbs|h> This sounds like a packaging guideline. 17:33:18 <nirik> tibbs|h: well, we were going to just change default cflags... 17:33:34 <nirik> but apparently there's a bug in the toolchain somewhere with one of them, so we didn't yet. 17:34:20 <nirik> ajax: any news on ticket 563? 17:34:24 <nirik> .fesco 563 17:34:28 <zodbot> nirik: #563 (suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/563 17:34:47 <ajax> not that i've heard. i'll follow up. 17:34:51 <tibbs|h> At one time ajax had submitted a guideline draft surrounding PIE. 17:35:00 <ajax> PIC, not PIE. 17:35:17 <tibbs|h> Ah, right, that was a static library thing. 17:36:03 <nirik> ok, will revisit... 17:36:12 <nirik> #topic Features - Introduction/general comments 17:36:20 <nirik> so, we have a bunch of features today. 17:36:37 <nirik> I'd like to note that mether pointed out that many of our features lack reasonable docs/release notes. 17:36:47 * mclasen scrambles to find the agenda 17:37:00 <nirik> I don't know if we want to push back on this more today or not, but thought I would mention it. 17:37:24 <nirik> Also, I think there's some folks ( rbergeron and abadger1999 at least I think) that were interested in revamping our feature process. 17:37:39 <nirik> that won't of course affect anything today, but thought I would mention it. 17:37:49 <nirik> Anyone have general feature comments before we start on them? 17:38:04 <mmaslano> rbergeron: ^ 17:38:18 <abadger1999> Yeah we ewere interested but haven't gotten our act together. 17:38:31 <abadger1999> I'll let rbergeron lead on that since she's the current feature wrangler :-) 17:38:45 * nirik thinks it needs revamping too, but also has not had time to do anything about it. 17:39:31 <nirik> ok, diving in then... 17:39:32 <mclasen> I think we can do better if we look at different features differently 17:39:32 <mmaslano> we should care more about changes. New packages like cloud feature could be only mentioned in release notes 17:39:51 <mmaslano> mclasen: I agree 17:39:51 <mclasen> there cleanups, version updates, default changes,... 17:40:07 <nirik> yeah, I think things that are release notes/docs/press should be a bit different from things that need coordination, etc. 17:40:10 <nirik> mclasen: yep. 17:40:12 <gholms> How about feature removals? 17:40:35 <nirik> gholms: like removing hal? 17:40:41 <gholms> Hal, Xen, you-name-it 17:40:59 <mjg59> Hey, sorry 17:41:16 <nirik> sure, it would be good to note those for rel-notes, etc too. 17:41:27 <mmaslano> two categories will be enough. Could break other packages, can't break. 17:42:02 <nirik> anyhow, dunno if we can redo the process here today, but do be thinking about it and coming up with proposals to fix it. 17:42:36 <mmaslano> probably not, wait for rbergeron 17:42:55 <nirik> #topic #589 Porting from sysVinit init scripts to systemd unit files 17:42:55 <nirik> .fesco 589 17:42:56 <zodbot> nirik: #589 (Porting from sysVinit init scripts to systemd unit files) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/589 17:43:16 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd 17:44:02 <nirik> this was one mether noted about release notes I think. 17:44:46 <nirik> I'd add that we should submit our systemd units files upstream as well as they are made. 17:45:30 <nirik> votes? comments? 17:45:33 <mmaslano> I'm not sure if all units files will be created on time. 17:45:43 <mmaslano> Do they have any tracker? 17:45:52 <mclasen> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/QA/Systemd/compatability ? 17:45:59 <mjg59> Expecting 100% completion in 6 months would probably be unrealistic 17:46:04 <mjg59> But I think it's something to aim for 17:46:18 <nirik> yeah, I'm sure there will be stragglers... 17:46:46 <gholms> I don't see anything in that feature page that mentions any interaction with package maintainers. 17:47:21 <mclasen> gholms: a ton of bugs have been filed already, it seems ? 17:47:24 <nirik> "Developers will need to convert ..." 17:47:28 <nirik> yeah, bugs have been filed. 17:47:32 <notting> last point of scope says 'developers', i assume that refers to the maintainers 17:47:34 <mmaslano> mclasen: it's not updated, I converted my daemons already 17:47:42 <gholms> Oh, got it. 17:48:01 <mclasen> mmaslano: ah, thats why the 'last updated' field was empty :-) 17:48:33 <nirik> so, +1 here, but I'd like to add some suggestions... need more for release notes, note about upstreaming changes. 17:49:15 <notting> +1 as well 17:49:28 <mclasen> +1 here too 17:49:30 <notting> release note would be a bit strange - wouldn't it just point to more general systemd documentation? 17:49:44 <mmaslano> +1 17:50:14 <ajax> +1 17:50:49 <mjg59> +1 17:52:08 <nirik> well, note that X number of packages have been converted, 17:52:16 <nirik> for info see systemd docs, blah 17:52:21 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 17:52:31 <nirik> #topic #591 F16Feature: Aeolus Conductor - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Aeolus_Conductor 17:53:14 <ajax> cloud me harder. 17:54:01 <nirik> It looks like a long list... and 0% 17:54:13 <nirik> but if they want to try for f16, great. ;) +1 here 17:54:16 <notting> yep, although i don't see that as reason to not approve it now. +1 17:54:17 <mjg59> +1 17:54:41 <mmaslano> +1, this one is candidate for release notes only 17:54:53 <ajax> +! 17:55:19 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 17:55:20 <kylem> +1 17:55:24 <nirik> #topic #592 F16Feature: Blender 2.5 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Blender25 17:55:24 <nirik> .fesco 592 17:55:26 <zodbot> nirik: #592 (F16Feature: Blender 2.5 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Blender25) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/592 17:55:59 <notting> ack, just add it to the relnotes. +1 17:56:07 <nirik> +1 17:56:12 <ajax> +1 17:56:20 <nirik> is this the first major python3.x thing we have? 17:56:21 <notting> i'm not particularly fond of the idea of creating a compat package 17:56:46 <nirik> yeah, seems short lived 17:57:55 <mmaslano> +1 17:58:05 <mclasen> would be good to have some details on the 'packages which could not migrate' - what set of packages are we talking about here 17:59:30 <mclasen> anyway, +1 here too 17:59:35 <mjg59> +1 17:59:55 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:00:09 <nirik> #topic #593 F16Feature: Cloudstack - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Cloudstack 18:00:09 <nirik> .fesco 593 18:00:11 <zodbot> nirik: #593 (F16Feature: Cloudstack - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Cloudstack) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/593 18:00:44 <nirik> mor cloud. ;) 18:00:45 <mclasen> oh no, buzzword typo in the summary ! 18:01:12 <notting> so, do we get cloudstack and aeolus to fight? 18:01:22 <notting> in any case, sure, +1 18:01:23 <mmaslano> +1 (release notes) 18:01:28 <nirik> +1 here. 18:01:38 <ajax> +1 18:01:53 <mclasen> notting: one would think the feature pages should give you a way to figure out if the two overlap or are entirely different things... 18:01:58 * mclasen comes up empty though 18:02:02 <rbergeron> whoa! fail. /me apologizes, thought meeting was at 18:30. 18:02:26 * rbergeron glares at wiki/Fedora_meeting_channel 18:02:39 <nirik> hey rbergeron. 18:02:43 <nirik> sorry for any confusion. ;( 18:02:57 * nirik has to step away for just a minute. continue on... 18:03:01 <rbergeron> no worries. i should have double checkered. sorry. 18:04:59 <mmaslano> more votes for cloudstack? 18:05:03 * gholms sees +4 18:05:28 <cwickert> sorry, I got distirbed by real live 18:06:35 <kylem> +1 18:06:39 <cwickert> +1 18:06:49 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:06:50 <kylem> sorry, was catching up on actually reading it 18:06:51 <kylem> heh 18:06:58 <cwickert> same here 18:07:03 <nirik> #topic #594 F16Feature: F16 BTRFS default file system - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F16BtrfsDefaultFs 18:07:03 <nirik> .fesco 594 18:07:04 <zodbot> nirik: #594 (F16Feature: F16 BTRFS default file system - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F16BtrfsDefaultFs) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/594 18:07:07 <nirik> here's a fun one. ;) 18:07:16 <fenrus02> w00t 18:07:53 <gholms> Here's one with a bad Release Notes section. 18:07:55 * mclasen would point out the lack of desktop integration, but btrfs is in the same boat as lvm here 18:08:11 * nirik is still waiting for a fsck. Also, can you do encrypted btrfs without lvm? 18:08:13 <notting> i don't think there's enough info here to make a reasonable default/non-default decision 18:08:19 <mmaslano> I'd like to point out https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689509 18:08:21 <drago01> mclasen: chicken-egg ? 18:08:32 <mmaslano> and especially https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689127 18:08:35 <fenrus02> nirik, fsck exists. it does not yet correct errors, just point them out. 18:08:42 <mmaslano> nirik: fun as you said 18:08:51 <nirik> fenrus02: doesn't even do that here. ;) I need to followup on it tho 18:08:54 <mclasen> drago01: sure; would just be good to give that some thought (and we will, maybe not in time for f16 though) 18:09:12 <fenrus02> mmaslano, one of those is due to compression 18:09:13 <drago01> *nod* 18:09:20 <ajax> "would be good to expose some of the different features of BTRFS via anaconda". which? 18:09:34 <nirik> compression perhaps 18:09:38 <fenrus02> ajax, subvolmes for /home 18:09:47 <ajax> don't tell me, tell the feature page. 18:10:08 * nirik would like more info, etc... so no for now, but will add questions to talk page. 18:10:23 <notting> so, yeah, i'm -1 for now, but not against approving it later with more info 18:10:27 <ajax> shipping an unrecoverable fs doesn't seem awesome to me. 18:10:28 <mmaslano> -1 18:10:37 <mclasen> ajax: the benefits section seems to list the biggies 18:10:52 <fenrus02> ajax, see zfs for example 18:11:11 <cwickert> I think I am +1, let them try and we can still revert it later 18:11:45 <josef> argh fricking utc crap 18:11:50 <nirik> hey josef. 18:11:56 <nirik> we were just talking about btrfs. ;) 18:12:01 <josef> i spend 20 minutes just finding out i'm 30 minutes late 18:12:13 <fenrus02> cwickert, fixing btrfsck should be real soon, so by f16 alpha, it should be available easily 18:12:28 <cwickert> josef: "date -you" takes 20 minutes? 18:12:29 <fenrus02> josef, correct me if i'm mistaken please :) 18:12:30 <cwickert> ;) 18:12:46 <nirik> josef: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-01/fesco.2011-06-01-17.30.log.txt (page down to the end) for logs. 18:12:51 * josef writes date -you on the damned board 18:12:53 <cwickert> s/you/u 18:13:01 <cwickert> damn autocorrection 18:14:14 <josef> yeah btrfsck was supposed to be out last week but we got bogged down with -rc1 integration stuff 18:14:24 * fenrus02 nods 18:14:26 <josef> so it should be ready next week when chris gets back from linuxcon 18:14:30 <nirik> cool. 18:14:37 * nirik looks forward to using it on his drive that has errors. ;) 18:14:40 * gholms counts +1, -2 18:14:54 <fenrus02> ajax, updated with the ones i could think of real quickly 18:15:01 <nirik> josef: can you do encrypted fs without lvm in btrfs? 18:15:45 <notting> my concern is that this is the sort of feature where it's better to work on it, and decide whether or not to change the default later once we have more info 18:15:54 <nirik> right. 18:16:05 <josef> nirik: no not atm 18:16:39 <nirik> although testers using live media won't be able to do much testing unless we do change it. 18:16:56 <mjg59> Yeah there's some awkwardness here 18:17:19 <notting> nirik: well, we can certainly test live images 18:17:35 <mjg59> josef: By alpha, do we have an expectation of a filesystem that is robust, handles most failure conditions well and has a working repair tool? 18:17:57 <josef> mjg59: yes 18:18:04 <mmaslano> josef: shouldn't encrypted fs be another one for your blocker list? #689509 18:18:11 <mjg59> Then I'm +1 18:18:34 <josef> i'll add the encrypted thing to the list 18:18:51 <mjg59> With the proviso that if we don't have a robust filesystem that handles most failure conditions well and is lacking a working repair tool, we'll be merciless about switching back to ext4 18:18:58 <josef> tho i dont think it should block switching to default for f16 18:19:00 * nirik votes to defer the default question, but encourages work on the feature until then. Make determination before alpha? 18:19:29 <mjg59> I think this is the kind of feature where we want a hard cutoff date for 100% functionality 18:19:45 <rbergeron> /win 4 18:19:47 <mjg59> Required functionality, that is, not nice to have 18:19:52 <mclasen> mjg59: need to be specific about what that includes, then 18:20:02 <josef> when is alpha? 18:20:20 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule 18:20:21 <mjg59> Yeah. That's something we learned from the first systemd round. 18:20:22 <nirik> (tenative) 18:20:34 <mjg59> I think we (fesco) should come up with a list of expectations 18:20:35 <nirik> 08-02 is the change deadline 18:20:47 <josef> yeah august is plenty of time 18:20:56 <nirik> so, do we not use /boot anymore by default? 18:21:09 <josef> that depends on which grub we ship 18:21:22 <nirik> grub2 is already in rawhide. Dunno if it's likely to be pulled or not. 18:21:38 <mjg59> pjones: Thoughts on grub2 for F16? 18:21:41 <josef> if grub2 is shipped then we don't need a seperate /boot 18:21:44 <fenrus02> is there a reason we still use grub1? 18:21:48 <mclasen> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/Features 18:21:53 <mclasen> lists grub2 for f16 18:22:01 <mjg59> Ok, good 18:22:02 <Southern_Gentlem> lets hope we can ship grub2 (since other distros have been using it for years 18:22:04 <pjones> mjg59: working on it... it's in rawhide currently. there's still a fair amount to do. 18:22:06 <drago01> josef: do we intend to migrate existing users to btrfs on upgrades? 18:22:06 <mjg59> Let's assume a best case scenario 18:22:20 <fenrus02> drago01, i would -1 that really 18:22:31 <pjones> josef: that's not particularly accurate, really. 18:22:40 <fenrus02> drago01, let the user do so if htey wish of course, but not by default 18:22:43 <josef> pjones: did you merge the btrfs patches for grub1? 18:23:05 <mclasen> josef: I'd like to know what btrfs features will be 'exposed' in anaconda - it would be good to have UI for those in the desktop as well 18:23:17 <pjones> josef: not as yet. 18:23:17 <mjg59> Well, let's not run before we can walk 18:23:28 <josef> mclasen: thats up to the anaconda guys 18:23:42 <nirik> mjg59: your priviso should be at least a first requirement/hurdle. 18:23:42 <mjg59> Getting btrfs in by default is important even if we don't have the UI to take full advantage of it 18:24:12 <mjg59> We need to get it into people's hands before we can really work out what the UI needs to be 18:24:23 <mclasen> mjg59: I just like to avoid 'install-time only configuration' 18:24:36 <mjg59> mclasen: Not really any different to the current situation 18:24:41 <mjg59> We don't have any sane LVM tools 18:24:44 <mclasen> admittedly 18:25:21 <nirik> "a robust filesystem that handles most failure conditions well and has a robust repair tool" 18:25:31 <drago01> fenrus02: question wasn't about default but whether that is part of the upgrade process or "do it yourself" kind of thing 18:25:32 <nirik> "works on live media, including installs" 18:25:42 <mclasen> anyway, I didn't mean to put this up as a blocking issue, just something I'd like to keep in mind 18:25:46 <mjg59> Where failures include "Power went out", "Filesystem filled up", that kind of thing 18:25:51 <notting> drago01: fully on the 'do it yourself' bandwagon for that 18:25:55 <fenrus02> drago01, ok, fair enough. i added it to the list as an idea-board anyhow. 18:26:21 <notting> mjg59: exactly. data security is paramount 18:26:45 <nirik> quota support? nfs have any issues? 18:26:47 <rbergeron> nirik: might be good to just sift through the Alpha/Beta/Final release criteria to see what matches up. 18:26:54 <josef> there is no quota support atm 18:26:55 * gholms rings the 20-minute bell 18:26:58 <josef> nfs support is fine 18:27:15 <nirik> rbergeron: true, but we should make a determination before alpha, so we have time to test the ext4 case/etc. 18:27:23 <nirik> ok, votes to keep discussing? 18:27:31 * nirik is +1 for now. 18:28:01 <rbergeron> nirik: i meant for making a list of questions/concerns, which is what it appeared you were doing :) good brainstorming material. 18:28:16 <fenrus02> josef, in 11wks, you'll have repairing btrfsck, and encryption, but how likely is it to also have quota ? 18:28:36 <josef> i wouldnt say we'll have encryption, but if quota is a big deal i can start that 18:29:07 * nirik doesn't know how important that is... 18:29:16 <fenrus02> josef, which has a higher level of effort? 18:29:25 <fenrus02> do many people use quotas that would be using f16? 18:29:35 <notting> josef: what do you mean by 'encryption'? surely you can toss btrfs on an encrypted device? 18:29:49 <nirik> notting: needs lvm tho I think. 18:29:50 <josef> notting: oh yes of course, but no native encryption 18:29:57 <notting> nirik: device-mapper 18:29:58 <nirik> dm_crypt, etc. 18:30:11 <josef> i have no idea how many peopel use quotas, i'm under the impression nobody does but skvidal swears somebody does :) 18:30:18 <nirik> the feature suggests this is replacing lvm/no lvm. 18:30:25 <mmaslano> josef: there exist bug reports, so people use it 18:30:39 <fenrus02> josef, only el consumers use it afaict 18:31:03 <josef> i can definitely put it at the top of my list if its important 18:31:27 <fenrus02> personally, i would rather see native encryption next. *shrugs* 18:31:45 <notting> nirik: not exactly 18:31:53 <nirik> proposal: add critera we would like to see before alpha, engage QA and make determination before alpha change freeze if it's default ? 18:32:01 <nirik> or we could add critera, and revisit next week? 18:32:02 <mclasen> notting: I think the hope was to have directory encryption , not block device ? 18:32:16 <mmaslano> add criteria and revisit +1 18:32:32 <notting> nirik: +1 18:32:33 <nirik> also, when is btrfs raid vs mdraid used ? 18:32:37 <notting> mclasen: ala ecryptfs? 18:32:41 <pjones> mclasen: ugh, that's not great 18:32:43 <notting> nirik: that's all getting merged in the kernel anyway 18:32:50 <nirik> is it? nice. 18:32:58 <pjones> mclasen: that means swap isn't encrypted unless it lives on the FS (which isn't great either...) 18:33:16 <josef> and we cant have swap files on btrfs 18:33:31 <gholms> You can't have swap files on btrfs? 18:33:38 <josef> nope 18:33:41 <pjones> also that'd preclude thaw (not that I'm particularly interested in keeping thaw) 18:33:48 <mclasen> pjones: I'm not into technical details - if it is a subvolume instead of a directory, that would be fine with me 18:33:50 * nirik sees 3 votes to add critera and revisit next week. (I'm also in favor of that myself) 18:34:03 <mclasen> the important thing is to encrypt /home/mclasen, not /home 18:34:15 <pjones> a lot of people disagree with that. 18:34:37 <pjones> AIUI a surprising number of people are in situations where encrypting /bin is required. 18:34:40 <nirik> also no /boot by default would mean encrypted fs users would have a different partition setup than non encrypted. Dunno how important that is. 18:35:07 <fenrus02> nirik, that's how it stands today already 18:35:18 <pjones> fenrus02: how so? 18:35:26 <pjones> right now you get substantially the same thing by default 18:35:34 <pjones> just with luks on the lvm pv 18:35:37 <nirik> you always get a /boot by default... last I checked 18:35:41 <fenrus02> pjones, /boot in f15 cannot be inside lvm, nor inside encryption 18:35:48 * mclasen thinks encrypting /bin is bizarre 18:36:13 <fenrus02> mclasen, security enforcement people are strange :) 18:36:16 <pjones> fenrus02: right - but that's the same encrypted or not. 18:36:25 <nirik> fenrus02: right, but if btrfs did no seperate /boot by default, non encrypted folks would have no seperate /boot... but encrypted installs would have it. 18:36:30 <fenrus02> pjones, hm. grub2 boots from lvm 18:36:35 <nirik> so it would be possibly confusing to support resources... 18:36:51 <fenrus02> nirik, if you use crypted /, you would need /boot 18:36:51 <pjones> fenrus02: holy moving goalposts, batman. you're talking about f15. 18:37:04 <fenrus02> pjones, i'm comparing to what we have today. 18:37:07 <nirik> fenrus02: yes? correct. 18:37:32 <fenrus02> pjones, so if btrfs can support what we already have, then it's not a loss of functionality 18:37:43 <nirik> "If you have a seperate /boot, check it for space before running preupgrade" vs "If you don't have an encrypted root fs you have no seperate boot, so check / for space" 18:37:59 <nirik> I'm just saying it will mean different install configs where today they are the same. 18:38:04 <fenrus02> nirik, check for space on /boot regardless. if it's part of / then it's an easy one 18:38:05 <nirik> anyhow. 18:38:11 * nirik sees 3 votes to add critera and revisit next week. (I'm also in favor of that myself) 18:39:01 <nirik> votes? 18:39:14 <ajax> +1 to that 18:39:29 <notting> revisit next week, or revisit 'at a future date'? 18:39:36 <nirik> notting: I was thinking next week... 18:39:48 <nirik> if we don't have criteria by then we should gather a wider net for it. 18:40:28 <kylem> nirik, seems reasonable. +1. 18:40:39 <nirik> #agreed FESCo folks will add critera and questions to the feature page, revisit feature next week. 18:40:52 <nirik> josef: will gather questions/criteria for you. ;) Thanks for working on this. 18:41:08 <josef> nirik: great thanks 18:41:18 <nirik> #topic #595 F16Feature: GHC 7.0.3 and Haskell Platform 2011.2.0.1 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GHC703 18:41:18 <nirik> .fesco 595 18:41:18 * josef will put a reminder in his calendar this time 18:41:19 <zodbot> nirik: #595 (F16Feature: GHC 7.0.3 and Haskell Platform 2011.2.0.1 - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GHC703) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/595 18:42:00 <kylem> another release, another haskell... ;-) +1 18:42:01 <mclasen> not much to see, +1 and move on ? 18:42:05 <mmaslano> +1 18:42:12 <cwickert> +1 18:42:12 <nirik> +1 18:42:23 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:42:31 <nirik> #topic #596 F16Feature: HAL Removal - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HalRemoval 18:42:31 <nirik> .fesco 596 18:42:32 <zodbot> nirik: #596 (F16Feature: HAL Removal - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HalRemoval) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/596 18:42:35 <nirik> here's a fun one. ;) 18:42:36 <cwickert> +1 18:42:58 <nirik> it's been a while coming, but I think it's finally all set. ;) +1 here too 18:43:04 * cwickert fixed his packages for HalRemoval already 18:43:11 <mmaslano> +1 18:43:11 <cwickert> most is already done anyway 18:43:11 <nsoranzo> nsoranzo is here if there is any question 18:43:14 <ajax> kill it with all the fire. +1 18:43:29 <notting> +1 18:43:31 <kylem> +1 18:43:32 <mclasen> nsoranzo: thanks for pushing this along 18:43:37 <mclasen> +1 18:43:46 <nsoranzo> mclasen: welcome! 18:44:14 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:44:26 <nirik> #topic #597 F16Feature: Sheepdog - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Sheepdog 18:44:26 <nirik> .fesco 597 18:44:28 <zodbot> nirik: #597 (F16Feature: Sheepdog - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Sheepdog) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/597 18:44:48 <nirik> +1 here. 18:44:52 <nirik> looking forward to it. 18:45:11 <cwickert> something cloudish, what a surprise 18:45:15 <mmaslano> +1 looks good 18:45:19 <notting> +1 18:45:35 <cwickert> +1 18:46:01 <mjg59> +1 18:46:10 <mjg59> (Sorry, got dragged away by my manager) 18:46:10 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:46:24 <nirik> #topic #598 F16Feature: SysV to Systemd - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd 18:46:24 <nirik> .fesco 598 18:46:26 <zodbot> nirik: #598 (F16Feature: SysV to Systemd - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/598 18:46:27 <nirik> oh wait. 18:46:36 * mclasen points out that that the doc link for sheepdog is broken 18:46:37 <nirik> we already did this. ;) 18:46:46 <mjg59> Ah, we discussed the ticket and not the feature ticket 18:46:57 <nirik> yeah. 18:46:59 <nirik> oops. 18:47:03 <nirik> #topic #599 F16Feature: ConsoleKit Removal/Automatic Multi-Seat Support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval 18:47:03 <nirik> .fesco 599 18:47:04 <zodbot> nirik: #599 (F16Feature: ConsoleKit Removal/Automatic Multi-Seat Support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/599 18:47:12 <cwickert> this is an interesting one 18:47:33 * cwickert added a question to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/ckremoval 18:47:35 <mjg59> From a defaults perspective, this seems great 18:47:45 <cwickert> however there was no response yet 18:47:47 <mjg59> From a practical perspective, do we have other desktops relying on this? 18:47:56 <mclasen> cwickert: lennart is out this week 18:47:58 * nirik nods. 18:48:03 <mclasen> (and part of next week, I think) 18:48:15 <cwickert> mclasen: ah, I recall he mentioned it 18:48:22 * nirik is happy to defer this and find out more before voting. 18:48:27 <mjg59> Providing we're talking about losing ConsoleKit as part of the default (rather than the distro), I don't have any objection to this 18:48:27 <notting> mjg59: indirectly via polkit... otherwise, no 18:48:34 <mmaslano> I'd like to have a review from KDE and Xfce if it's not problem for them 18:48:35 <ajax> mjg59: repoquery makes it sound like no. 18:48:45 <ajax> defer sounds best here 18:48:54 <mjg59> Yeah, let'd get some more feedback 18:48:56 <notting> it's also required by some display manager that touts as a feature "written in pure bash" 18:48:57 <mclasen> cwickert: as far as I know, CK will continue to work, there is no conflict really 18:49:10 <ajax> notting: run _away_ 18:49:26 * mmaslano heard this before 18:49:32 <cwickert> does andbody know if ck-xinit-session will still be around? 18:49:49 <notting> cwickert: as i understand it, CK will remain around as long as it has deps 18:50:01 <cwickert> notting: cool 18:50:16 <mjg59> notting: I bet that one's lightweight 18:50:16 <notting> note that that package doesn't require CK 18:50:42 <nirik> proposal: defer and try and gather more info. Revisit next week. 18:50:47 <kylem> +1 defer 18:51:04 <notting> i suppose defer 18:51:18 <mmaslano> +1 next week 18:51:26 <cwickert> +1 defer until Lennart is back 18:51:45 <nirik> #agreed defer and gather more info. 18:51:54 <nirik> #topic #600 F16Feature: nss-myhostname by default - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/nssmyhostname 18:51:54 <nirik> .fesco 600 18:51:55 <zodbot> nirik: #600 (F16Feature: nss-myhostname by default - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/nssmyhostname) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/600 18:52:10 <mjg59> This sounds pretty awesome 18:52:56 <ajax> finally. 18:53:10 <nirik> hummm " pulling it in by the systemd package " does that really make sense? shouldn't it just be in base or something? 18:53:36 <mclasen> nirik: sure, but upgrades ? 18:53:43 <notting> there should be some way to handle upgrades too 18:53:53 <nirik> yeah, suppose so. 18:53:55 <notting> honestly, if NM drops the hostname writing code, have it require it? 18:54:03 <nirik> yeah, that might work. 18:54:06 <mjg59> I'm not too concerned about the packaging details 18:54:16 <nirik> anyhow, nitpick aside, seems good to me... +1 18:54:30 * notting is +1 18:54:30 <mclasen> +1 from me too 18:54:37 <kylem> +1 18:54:42 <cwickert> same here, +1, although we might look at the dependencies carefully 18:54:42 <mjg59> +1 18:54:47 <nirik> didn't this come up a while back as "betterhostname' or something? 18:54:53 <mclasen> yeah 18:54:55 <mmaslano> looks harmless +1 18:54:59 <mclasen> but we never completed that 18:55:09 <nirik> yeah. 18:55:16 * nirik can close that ticket. It's still around. ;) 18:55:23 <mclasen> so lennart picked it up and ran with it 18:55:31 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. 18:55:40 <nirik> #topic #601 F16 Feature: Perl5.14 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/perl5.14 18:55:40 <nirik> .fesco 601 18:55:41 <zodbot> nirik: #601 (F16 Feature: Perl5.14 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/perl5.14) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/601 18:56:17 <mmaslano> I vote for my feature +1 18:56:19 <nirik> cool with me, +1 18:56:23 <rbergeron> ummm 18:56:30 <ajax> perl's still a thing? huh. 18:56:45 <mmaslano> ajax: you might be surprised but people use it 18:56:50 <mmaslano> not in Fedora, but they do ;-) 18:57:03 * rbergeron raises hand - apparently I'm not cracking the whip hard enough on feature wrangling, but would like to see things actually go to Category:FeatureReadyForWrangler before they go to Fesco. 18:57:08 <rbergeron> :) 18:57:21 <notting> seems fine, +1. i like the scope of doing this in a side tag 18:57:30 <mjg59> +1 18:57:31 <nirik> rbergeron: ah, right... 18:57:31 <mmaslano> rbergeron: ok, sorry 18:57:33 <rbergeron> just a side note, but it looks fine ;) 18:57:42 * rbergeron just remembered that she stopped entering tickets at 600 18:57:44 <kylem> +1 18:57:45 * mclasen gives a +1 for a perl version update 18:57:46 * nirik missed that it bypassed there. 18:57:55 <rbergeron> and didn't see that one since... it's already in ready for fesco 18:58:01 <cwickert> +1 18:58:02 <nirik> rbergeron: please do look it over and make sure it's all set. 18:58:26 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved. (provided it passes wrangler) 18:58:49 <nirik> #topic Schedule for f16 18:58:55 <rbergeron> it looks dandy to me. 18:59:02 <nirik> so, we have a tenative schedule. 18:59:09 <nirik> do we want to approve it/amend it, etc? 18:59:23 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/16/Schedule 18:59:51 * rbergeron notes she's taking notes in retrospective, but would like to at least nail down the big dates (release, alpha/beta, freeze) - which are all according to previous plan. 19:00:14 <nirik> gnome 3.2 is after beta? 19:00:31 <jsmith> That would put FUDCon EMEA one week after release (assuming no slips) 19:01:13 <rbergeron> jsmith: .....is that a problem for some reason? 19:01:21 <jsmith> rbergeron: Not at all! 19:01:31 <rbergeron> good ;) lol 19:01:45 <jsmith> rbergeron: If we slipped more than that, though -- it might mean key folks needed for the release might be on the road 19:01:52 <mclasen> nirik: looks like it 19:01:56 <jsmith> rbergeron: As long as everyone is aware, it shouldn't cause issues 19:02:08 <jsmith> rbergeron: I just know we had similar concerns re: F15 release and FUDCon Panama 19:02:11 <rbergeron> jsmith: i'm not really wanting to shift the schedule around fudcons 19:02:27 <nirik> mclasen: I assume we can ship pre stuff and update the final bits then? any problems there? 19:02:34 <jsmith> rbergeron: It worked well for F15 schedule, but I don't feel like shifting F16 for FUDCon 19:02:40 <rbergeron> jsmith: if anything - we should note that maybe those aren't the best weeks to plan fudcons, because the may 1 / oct 31 has been pretty fixed for years. 19:03:20 <rbergeron> jsmith: I would yell if anyone wanted to shift the release for an event, but I suppose that specific topic isn't really pertinent to fesco atm. 19:03:33 <rbergeron> devel schedule is here: http://rbergero.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-16/f-16-devel-tasks.html 19:03:50 * rbergeron is happy to take feedback in a ticket, or in the retrospective page, if y'all want to munch on it for a week. 19:03:54 <mclasen> nirik: I assume that will work 19:03:59 * nirik is personally fine with the proposed schedule. 19:04:11 <nirik> do we want to check when other distros release? 19:04:28 <jsmith> nirik: Probably worth doing, to avoid mirror contention 19:04:33 * notting doesn't have any objections to the schedule 19:04:39 <nirik> (typically we don't want to overload our mirror system with releases overlaping because many mirrors also serve bits for others) 19:04:56 * rbergeron nods 19:05:17 <nirik> ubuntu is oct 13th targeted 19:05:41 * nirik looks for suse info 19:05:54 <rbergeron> opensuse is nov. 10 19:06:13 <jsmith> OK, looks like we're in good shape 19:06:19 <nirik> yep. 19:06:21 <nirik> cool 19:06:33 * mclasen has to go 19:06:53 <nirik> any objections or other votes? 19:07:03 <ajax> no objection 19:07:22 <nirik> #agreed FESCo is ok with the proposed schedule. 19:07:27 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:07:31 <nirik> Anything for open floor? 19:07:42 * rbergeron pokes up hand while digging up link 19:08:05 <tatica> releases should be after a Fudcon (near) 19:08:09 * tatica hides in her cave again 19:08:42 <rbergeron> So you guys discussed briefly the Feature stuff while I was... being on the wrong schedule 19:08:56 <rbergeron> I wrote up this wiki page - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features - and I'm making a blog post to go with. 19:09:23 <rbergeron> Basically, I think a lot of people think the process sucks (as seen in the fesco town hall yesterday, even), and i think it's time to fix it, and I'm happy to facilitate. 19:09:50 <rbergeron> But feel free to dump any comments you have into the wiki. I'm looking for specific examples, suggestions, things that work, things that are definitely broken, anything. 19:10:09 <mmaslano> rbergeron: looks good 19:10:13 <rbergeron> And after gathering some good feedback, I'll trying and group it up into something that makes sense, and start proposing some next steps. 19:10:14 <nirik> awesome! 19:10:20 <rbergeron> Note that this woulnd't affect F16. 19:10:33 <rbergeron> This, optimally, would be implemented in F17. 19:10:39 <rbergeron> (If anything.) 19:10:53 * nirik nods. 19:11:14 <rbergeron> I'm happy to post something to devel-list advertising as well, unless you guys think that's opening up the can-o-worms that will never make its way into feedback on a wiki page. :) 19:11:33 <nirik> I think it's worth a post. 19:11:39 * rbergeron points abadger1999 to the above, as he's been interested in it as well. 19:12:31 <nirik> ok, anything else? 19:12:37 <nirik> thanks for starting that process rbergeron 19:12:56 <rbergeron> Hey. Just trying to make all our jobs/volunteerings easier. :) 19:13:10 <rbergeron> Or less painful anyway. 19:13:44 * nirik is favor of that. ;) 19:13:52 <nirik> ok, will close on out in a minute if nothing else comes up... 19:14:52 <nirik> #endmeeting
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
