===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-11-27)
===================================
Meeting started by mmaslano at 18:00:39 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fesco.2013-11-27-18.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (mmaslano, 18:03:04)
* #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this? (mmaslano,
18:03:40)
* ACTION: mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page
and release notes (mmaslano, 18:09:08)
* #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default (mmaslano,
18:09:21)
* AGREED: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0) (mmaslano,
18:14:48)
* Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those already fixed (mmaslano,
18:15:27)
* #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure (mmaslano,
18:15:36)
* defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it again (mmaslano,
18:17:28)
* #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17
(mmaslano, 18:18:10)
* ACTION: mmaslano will close the old ticket (mmaslano, 18:20:20)
* #1201 Enabling third party repositories (mmaslano, 18:20:34)
* ACTION: abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait
for spot answer (mmaslano, 18:28:44)
* ACTION: abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal (mmaslano,
18:40:58)
* #1207 provenpackager request (mmaslano, 18:41:06)
* ACTION: mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
(mmaslano, 18:44:30)
* #1208 Request Proven Packager (mmaslano, 18:44:34)
* LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy
(abadger1999, 18:48:13)
* ACTION: nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add
permission to those users (mmaslano, 18:51:13)
* Next week's chair (mmaslano, 18:51:34)
* ACTION: mattdm wil be chairman next week (mmaslano, 18:55:42)
* Open Floor (mmaslano, 18:55:49)
Meeting ended at 18:59:50 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and
release notes
* mmaslano will close the old ticket
* abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot
answer
* abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
* mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
* nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to
those users
* mattdm wil be chairman next week
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* abadger1999
* abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for
spot answer
* abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
* mattdm
* mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and
release notes
* mattdm wil be chairman next week
* mmaslano
* mmaslano will close the old ticket
* mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
* nirik
* nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to
those users
* sgallagh
* abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for
spot answer
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mmaslano (77)
* sgallagh (38)
* nirik (37)
* abadger1999 (29)
* mattdm (27)
* zodbot (12)
* mitr (7)
* jreznik (1)
* t8m (0)
* pjones (0)
* notting (0)
18:00:39 <mmaslano> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-11-27)
18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 18:00:39 2013 UTC. The
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea
#link #topic.
18:00:44 <mmaslano> #meetingname fesco
18:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:49 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting
nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
18:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik
notting pjones sgallagh t8m
18:01:17 * nirik is sort of here, but dealing with an outage
18:01:21 <mmaslano> t8m appologies from meeting
18:01:28 <mmaslano> how many people are here?
18:02:11 <mitr> Hello
18:02:15 <mattdm> i am
18:02:29 <mmaslano> sgallagh: ?
18:02:40 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
18:02:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher'
<sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>
18:02:49 <mmaslano> 5 people
18:02:56 <mmaslano> it's a meeting
18:03:04 <mmaslano> #topic init process
18:03:40 <mmaslano> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready
for this?
18:03:44 <mmaslano> .fesco 1193
18:03:45 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1193 (reboots for all updates -- are we
ready for this?) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
18:03:51 <mmaslano> not sure about status of this one
18:04:05 <mmaslano> imho nothing is happening
18:04:13 <sgallagh> I think we were waiting on someone to update the
Change page with the actual implementation
18:04:21 <mattdm> we were looking for changes to the feature page and
release notes.
18:04:30 <mattdm> also something in the release notes.
18:04:32 <sgallagh> Shall we ping Richard again?
18:04:58 <mmaslano> preferably not in the ticket
18:05:01 <mmaslano> he didn't reply there
18:05:11 * abadger1999 here
18:06:47 <mmaslano> who shall ping him?
18:07:26 <mattdm> I -think- jreznik was going to?
18:07:41 <mmaslano> jreznik: ?
18:08:05 <nirik> actually from last meeting:
18:08:09 * nirik mattdm to contact the Change owner to update the wiki
page and release notes
18:08:11 <nirik> :)
18:08:38 <mattdm> oooohh.
18:08:40 * jreznik can re-check and there's follow up to be announced
18:08:42 <mattdm> okay sorry :)
18:08:47 <mattdm> I will do it.
18:09:08 <mmaslano> #action mattdm will contact the Change owner to
update the wiki page and release notes
18:09:21 <mmaslano> #topic #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default
18:09:25 <mmaslano> .fesco 1185
18:09:27 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1185 (Enable "-Werror=format-security" by
default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1185
18:10:44 <nirik> so, not sure there's more to do here for us.... ?
18:11:11 <mmaslano> sgallagh had last comment there
18:11:36 <mmaslano> from last meeting: wait a week for devel feedback
(from people already interested); 2) if there are no show-stoppers
identified, mass file bugs; 3) 3 weeks later, enable in rawhide
configuration by default
18:11:43 <mmaslano> it's a week, so no action
18:11:59 <sgallagh> So I think we just need to vote: okay to mass-file
at this point?
18:12:04 <sgallagh> Sorry...
18:12:12 <mitr> Yes, +1 to start filing bugs
18:12:13 <sgallagh> Proposal: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs
18:12:17 <nirik> not much more feedback on devel list I don't think...
so I think change owners can move forward on 2) and 3)
18:12:17 <sgallagh> +1
18:12:49 <mmaslano> +1 to mass file bugs
18:12:53 <nirik> sure, +1, but they should make sure not to file against
the already fixed ones.
18:14:04 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ?
18:14:12 <sgallagh> nirik: Worst-case, they get closed immediately. I'm
not too sure I want to force them to do another mass-rebuild just to
limit the bug-filing
18:14:15 <abadger1999> +1
18:14:35 <nirik> well, it's not really mass... it's the 300... but whatever.
18:14:48 <mmaslano> #agreed Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0)
18:15:06 <abadger1999> nirik: Agreed
18:15:27 <mmaslano> #info Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those
already fixed
18:15:36 <mmaslano> #topic #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug
procedure
18:15:40 <mmaslano> .fesco 1198
18:15:41 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1198 (Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug
procedure) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198
18:16:13 <mattdm> i need to retest this.
18:16:35 <mattdm> I haven't had a chance, though. Vote to defer until
more testing is done.
18:16:42 <mattdm> Because _something_ definitely isn't right.
18:16:51 <nirik> fair enough
18:17:28 <mmaslano> #info defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it
again
18:17:43 <mattdm> at LISA I had someone show me bugs he couldn't reopen.
saw with my own eyes.
18:18:03 <mmaslano> mattdm: ok, please continue
18:18:07 <mmaslano> in testing :)
18:18:10 <mmaslano> #topic #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week
2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17
18:18:14 <mmaslano> .fesco 1140
18:18:15 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1140 (F20 Self Contained Changes - week
2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17) – FESCo -
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1140
18:18:38 <nirik> I think this can be closed after the agreed from last week
18:18:47 <nirik> unless there's new info?
18:19:10 <mmaslano> it's not clear from the last comment
18:19:45 <sgallagh> I left it open mainly for us to keep track of it
18:19:47 <mmaslano> should I close it and it's up to QA?
18:19:54 <sgallagh> mmaslano: That's probably fine
18:20:03 <mmaslano> sgallagh: you know what happens to open tickets like
this
18:20:05 <nirik> +1 close.
18:20:15 <sgallagh> mmaslano: They waste time in this meeting? :)
18:20:20 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close the old ticket
18:20:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1201 Enabling third party repositories
18:20:37 <mmaslano> .fesco 1201
18:20:38 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1201 (Enabling third party repositories) –
FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201
18:21:55 <sgallagh> The only question that was asked received a prompt
answer.
18:22:05 <mattdm> okay, so, that's: okay for coprs.
18:22:17 <mmaslano> spot answered in the ticket: I see no legal issue
with a copr including a "repo" rpm that enables that copr on a user's
system, assuming, of course, that the copr is in compliance with the
legal rules binding coprs.
18:22:35 <mattdm> I'm pretty happy with agreeing to _that_ reduced
subset: repo files for COPRs can be shipped in RPMs.
18:22:47 <mmaslano> I'll speak to Mirek tomorrow and close this ticket
18:22:55 <mmaslano> I guess there are no more issues to solve here
18:23:01 <sgallagh> mattdm: But only in RPMs served outside the main
Fedora repos
18:23:12 <mmaslano> sure
18:23:19 <sgallagh> just to be clear
18:23:37 * nirik is still confused.
18:23:38 <mitr> I've generally assumed that the primary case here was
things like Chrome, Flash and the like, not COPRs
18:24:06 <sgallagh> mitr: I take away from this that Fedora repos cannot
ship repo files pointing outside of Fedora repos.
18:24:06 <abadger1999> nirik: I think what spot answered was "the way
coprs currently operates is fine"
18:24:10 <nirik> those repo files for copr repos, are shipped in rpms in
the copr right? or are you positing they are in fedora itself?
18:24:11 <mattdm> sgallagh Yes. Although I'm also okay in principle with
the larger (still reduced) case of including COPRs-repo-rpms in main
fedora repos.
18:24:11 <sgallagh> (Yo dawg...)
18:24:41 <mmaslano> mitr: yeah, but legal said no if I remeber
18:24:42 <sgallagh> nirik: The ruling is that they may not be shipped
from Fedora[-updates] repos
18:24:42 <mattdm> COPRs is Fedora (Project) but not Fedora (Distribution).
18:24:48 <abadger1999> He was not asked about whether having the copr
yum repos be shipped inside of the Fedora Main Repos would be okay.
18:24:55 <nirik> mattdm: that gets back to adding a burden on legal
18:25:02 <nirik> ok, fine.
18:25:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: so this will be the next question :)
18:25:09 <sgallagh> abadger1999: That was the EXACT question I posed.
18:25:15 <sgallagh> Did I phrase it ambiguously?
18:25:19 <abadger1999> sgallagh: yes.
18:25:37 <abadger1999> Well -- let me verify... I know that spot
answered a different question than that.
18:25:42 <sgallagh> "Specifically, does this mean: On a pristine
installed system, I cannot do 'yum install
package-providing-repo-for-a-copr'"
18:25:56 <nirik> It wasn't clear to me.
18:25:59 <mattdm> proposal: rephrase that question, wait until next week.
18:26:05 * sgallagh sighs
18:26:16 <nirik> yum install http://copr.whatever/foo-copr.rpm
18:26:18 <mattdm> on rereading it looks clear to me but obviously it
isn't to everyone.
18:26:30 <mitr> mattdm: ... and ask jwb whether the answer is relevant
to the Workstation WG
18:26:30 <mmaslano> sgallagh: only one question per comment, otherwise
it's confusing ;-)
18:26:40 <abadger1999> sgallagh: ah here's where things got ambiguous:
18:26:49 <abadger1999> Right after that example you said: "Or does it
also mean that COPR cannot provide an RPM for a particular repo. "
18:27:04 <abadger1999> sgallagh: That's the question that spot answered.
18:27:10 <nirik> I think it might be more clear to list out specific
examples.
18:27:16 * sgallagh facepalms
18:27:36 <sgallagh> Ok, someone gooder with words than me should do that.
18:27:55 <mattdm> Okay go abadger1999 :)
18:28:03 <abadger1999> haha :-)
18:28:06 <mmaslano> sgallagh: not me, I understand I can install copr
repo and it can be shipped :)
18:28:15 <abadger1999> Okay, I can rephrase sgallagh's question.
18:28:41 <sgallagh> Thank you
18:28:42 <abadger1999> If other people have questions, please add those
to the ticket yourselves :-)
18:28:44 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question
and we will wait for spot answer
18:29:07 <mattdm> On the rest of the question, do we ant to say
something about a) the proprietary repos and/or b) non-COPRs
free-software repos?
18:29:26 <mmaslano> I guess Workstation WG asked first
18:29:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: I interpreted this to mean that COPRs and
non-COPRs free-software repos should be treated equivalently
18:30:18 <mattdm> As I understood it there is a difference because we
already have some responsibility over COPRs repos
18:30:19 <mmaslano> if they obey Fedora licensing
18:31:05 <nirik> mattdm: but no one is reviewing that unless someone
reports a problem.
18:31:17 <sgallagh> Well, if we assume the ruling is "Fedora
distribution cannot ship repo files for COPRs and other external repos",
then this is a moot point
18:31:21 <abadger1999> mattdm: My impression from talking with spot at
FPC is that COPR is included in "other third party repos" in terms of
Fedora Legal having to vette the packages within them in an on-going manner.
18:31:52 <mattdm> okay, so, let's wait until that is answered then.
18:32:06 <sgallagh> Or add your question as a corrolary on the bug
18:32:06 <abadger1999> mattdm: But -- repos with proprietary software
are even more work for Fedora Legal to vette than other third party
repositories.
18:32:30 <sgallagh> abadger1999: He said "free software"
18:32:46 <abadger1999> So... it may be easier for Fedora Legal to vette
Copr repos than, say, the adobe flash repo but it would still be a lot
of extra work.
18:33:25 * nirik isnt sure question 2 of the orig ticket was really answered
18:33:59 <nirik> "Can products make third party repositories
discoverable via search terms in some fashion and easily enabled without
actually shipping the .repo files"
18:34:09 <abadger1999> sgallagh: he == spot? I was just replying to
mattdm's "a) the proprietary repos".
18:34:34 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Ah sorry. Missed the a) portion there.
Carry on.
18:35:59 <nirik> I guess the 'putting them in docdir' was answered...
not sure how else the 'search terms' would work.
18:36:09 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah, I don't think that was directly
addressed -- it seems like it's trying to define a boundary in a big
grey zone, though, so it may need to be more specific (have an example).
18:36:30 <nirik> yeah, if so we should ask the workstation wg for
examples. ;)
18:37:09 <mitr> nirik: GNOME software would be a likely place
18:37:42 <nirik> mitr: sure, but how?
18:38:08 <abadger1999> I think the limits of "discoverable" and "search
terms" probably could get us into contirbutory infringement territory.
18:38:10 <mitr> nirik: ... who cares? appdata,
/usr/share/gnome-software/something, hardcoded in the binary, what does
it matter?
18:38:36 <nirik> mitr: see above.
18:38:43 <nirik> if we point to specific things, legal has to vet them
18:38:55 <abadger1999> So someone probably needs to say "This is how it
would operate" and then Legal could say "that is fine" or "that is not
fine".
18:39:06 <nirik> right
18:40:29 <nirik> anyhow, lets move on? I or abadger1999 can ask them for
more examples?
18:40:39 <sgallagh> Yes please (to both)
18:40:58 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
18:41:06 <mmaslano> #topic #1207 provenpackager request
18:41:13 <mmaslano> .fesco 1207
18:41:14 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1207 (provenpackager request) – FESCo -
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1207
18:41:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: uh...
18:41:45 <abadger1999> I don't think I can sign up for more than
rephrasing sgallagh's question.
18:41:54 <mmaslano> abadger1999: fine by me
18:42:30 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can fight about questions
later in the ticket
18:42:55 <mmaslano> Michal Srb, I guess we only approve, no -1 in the ticket
18:42:56 <abadger1999> This second part of the question I'm pretty sure
Legal will want to know the specifics of what we want to do is and
that's something I odn't know the answer to.
18:43:57 <nirik> mmaslano: yeah, auto approve on this one.
18:44:08 <sgallagh> +1 approve (as noted in the ticket)
18:44:30 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto
approval
18:44:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1208 Request Proven Packager
18:44:39 <mmaslano> .fesco 1208
18:44:40 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1208 (Request Proven Packager) – FESCo -
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1208
18:45:14 <nirik> not enough +1's...
18:45:18 * nirik looks
18:45:29 <mmaslano> tstclair
18:45:50 <mmaslano> do we have some minimal +1's?
18:45:54 <mmaslano> I see only +2
18:46:07 * mattdm looks
18:46:26 <mattdm> +1
18:46:31 <sgallagh> other members of the SIG for which he wants
provenpackager seem to support it.
18:46:35 <nirik> +1 from me... I've not talked to tstclair in a while,
but I recall condor packaging is good.
18:46:35 <sgallagh> I'm +1 on those grounds.
18:47:27 <abadger1999> Has commit on 7 packages:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/tstclair?acls=owner&acls=approveacls&acls=commit
18:48:09 <abadger1999> mmaslano: You must get at least 3 positive votes
with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be
automatically approved.
18:48:13 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy
18:48:40 <mmaslano> he wrote: I'm requesting proven packager status is
to coordinate updates with maintainers of the dependency tree.
18:48:47 <mmaslano> how many packages is there?
18:49:03 <mmaslano> is it worth of provenpackager?
18:49:41 <abadger1999> there were no -1's in ticket so really.. we don't
need fesco to vote in full, mattdm and nirik's +1 could count towards
the "3 positive votes" if they want.
18:49:50 <nirik> right, true.
18:50:15 <mattdm> should i put my +1 in the ticket? does that help?
18:50:24 <nirik> sure.
18:50:36 <abadger1999> mattdm: yeah do that and then we'll just do
automatic approval.
18:50:50 <nirik> mmaslano: I can close both those tickets and add the
users...
18:50:55 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks
18:51:13 <mmaslano> #action nirik will close both provenpackager tickets
and add permission to those users
18:51:34 <mmaslano> #topic Next week's chair
18:52:45 <sgallagh> Don't all volunteer at once...
18:53:27 <mitr> I'm not sure I'll be here next week
18:53:39 <mmaslano> we can volunteer someone who's not here...
18:54:05 * mattdm looks at calendar
18:54:19 <mattdm> okay I can do it :)
18:55:42 <mmaslano> #action mattdm wil be chairman next week
18:55:49 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor
18:57:29 * nirik has nothing
18:57:32 <mmaslano> nothing?
18:57:38 <mmaslano> I will close the meeting in 3 minutes
18:57:39 <mattdm> *crickets chirp*
18:57:40 <sgallagh> I had something, but I can't bring it to mind.
18:57:49 <sgallagh> I'll post on the list if it turns out to have been
important...
18:57:55 <mmaslano> crickets died in the snow...
18:58:02 <abadger1999> sgallagh: you were going to wish everyone a happy
holiday season ;-)
18:58:12 <sgallagh> Well, that goes without saying! :)
18:59:32 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Close now and we'll have kept to an hour :)
18:59:44 <mmaslano> fine
18:59:50 <mmaslano> #endmeeting
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
