Full log: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060209 === Summary === Present from Fesco: thl, jpo, skvidal, Sopwith, jeremy, mschwendt, scop, thomasvs, f13 Tasks: * Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager Sopwith and skvidal will make sure that the following will be be added to the buildsystems: {{{ Vendor: Fedora Extras Packager: Fedora Extras <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> }}} * Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5 A separate mail will follow. This is the rough version: Can probably start on Sunday (February 12). Method: All packagers will take care of their to rebuild their own packages. Means: Increase release, put a comment like "Rebuild for FC5" in the changelog and request build. We're ignoring dep-order this way, but that works fine in core, too. It's to late for a better solution, but if anybody has problem with that please prepare a proposal how to do mass builds in the future. Orphaned packages will be removed before the rebuild starts. Rebuilds only for FE5 of course -- rebuilding packages in FE4 also just to keep the spec files in all branches in sync is stupid because it would mean unneeded updates/downloads for Extras users. Please only rebuild the packages you own! Branching for FE6 will probably happen at the same time as in rawhide. Still unsure (Comments please!): * what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two weeks? * Packages not rebuild before the 12th of February will be removed before FC5 is shipped to start with a clean tree with old cruft removed. * Encourage Extras reviews Some SIG's were created and already started to work -- see http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs The whole thing is a bit unorganized ATM. We don't need to many rules to organize a SIG, but we probably need *some*. Some parts of the discussions: {{{ 19:27 < jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl 19:28 < mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least. 19:31 < mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games 19:31 < mschwendt> | There's some content. 19:31 < mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work. 19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff 19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html 19:32 < nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages. 19:32 < mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page 19:33 < mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points 19:33 < nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;) 19:33 < thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-| 19:34 < mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page 19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general 19:35 < thl> | anyone interested in that job? 19:35 < mschwendt> | not necessarily 19:35 < mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already 19:35 < mschwendt> | it just needs more time 19:35 < mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps 19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, agreed 19:36 < thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho }}} nirik suggested 'package review days'. We'll try this out and see how it works: {{{ 19:30 < nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)? 19:30 < nirik> | perhaps sometime next week? 19:32 < nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling. }}} * EOL Policy for FE Still under discussion. See the full log for all details. Highlights: {{{ 19:40 < mschwendt> | we cannot offer an old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially 19:43 < jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly? 19:43 < mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5? 19:43 < mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE 19:44 < jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about. do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes? 19:44 < mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on 19:44 < mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5 19:47 < thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list 19:52 < dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras 19:52 < jwb> | the entire thing? 19:53 < dgilmore> | jwb: yes i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux 19:53 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team. 19:53 < thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list? 19:54 < dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do }}} * Broken deps report Waiting for further discussion on the list. * Weekly sponsorship nomination Andreas Bierfert (awjb) was nominated and accepted. BTW, It seems some people hesitate to nominate people in a public IRC channel. Therefore I'll modify the process slightly: FESCo-Members will discuss nominations directly on the FESCo-mailinglist in the future. If other sponsors or Extras packagers want to nominate someone just drop me a mail and I'll forward it. Okay for everybody? * Kernel module standardization What remains to be done? buildsys :( thl will try to get this moving again. CU thl P.S.: Is this slightly new format okay for everybody? I think some people won't like the long lines, but without them the parts from the IRC-Log are totally unreadable. And most lines are not that long. -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
