2006 July, 13 FESCo Meeting =========================== Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings Attending --------- * thl (Chair) * scop * jwb * spot * tibbs * abadger1999 * rdieter * c4chris * dgilmore Summary ------- * Josh Bowyer is the new FESCo VP. The VP's first task is being a backup if the chair cannot attend a meeting. * Mass rebuilds - We should rebuild after FC5t2 when glibc changes have settled in and we've confirmed that the buildsystem is using the reduced package set. - Add a file to the CVS tree to each package to mark that it hasn't been rebuilt for FC6 yet. The maintainer removes this when they rebuild the package or tells why it doesn't need rebuilding in the cvs log. * Election - thl will mail abadger1999 with some questions to look into. abadger1999 will do some research and report back to FECo. + One piece is election model. This time we used bloc voting. Should we have range voting, approval voting, or something else instead? * Ctrl-C Problem - scop will test the fix and see if the issue still exists. * Encourage Extras Reviews: - tibbs reports there are some new people doing reviews. - The wiki was unclear that all people sponsored are eligible to do reviews. - Will also mention that fedorabugs is needed to do reviews. - tibbs will modify the wiki to fix these. * Comaintainers - Needs someone to drive the issue and organize it into short term and long term goals. + short term: Fix bugzilla auto-CC in owners.list + long term: Items listed in thl's email. * These may tie into the new VCS, accounts, and package databases. * Getting new contributers via comaintainership. * Perhaps reviewers could automatically be made temporary comaintainers of the packages they review so they see that the packager is doing the right things to get it to build in the build system for the first time, etc. * SIGs can help comaintain where applicable. * Should comaintainers be mandatory? General feeling was they should be encouraged but not mandatory. * Security sensitive things should all have comaintainers. * AWOL Policy - http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy - Changes: + Mention the Vacation Page. + Made expectations for an unsponsored packager taking over an existing package more realistic (They still need to prove their knowledge to a sponsor). + Add appropriate links to NewSponsorProccess, ReviewGuidelines, etc. - Policy approved with those changes. * Packaging Committee Report - Honoring $RPM_OPT_FLAGS added for arch specific packages. + Changed to say never for kmods. - New ChangeLog format is a must item. - It is permissible to have Release: [INT]%{?dist}.[INT] (period integer after the dist tag.) - dist tag harcoding was discussed and voted down (existing rules against continue to apply). - jpackage guidelines discussed and not voted on. - packages in Fedora SHOULD have ipv6 support and if they do not, the packager SHOULD open a bug in Red Hat Bugzilla that blocks an ipv6 tracker. They should also notify upstream. + This was vetoed. Resolution: * Clarify that this does not have to be tested. If it is *known* not to work then the bug is opened. * Put into a separate document: Recommendations for Software Packaged in Fedora instead of the Guidelines. The intention is that this document will be for software features rather than packaging. * The Packaging Committee is responsible for this document as well. * thl's recent email listing projects within FE is being maintained on the wiki: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/RecapitulateStateOfExtras - Schedule time to look parel out ideas from there for people to work on. - Share some ideas with Infrastructure to keep things moving there. IRC Log ------- :: (10:00:22) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- init (10:00:29) thl: who's around from fesco? (10:00:30) ***scop boots (10:00:36) jwb: me me me (10:00:40) ***spot is here (10:00:41) tibbs: I'm around. (10:00:48) abadger1999: 3/4 here (10:00:52) rdieter: here (10:00:54) spot: gimme a minute to make the notes from FP (10:01:08) ***c4chris_ waves (10:01:15) thl: spot, we'll do that after we're gone trough all topics with priority "1" (10:01:26) thl: well, then let's start slowly (10:01:35) spot: ok (10:01:35) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- VP (10:01:50) thl: okay, so who want's the job now? (10:02:05) jwb: i said i would take it if nobody else wanted to (10:02:09) thl: "frearless leader backup" (10:02:25) ***jima loves the "fearless leader" line ;) (10:02:45) thl: any other (self?) nominations? (10:02:58) c4chris_: we like jwb :) (10:03:02) thl: seems no (10:03:09) ***dgilmore is here (10:03:11) thl: so jwb for vp get a +1 from me (10:03:17) c4chris_: +1 (10:03:17) scop: +1 (10:03:21) abadger1999: +1 (10:03:23) jima: +1 (rabble) (10:03:26) rdieter: jwb++ (10:03:31) tibbs: +1 (10:03:38) dgilmore: +1 (10:03:45) jima: jwb = screwed (10:03:47) thl: okay, seems we're in agreement (10:03:49) jwb: heh (10:03:53) thl: jwb, you lost ;-) (10:04:07) jwb: that's ok. i'm used to running meetings ;) (10:04:17) thl: okay, so let's move on (10:04:31) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Mess-Rebuild for FC6 (10:04:38) thl: I added that to the topic (10:04:46) thl: we should slowly plan what to do (10:04:49) c4chris_: intended type? (10:04:54) thl: we don't need decisions today (10:04:58) dgilmore: it needs to be done earlier than it was in fc5 i think (10:05:04) c4chris_: s/type/typo/ doh (10:05:26) jwb: dgilmore, i agree (10:05:30) thl: c4chris_, which typo (me often does typos....) (10:05:41) c4chris_: s/Mess/Mass/... (10:05:42) jima: c4chris_: ssshhh, you could have pretended that was ironic. (10:05:45) thl: ping jeremy, f13, warren (10:05:50) thl: c4chris_, ohhhh :) (10:06:03) thl: no, not intended, but a nice one :) (10:06:10) c4chris_: yup :) (10:06:13) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Mass-Rebuild for FC6 (10:06:33) jwb: perhaps start rebuilding after test2 releases (10:06:35) thl: jeremy, f13, warren, when can we start rebuilding Extras for FC6? (10:06:48) thl: I suppose when the current mass-rebuild is done? (10:06:48) c4chris_: I think a rebuild is a good thing (10:06:52) scop: I have mixed feelings about it (10:06:58) thl: e.g. after FC6T2? (10:07:06) dgilmore: jwb: probably best time. I hope that our big glibc change will have settled down by then (10:07:17) scop: all packages for which it makes sense need to be rebuilt (10:07:29) jwb: scop, meaning all non-noarch? (10:07:37) scop: not necessarily (10:07:57) scop: think eg. versioned dirs (10:07:57) thl: scop, "--verbose" ? (10:08:37) scop: the other side of the "mix" is that a mass rebuild is a lost opportnity for catching awol maintainers (10:08:54) c4chris_: in cases where maintainer doesn't want to rebuild, I'd like to at least see a message stating "no rebuild for foo.." (10:09:06) wart-cellphone [n=upirc] entered the room. (10:09:06) scop: regarding versioned dirs, think eg. a perl 5.8.x -> perl 6.x upgrade (10:09:08) ***thl likes catching awol maintainers with a manual mass rebuild as we did for FC5 (10:09:26) jwb: thl, yeah that was a good point (10:09:28) scop: I like that too (10:09:32) jima: i agree with it being manual (10:09:42) warren: huh!? (10:09:42) jwb: c4chris, and maybe _why_ they don't want to rebuild (10:09:46) warren: we went to perl 6.x? (10:09:50) jima: now's a great time to find the AWOL people (10:09:51) thl: c4chris_, could a tag in cvs be used? (10:09:55) tibbs: Who doesn't love to stress test the build system? (10:10:02) scop: warren, it was just a hypothetical example, don't worry ;) (10:10:12) _wart_ left the room (quit: "Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/";). (10:10:15) thl: btw, regarding the mass-rebuild (10:10:16) c4chris_: thl: ? (10:10:37) warren: If we want to catch AWOL maintainers, the best way to do that is to ask the maintainers themselves to launch the rebuilds of their own packages. (10:10:39) thl: do the builders use the reduced package set yet? (10:11:00) c4chris_: jwb: that would be good, yes (10:11:04) tibbs: thl: do you mean, check in a file to CVS that the maintainer removes when they rebuild? (10:11:14) dgilmore: warren: thats the way it was done for fc5 (10:11:20) ***jwb steps away for 2 seconds (10:11:23) thl: c4chris_, regarding: 'I'd like to at least see a message stating "no rebuild for foo.."' -- maybe we could use cvs for it (10:11:26) dgilmore: thl: we should make sure that is the case (10:11:33) thl: dgilmore, agreed (10:11:42) c4chris_: thl: ah, ok (10:11:56) c4chris_: thl: why not. (10:12:01) thl: tibbs, mmmm, yes, that could work, but it's probably a lot of noise (10:12:21) scop: use dead.package for the marker? ;) (10:12:32) c4chris_: scop: :) (10:12:50) c4chris_: commatose ? (10:12:50) thl: or a file "rebuild.me" ;-) (10:13:07) ***jwb is back (10:13:41) c4chris_: that might get quite noisy on the ml, though... (10:13:54) thl: warren, who is our contact for the buildsys atm? (10:14:03) warren: thl, good question... (10:14:05) scop: I think the idea of using a file in CVS is worth trying (10:14:09) thl: warren, the infrastructure group? skvidal? dcbw? (10:14:25) jwb: file to mark for rebuild or no rebuild though? (10:14:29) thl: warren, we should soon switch to the reduced package set in the default buildroot (10:14:35) scop: the commit message can then explain stuff if a rebuild is not needed (10:14:43) dgilmore: thl it would be the infrustructure team (10:15:01) dgilmore: thl i can bring it up in the fedora-admin meeting this afternoon (10:15:09) thl: dgilmore, great, thx (10:15:18) scop: no file (cvs rm'd) means "done, rebuilt" (10:15:27) scop: or "done, does not need to be rebuilt" (10:15:27) thl: dgilmore, what about plague? does it need a update, too? (10:15:36) thl: I lost track on the diffferent plague versions (10:15:39) c4chris_: scop: I like the idea (10:15:46) warren: thl, kind of skvidal (10:15:51) jwb: scop, and who puts the file there in the first place? (10:15:51) dgilmore: thl: plague wont need an update but its mock configs might (10:15:55) warren: thl, infrastructure group is capable of helping (10:16:12) scop: jwb, whoever, for example I can volunteer for that (10:16:18) thl: dgilmore, you you handle that task? poke skvidal if he needs to do something? (10:16:23) jwb: scop, ok just checking (10:16:28) dgilmore: thl: sure (10:16:32) thl: dgilmore, tia (10:16:50) jwb: i like the rebuild.me file in CVS as well (10:17:20) ***thl likes rebuild.me file in CVS as well (10:17:32) scop: it should probably be added after CVS is branched for FC-6, right? (10:17:33) thl: but we need to define which arch packages really need a rebuild (10:17:41) abadger1999: jwb: As in a file that asks some automated process to rebuild it? (10:17:46) thl: scop, why? (10:17:56) c4chris_: abadger1999, no: asks the maintainer (10:18:03) thl: scop, we normally branch when FC6 ships -- that a bit late for a mass rebuild (10:18:06) jwb: abadger1999, no as in a file that maintainers remove when they rebuild (or say why they aren't) (10:18:07) abadger1999: Okay. that's fine. (10:18:16) scop: thl, okay, that would be too late indeed, then (10:18:33) c4chris_: why not branch sooner ? (10:18:43) thl: c4chris_, why should we? (10:18:48) jwb: c4chris_, coordination with Core is best (10:18:51) thl: is there any need? (10:18:53) thl: jwb, +1 (10:19:11) jwb: i say the rebuild starts after FC6T2 (10:19:17) c4chris_: oh, I thought core did a kind of frozen branch already... (10:19:17) thl: jwb, I (10:19:29) thl: jwb, I'd like to have a ACk from Jeremy first (10:19:33) skvidal: thl: what am I being poked for? (10:19:35) jwb: thl, sure (10:19:43) c4chris_: I agree we should not branch before Core (10:19:47) thl: skvidal, nothing (yet) (10:19:52) dgilmore: skvidal: minimal buildroots if needed (10:20:04) skvidal: dgilmore: okay - just for anything infrastructure-related (10:20:14) skvidal: email admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or file a ticket in otrs (10:20:26) skvidal: that way things don't block on me (10:20:26) dgilmore: skvidal:will do if we need you (10:20:33) skvidal: okie doke (10:20:35) thl: okay; then let's stop here now (10:20:36) ***skvidal goes back to hiding (10:20:47) scop: skvidal, what's the role of "fedora infrastructure" in bugzilla? (10:20:48) thl: and proceed next week (10:21:03) skvidal: scop: in bugzilla? (10:21:08) c4chris_: thl, k (10:21:10) thl: someone should own this task -- e.g. poke jeremy for informations and mail to the list (10:21:17) thl: any volunteers? (10:21:28) dgilmore: thl: Ill do it (10:21:33) scop: skvidal, grep for infrastructure at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi (10:21:35) thl: we also need to know which packages really need a rebuild (and which one not) (10:21:44) thl: dgilmore, k (10:21:55) skvidal: scop: oh - I dunno - we still get those - I think we've been pushing more things to otrs (10:22:12) ***thl will move on soon (10:22:17) scop: skvidal, ok (10:22:27) scop: it's not too prominent I think, though (10:22:31) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Next FESCo future/election (10:22:41) thl: someone should own this task, too (10:22:42) skvidal: scop: it just started being used (10:22:51) skvidal: scop: give it a bit more time (10:22:56) thl: e.g. analyse the last election (10:23:03) thl: write down how we did it (10:23:10) thl: when the next one is planed (10:23:13) ***spot starts to burn his stuffed ballots (10:23:13) thl: and all that stuff (10:23:22) thl: any volunteers? (10:23:39) jwb: i think abadger1999 and spot are the logical choices. they did most of the work :) (10:23:47) ***scop aims spot with a bucketful (10:23:53) spot: abadger1999 did most of the work. :) (10:23:54) abadger1999: Sure, I'm up for it. (10:24:04) thl: abadger1999, thx (10:24:05) spot: most of my code was thrown away (and rightfully so) (10:24:13) thl: abadger1999, there is no need to hurry (10:24:17) abadger1999: What sorts of things do we want to know/do? (10:24:39) abadger1999: How to make the app better? (10:24:39) thl: but I'd like to get this done until end of august? that okay? (10:24:44) abadger1999: How to publicise more? (10:25:05) thl: the app worked fine afaics (10:25:11) scop: who voted for himself ;) (10:25:37) thl: abadger1999, but do we need another vote-model next time (don#t know if that's the proper describtion) (10:25:44) spot: i voted for pat buchanan by mistake. the ballot was confusing. ;) (10:25:57) skvidal: spot: I want to hang chad (10:26:01) thl: e.g. a model more like "you can vote for as many members as you like and those with the most votes get in?" (10:26:07) abadger1999: The database is designed for reuse, the app needs to be modified to do that. (10:26:22) abadger1999: thl: Oops. Misundertood the question. (10:26:22) thl: I don't know if that would be better (10:26:41) abadger1999: ... But it has the same answer. (10:26:47) thl: :) (10:26:55) jwb: we have to decided how many seats are up for re-election too. still 1/2? or all? (10:27:07) thl: abadger1999, I'll send you a main in private with some of my thoughts (10:27:13) thl: let's stop here for today (10:27:22) abadger1999: thl: Sounds good. (10:27:28) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- CTRL-C problem (10:27:31) scop: (all++) (10:27:42) thl: well, it should be fixed (or a lot harder to trigger) (10:27:49) warren: Only requires testing (10:27:53) thl: but no one tested it yet (10:28:13) c4chris_: did Hans try again (10:28:18) thl: any volunteer? or do we trust Sopwith that he did the right thing (10:28:28) scop: I'll do some testing (10:28:47) thl: hans triggered it only once accidentally -- he didn#t want to try it again (10:28:52) thl: scop, thx (10:28:55) c4chris_: oh (10:28:56) tibbs: Hans is on vacation; I never could make it happen myself. (10:28:58) ***thl will move on (10:29:14) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Encourage Extras reviews (10:29:21) thl: standing item... (10:29:29) tibbs: We have had a couple of new reviewers lately, which is good. (10:29:42) thl: I think we can skip this for today if no one disagrees? (10:29:51) thl: or are there any new magic ideas how to make it better? (10:29:54) scop: ++ (10:29:57) tibbs: No objection from me. (10:29:58) scop: (skip) (10:29:59) c4chris_: fine with me (10:30:00) thl: ohh, well, there is one thing (10:30:17) ***dgilmore has no new ideas (10:30:21) thl: tibbs, it seems it's not cleanly documented that all sponsored people can review packages (10:30:34) thl: tibbs, at least one rh guy didn't know that (10:30:45) tibbs: Really? Where should that be documented? (10:30:48) thl: tibbs, could you please check if that in the proper places in the wiki? (10:31:06) thl: and if not: could you please add it on a public place? (10:31:13) thl: tibbs, don't know (10:31:18) tibbs: You need to get fedorabugs before you can actually do anything, correct? (10:31:19) c4chris_: where did the rh guy not find it ? (10:31:27) scop: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-e1a114b2 3499786e13113ebf072d03a8f8d02094 (10:31:36) RTLM [n=RTLM] entered the room. (10:31:57) tibbs: PackagingGuidelines and ReviewGuidelines are all conflated at the moment. (10:32:07) nphilipp left the room (quit: "Leaving"). (10:32:12) thl: it happend here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-music-list/2006-July/msg00012.h tml (10:32:13) c4chris_: tibbs, to assign tickets, yes (10:32:42) tibbs: And fedorabugs doesn't come with cvsextras, so technically all sponsored folks can't do reviews. (10:33:07) thl: tibbs, maybe the docs can be improved a bit? (10:33:16) tibbs: They have to ask for one more thing. I wonder why fedorabugs pending members don't generate a daily mail like cvsextras pending sponsorships? (10:33:28) tibbs: thl: no kidding. (10:33:29) thl: tibbs, Sopwith should know (10:33:35) c4chris_: tibbs, I think you're right... One more thing for the Grand Unified Access thingy (10:33:52) _wart_ [n=wart] entered the room. (10:34:01) tibbs: I'll try to at least add another step to the 9-million step contributor process document. (10:34:14) thl: tibbs, thx (10:34:21) ***thl will move on (10:34:36) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Co-maintainership (10:34:43) thl: has no owner (10:35:05) tibbs: Isn't everything in place except for the "bugzilla auto-CC's folks" thing? (10:35:05) thl: and is a major task that should be spitted into short term goals (10:35:11) thl: and long term goals (10:35:20) thl: short term: fix "bugzilla auto-CC's folks" (10:35:24) scop: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/198109 (10:35:37) scop: --> Sopwith (10:35:50) thl: long term: the things I mentioned in my "Recapitulate the current state..." mail (10:35:50) nim-nim [n=nim-nim] entered the room. (10:36:09) tibbs: We do have to decide if co-maintainers are mandatory or not. (10:36:27) dgilmore: thl: i think its part of the review infrustructure is doing of accounts system. and VCS (10:36:33) rdieter: mandatory-- (10:36:38) abadger1999: I'd say no to mandatory. (10:36:38) scop: mandatory-- (10:36:44) dgilmore: one VCS goal is stricter permissions on the whole VCS tree (10:36:55) thl: I's say 90% of the packages should have co-maintainers (10:37:06) rdieter: why? (10:37:06) thl: but mandatory probably won't work (10:37:11) dgilmore: - to manadatory (10:37:20) dgilmore: + to would be nice to have (10:37:22) c4chris_: encourage, but not mandatory (10:37:25) abadger1999: It might be nice if reviewers were something like comaintainers. (10:37:29) thl: rdieter, people are on vacation, people are offline (10:37:37) abadger1999: Perhaps for a limited time. (10:37:45) rdieter: you're right "should" is always nice. (10:37:56) tibbs: abadger1999: reviewers or sponsors. (10:38:18) abadger1999: I was thinking reviewers. (10:38:33) thl: abadger1999, yeah, I thing getting new contributors via co-maintainership might be a good idea in the longer term (10:38:35) tibbs: But as a reviewer I often know very little about a package. I'm just checking the form, whether it installs and maybe if I can make it do something. (10:38:59) thl: I also think people with more then 20 packages should hand over some of their packages to new contributors (10:39:01) rdieter: tibbs: right, it won't work for everyone, but it's a good place to start. (10:39:09) abadger1999: True, but you know more about it than the packager's sponsor. (10:39:30) tibbs: abadger1999: That's a reasonable point. (10:39:33) ChitleshGoorah left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (10:39:46) abadger1999: And it could be good to automatically be watching the new package as it takes its first steps of import and first few passes through the build system. (10:39:54) tibbs: Ideally everyone involved would help out anyway. (10:40:35) abadger1999: tibbs: You're correct there. (10:40:43) tibbs: So now we have this big nebulous idea of cosponsorship. (10:40:56) c4chris_: maybe a dating wiki page... (10:41:26) tibbs: Everyone involved in getting the package in can help, but really the reviewer and sponsor aren't going to be able to do much by next year. (10:41:53) c4chris_: thl, do you have a list of packages you'd really like to see co-maintained? (10:41:58) tibbs: SIG members can help for those packages where SIGs apply. (10:42:24) thl: c4chris_, no, I think that co-maintaining packages is a good idea per se (10:43:03) tibbs: I'd like to see security-sensitive things have co-maintainers as soon as is reasonable. (10:43:04) thl: maybe I should write up all my thoughs on this and post them to the list (10:43:13) tibbs: Internet-facing daemons and web apps and such. (10:43:53) thl: let's stop here for today (10:44:07) thl: it remains on the shedule and won't get lost ;-) (10:44:22) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- AWOL Policy (10:44:34) thl: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy to be precise (10:44:53) thl: so, what do we do with it? do we like it? any proposed modifications? (10:44:57) jwb: i liked it (10:45:33) jwb: i used something quite similar to it for one of the packagers i sponsored and it worked well (10:45:52) tibbs: I like it too, but it needs to mention the Vacation page or have some way for folks to indicate that they're going to be away. (10:46:08) jwb: true (10:46:12) tibbs: I know I can be out of pocket for three weeks or more if I go out of the country. (10:46:30) thl: what about the "- If you are a not an existing Extras contributor, you can still take over..." para? (10:46:32) scop: the only slight problem I have with it is the new contributor stuff (10:46:34) thl: do we want that? (10:46:51) thl: or do we let that out for now? (10:46:53) jwb: why not? it has to go through a full review (10:46:57) c4chris_: thl, yes, that's my main gripe about the proposition (10:47:08) scop: but then again, we already must trust our sponsors to be able to judge who they consider worth sponsoring (10:47:08) tibbs: But there's the sponsorship angle as well. (10:47:13) c4chris_: jwb, but it's already in good shape from the start (10:47:27) jwb: c4chris, so? (10:47:40) tibbs: The problem is that taking over a package is going to give the sponsors absolutely zero to go on. (10:47:50) scop: just resubmitting it doesn't show whether the resubmitter possesses "enough" clue (10:48:02) jwb: i see it as being no different from a brand new package that is in good shape (10:48:03) c4chris_: jwb, how do you know the submitter knows the packaging rules? (10:48:18) abadger1999: I think we take it out. (10:48:23) jwb: c4chris_, and how do you know the submitter knows the packaging rules for a brand new package? (10:48:36) c4chris_: jwb, true (10:48:42) abadger1999: jwb: In this case we _know_ that the new packager was able to crib from an existing package. (10:48:46) tibbs: jwb: You see how they react to review comments. (10:48:57) jwb: one can take a package from DAG, put it up for review and have _no_ issues with it (10:48:58) c4chris_: but then, I noticed many sponsors wait for a couple more packages... (10:49:10) tibbs: jwb: That's a rather optimistic statement. (10:49:12) scop: jwb, unlikely ;) (10:49:22) c4chris_: and it's not too hadr to check whether good specs are already available or not (10:49:23) jwb: ok, poor example but you know what i mean :) (10:49:55) ***thl would not sponsor someone that only took over an old package from Extras where the maintainer is MIA/AWOL (10:50:01) jwb: i'm not opposed to ommitting it. i just don't think it's necessary to (10:50:07) ***scop already tried it once and won't try again (10:50:31) thl: we can leave that para in (10:50:32) abadger1999: I think we should have a policy for unsponsored packagers to take over packages but it should be a general part of becoming a new packager rather than the AWOL policy. (10:50:36) thl: and see if it works (10:50:42) tibbs: The sponsorship thing is never going to be perfect, but in this case I think the takeover request would just sit around waiting for a sponsor forever, which wouldn't improve the situation at all. (10:50:45) thl: and change it later if it doesn't (10:51:00) c4chris_: thl, k (10:51:13) rdieter: thl++ (10:51:13) thl: abadger1999, I think co-maintaing is the way to get that realized (10:51:16) dgregor left the room (quit: "Leaving"). (10:51:25) c4chris_: we need to trust the sponsors (10:51:27) abadger1999: thl: I agree. (10:51:27) dgilmore: every so often ill be out of the country for 2-3 weeks (10:51:35) abadger1999: (with comaintainership) (10:51:36) scop: c4chris_++ (10:51:36) thl: so, okay, just to be sure (10:51:42) thl: do we agree on http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy (10:51:48) thl: it get's a +1 from me (10:51:48) jwb: +1 (10:51:52) rdieter: +1 (10:51:52) c4chris_: +1 (10:51:56) abadger1999: I don't think we should leave the woding of the AWOL policy the way it is. (10:52:06) scop: I would like "the process should be swift" removed (10:52:11) abadger1999: too optimistic for the unsponsored packager. (10:52:17) abadger1999: scop: Yes. (10:52:33) thl: scop, agreed (10:52:38) jwb: sure (10:52:39) ***thl removes it (10:53:14) thl: removed (10:53:16) abadger1999: Maybe mention that normal sponsorship rules apply? (10:53:16) wart-cellphone left the room (quit: Connection timed out). (10:53:51) thl: abadger1999, "This will allow the normal review process to happen. " is the last sentence atm (10:54:00) thl: what means "that normal sponsorship rules apply" afaics (10:54:07) thl: or not? (10:54:34) abadger1999: "...including finding a sponsor that believes you understand the packaging rules." (10:54:36) scop: s|review process|review/sponsorship process| (10:54:38) tibbs: Might be nice to assume they don't have a photographic memory of the process and include some links. (10:54:40) abadger1999: Append something like that? (10:54:52) thl: abadger1999, okay for me (10:54:56) c4chris_: abadger1999, yes (10:54:59) thl: other opinions? (10:55:06) jwb: fine with me (10:55:24) tibbs: Seems good to me after those changes. (10:55:35) abadger1999: +1 with those changes. (10:56:34) jwb: btw, who's doing the minutes this week? (10:56:38) thl: okay, committed (10:56:45) tibbs: Seems to only be five votes. (10:56:55) thl: so, once again (10:57:04) thl: everyone satisfied with http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy now? (10:57:09) scop: "...that believes you understand what is expected from FE package maintainers" (10:57:09) tibbs: +1 (10:57:10) thl: get's a +1 from me (10:57:10) c4chris_: +1 (10:57:12) jwb: +1 (10:57:12) rdieter: +1 (10:57:30) jwb: abadger1999, ? (10:57:37) abadger1999: +1 (10:57:38) ***thl needs to leave in 5 - 10 minutes (10:57:43) abadger1999: (slow reader) (10:57:44) scop: +1 (10:57:54) thl: scop, we can add that later if we need to (10:58:02) jwb: that's 7 (10:58:08) scop: yep, I'm just thinking aloud (10:58:09) thl: we don#t need to discuss such minor details now IMHO (10:58:20) thl: scop, and that's a good thing ;-) (10:58:43) tibbs: Packaging committee summary? (10:58:46) thl: okay, settled (10:58:54) jwb: tibbs, yeah. spot? (10:58:59) thl: hehe (10:59:05) spot: ok (10:59:06) thl: I'm doing the meeting here ;-) (10:59:14) spot: are you ready for me? :) (10:59:18) thl: IPv6 Support in Extras is on the schedule (10:59:19) tibbs: Sorry, I'm lagging badly at the moment. (10:59:28) thl: but I'd like to skip that because we run late (10:59:30) jwb: thl, i'll take it and ask it to be deferred to next week (10:59:31) thl: okay? (10:59:40) scop: thl, that was covered in the packaging committee meeting too (10:59:43) abadger1999: [spot enters stage right] (10:59:53) jwb: scop, it's more than just packaging IMHO though (10:59:58) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Packaging Committee Report (11:00:02) scop: jwb, yes, definitely (11:00:03) thl: spot, shoot (11:00:10) spot: from todays FP meeting (11:00:23) spot: - Honoring of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (for arch specific packages) will be explicitly mentioned in packaging/review guidelines (11:00:34) spot: - PackagingDrafts/Changelog is a MUST (11:00:48) spot: - all packages in Fedora SHOULD have ipv6 support, if they do not, the maintainer SHOULD open a bug in red hat bugzilla and notify upstream. this bug should block an ipv6 bug. (11:01:07) spot: - <int>%{?dist}.<int> is permitted for single dist updates (11:01:12) ***thl likes to add that kmod's should *not* honor $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (at least iirc) (11:01:23) spot: thl: good point (11:01:27) scop: kmods MUST not honor them (11:01:29) spot: - No changes to the dist tag rules were made, thus hardcoding dist in a spec is still not permitted. (11:01:43) spot: - Jpackage changes to existing guidelines were deferred for more discussion before a vote (11:01:47) jwb: spot, that's somewhat contentious (11:01:55) jwb: (the dist tag thing) (11:02:00) thl: I'd like to veto "SHOULD have ipv6 support" for now (11:02:12) thl: I'm not sure that should be in the packaging guidelines (11:02:22) thl: doesn't that open the door for a lot of other rules? (11:02:27) jwb: thl, i agree (11:02:32) _wart_: thl +1 (11:02:33) scop: like UTF-8 support? (11:02:40) thl: scop, for example (11:02:42) c4chris_: thl, I don't like it that much either (11:02:50) thl: I agree that both things are good in general (11:03:01) thl: but the guidelines get longer and longer and move complicated (11:03:03) _wart_: But if the ipv6 rule is adopted, I'd like to see a detailed page describing how to setup and test a package for ipv6 support. (11:03:03) rdieter: I see nothing wrong with documenting lack of utf-8 support either. (11:03:05) scop: but you don't think UTF-8 support is a SHOULD??? (11:03:08) thl: I'd like to keep such things out (11:03:18) spot: jwb: the dist tag rules have _always_ said that you cannot hardcode dist. (11:03:33) spot: jwb: the committee felt that there was no reason to alter this (11:03:39) rdieter: The proposed guideline doesn't say you have to test for ipv6 support, only to document known non-working. (11:03:39) thl: scop, sure it's a should -- but does it to be defined in the packaging guidelines? (11:03:40) jwb: spot, i misread that. ignore me (11:04:05) scop: thl, I don't care which guidelines it's in, but it should definitely be somewhere (11:04:07) _wart_: rdieter: so if you don't know if it works or not, you don't have to document anything? (11:04:08) jwb: rdieter, and how does one know without testing? (11:04:13) scop: "feature guidelines"? (11:04:18) rdieter: _wart_: right. (11:04:23) thl: "package guidelines" (11:04:29) thl: but not "packaging guidelines" (11:04:30) jwb: scop, yes that is what i was going to propose. or a SIG (11:04:36) rdieter: Jwb: you don't. (11:04:37) jwb: or both (11:04:40) scop: okay, I'm fine with that (11:05:00) dgilmore: id like to +1 ipv6 support (11:05:07) jwb: basically i think this isn't a _packaging_ issue at all, but a feature issue (11:05:21) thl: spot, would "package guidelines" be okay for you? (11:05:26) spot: thl: sure. (11:05:30) jwb: thl, sure (11:05:39) scop: "package" and "packaging" are too close, confusing (11:05:45) c4chris_: thl, I like that much better (11:05:45) abadger1999: scop: ++ (11:05:47) thl: scop, yeah... (11:05:47) tibbs: "Best practices for Fedora Packages"? (11:06:05) ndim: "Debian Policy" :) (11:06:06) thl: "Best practices for Software packaged in Fedora"? (11:06:15) jwb: yeah (11:06:16) scop: it's not a practice... (11:06:35) ***scop parrots "feature" (11:06:35) c4chris_: Recommendations (11:06:37) nacc_home left the room. (11:06:54) thl: "Recommendations for Software packaged in Fedora" (11:07:00) thl: spot, that okay for you? (11:07:01) scop: works4me (11:07:05) jwb: i like that (11:07:09) spot: sure. (11:07:26) jwb: spot, so you'll take this back to the PC and ask that to be removed? (11:07:27) tibbs: Now the question remains: is this still in the packaging committee's baliwick? (11:08:01) ***scop looks up baliwick (11:08:02) ***thl thinks the packaging comitte should also maintain the "Recommendations for Software packaged in Fedora" (11:08:08) rdieter: imo, yes. (11:08:15) spot: i think the packaging committee can handle it (11:08:17) jwb: i'm fine with that (11:08:25) c4chris_: fine (11:08:28) tibbs: scop: don't bother; I can't even spell it correctly. (11:08:33) jwb: as long as they're 2 separate docs (11:08:36) scop: tibbs, I noticed ;) (11:08:44) spot: jwb: yup. (11:09:05) thl: k, anything else from the packaging committee? (11:09:29) thl: seems not... (11:09:31) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination (11:09:35) thl: any nominations (11:09:40) thl: you have 30 seconds (11:09:41) scop: one more related thing to the previous (11:10:00) tibbs: No nominations from me.... (11:10:09) scop: was there an official annoucement about the FPC role/process anywhere as discussed on fab-list? (11:10:25) jwb: scop, not outside of that list afaics (11:10:49) scop: okay, it should be posted somewhere more prominent (11:10:57) jwb: -maintainers? (11:11:24) scop: that'd be better, yes. can you poke jeremy about it? (11:11:49) jwb: sure (11:11:50) thl: k, no nominations (11:12:01) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- free discussion (11:12:13) thl: anything else we should discuss today? (11:12:14) ***c4chris_ needs to run soonish... (11:12:25) jwb: FYI, i'll be out the next 2 weeks (11:12:32) jwb: vacation (sister is getting married) (11:12:36) c4chris_: update Vacations page ? (11:12:43) jwb: c4chris_, will do (11:12:55) c4chris_: have a good one! (11:12:59) jwb: thx :) (11:13:18) thl: btw, I maintain a slightly enhanced variant of my "Recapitulate the current state of Fedora Extras..." mail at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/RecapitulateStateOf Extras (11:13:28) thl: maybe we should go though it somewhen (11:13:40) thl: and discuss on what points we want to work (11:13:45) skvidal: thl: do you mean capitulate? (11:13:48) thl: and which ones we want to ignore (11:13:58) thl: skvidal, :) (11:14:05) skvidal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitulate (11:14:18) skvidal: b/c to recapitulate means to surrender, again (11:14:35) skvidal: ah, wait (11:14:37) scop: and summarize? (11:14:37) skvidal: it does not (11:14:40) skvidal: and summarize (11:14:41) skvidal: weird (11:14:46) ***skvidal loathes english sometimes (11:14:56) c4chris_: skvidal, :-) (11:14:59) skvidal: I'd only ever heard it used as 'surrender' (11:15:25) thl: maybe my dictionary drove me into the wrong direction (11:15:27) thl: sorry (11:15:34) skvidal: thl: no, you're completely correct (11:15:40) skvidal: just not the usage I'm familiar with (11:15:44) ***skvidal goes back to being quiet (11:15:47) thl: the dictionary was correct (11:16:08) c4chris_: ah well, might come from the french side... (11:16:29) ***thl afk for two minutes (11:17:29) nim-nim: Recapitulate comes from the french word "capitulations" (11:17:45) nim-nim: the list of conditions two parties agreed before one surrendered (11:18:03) tibbs: So has anyone seen any package submitters who they think should be sponsored? (11:18:07) nim-nim: capitulate has inherited the surrender part (11:18:20) abadger1999: thl: Nice link. I think we need to push some of those up to Infrastructure. (11:18:21) nim-nim: recapitulated has inherited the listing part (11:18:39) nim-nim: and no one remembers what capitulations are anymore (11:18:41) ***thl back (11:18:46) scop: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/capitulate (11:18:49) scop: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/recapitulate (11:19:12) thl: abadger1999, yes, we need a lot of help from the Infrastructure group (11:19:31) thl: anyway (11:19:36) thl: let's stop here for today (11:19:40) thl: and close the meeting (11:19:49) ***thl will close the meeting in 30 (11:19:58) thl: btw, who writes the summary? (11:20:11) abadger1999: I'll write the summary. (11:20:18) thl: abadger1999, tia (11:20:20) scop: do I remember abad... never mind ;) (11:20:34) ***thl will close the meeting in 10 (11:20:44) ***c4chris_ goes for dinner now. See ya all later :) (11:20:45) thl: MARK -- Meeting end (11:20:50) thl: thx everyone (11:20:55) tibbs: Off to lunch.... (11:20:55) c4chris_: thx (11:21:07) ***scop goes practice some Ctrl+C's (11:21:22) thl has changed the topic to: "This is the Fedora Extras channel, home of the FESCo meetings and general Extras discussion. | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras | Next FESCo Meeting: 2006-07-20 1700 UTC" (11:21:37) thl: scop, have fun :) (11:21:45) ***thl afk now (11:22:22) scop left the room ("Leaving").
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
