= 2006 August 17 FESCo = Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings == Attending == * warren * thl * bpepple * c4chris * rdieter * tibbs * abadger1999 * dgilmore == Summary == === Mass Rebuild === * http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/FC6MassRebuild * Packagers get 3 weeks to rebuild just like AWOL policy. * Packages that haven't been rebuilt get orphaned and the packages won't ship in the FC6 repository. * AWOL package process started for ignacio as he has a bunch of packages that others might have to pick up as dependencies. === comps.xml === * c4chris sent out nagmails. Many people have updated their packaged in comps.xml.in. * There are preliminary plans by the Packaging Committee to remove the group tag in the spec file and only have the information in comps.xml. * c4chris thinks the only way to make 100% accurate nagmails is to record a group for all packages, which could be an invisible group for some packages. This information might be appropriate for the Package Database. * c4chris and bpepple will start a comps SIG. * Even command-line tools should be in comps. === Legacy in buildroots === * Waiting on legacy being able to access the buildsystem so they can build ppc updates. === Ctrl-C Problem === * Infrastructure says figuring out a solution before the new VCS is probably too much work. * New VCS prototyping is waiting on two new servers to be installed at the end of August. Hoping to have something ready for Extras people to test by FC7t1. === Packaging Committee Report === * Started discussing deprecating and removing Group tag. No timeline yet but definitely a post-FC6 change. * ldconfig wording change to clarify the meaning. * Talked about changing the meeting day/time so there's time to send the committee report to FESCo via email. === Sponsorship Nominations === * dgilmore and c4chris accepted as sponsors. * New rule, nominate new FESCo members for sponsorship if they are not already; debate about upgrading them will be per normal. * Qualifications to be a sponsor needs to be discussed. === Misc === * New Package Review template approved: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00361.html * wiki user setup to send changes to FESCo list when /Extras/Schedule* is changed. * kmod discussion * Packaging Committee will discuss the technical aspects, whether to allow them in Fedora Extras/Core at all is being passed up to FAB. === Free discussion === * Maintainer Responsibility:: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy * tibbs solicits input on the draft policy. There are several open questions that need answering therein. == Log == {{{ (09:55:23) ***warren here. (09:55:32) warren: mdomsch, you there? (09:55:48) mdomsch: warren, yes (09:57:40) ***jima pops some popcorn for the show (09:59:05) ***cweyl settles in to lurk... silly people at work who presume to schedule their meetings during FESCo! (10:00:16) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress (10:00:22) thl: hy everyone (10:00:26) thl: who's around? (10:00:36) ***bpepple is here. (10:00:36) ***c4chris_ is here (10:00:55) c4chris_ is now known as c4chris (10:01:28) rdieter: here (10:01:35) tibbs: I'm here. (10:01:38) ***cweyl is lurking (rabble) (10:01:41) thl: okay, so let's start slowly (10:01:56) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- M{ae}ss-Rebuild (10:01:57) ***abadger1999 here (10:02:16) thl: scop not around (10:02:26) thl: do we want to discuss this further (10:02:37) thl: open issues: How much time need people to rebuild their stuff? What happens with packages that haven't been rebuilt or marked as not needing a rebuild by deadline X? (10:03:04) c4chris: what's the delay in the AWOL policy? (10:03:15) ***dgilmore is here (10:03:29) c4chris: I think we should use the same delay (10:03:35) dgilmore: thl: no need for discussion Lets just do it (10:03:59) tibbs: The delay is three weeks and three days, BTW. (10:04:00) thl: c4chris, I don#t know the exact delay from AWOL (10:04:27) c4chris: tibbs, sounds about right (10:04:32) thl: let's say: give people three weeks to rebuild their stuff? (10:04:39) c4chris: thl, +1 (10:04:40) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:04:46) thl: that leaves some time to fix the remaining stuff before FC6 ships (10:04:47) tibbs: +1 (10:04:50) warren: +1 (10:05:02) dgilmore: +1 (10:05:05) rdieter: +1 (10:05:11) thl: okay, three weeks (10:05:27) thl: What happens with packages that haven't been rebuilt or marked as not needing a rebuild by deadline X? (10:05:39) tibbs: Orphaned? (10:05:47) c4chris: Let's deal with the not rebuilt package when we have an idea how many there are (10:06:11) tibbs: We should know in advance so that people won't just expect the current package to rull into FC6. (10:06:23) tibbs: s/rull/roll/ (10:06:27) c4chris: mmh (10:06:31) c4chris: ok (10:06:37) dgilmore: im kindof scared if ignacio doesnt step up he has alot of packages (10:06:43) thl: dgilmore, +1 (10:06:43) c4chris: orphaned sounds about right (10:06:55) thl: jwb, you wanted to contact ignacio iirc (10:07:07) bpepple: dgilmore: Should other people be brought in to help him? (10:07:10) jwb: thl, i sent him an email. no repsonse (10:07:19) thl: jwb, thx (10:07:39) tibbs: Packages not rebuilt certainly shouldn't get autobranched to FC6, but I don't think they should be deleted. (10:07:50) dgilmore: i sent him one about 6-8 weeks ago asked how things were going got nothing (10:07:55) c4chris: we never delete packages (10:08:00) c4chris: just orphan them (10:08:10) thl: tibbs, well, that would mean that someone had to maintain them through the entry lifecicle of FC6 (10:08:15) thl: we need to delete them (10:08:46) dgilmore: delete binaries but not cvs (10:08:55) c4chris: dgilmore, oh right (10:09:35) tibbs: The binaries should not get out to FC6 unless they've been rebuilt. (10:09:57) thl: okay (10:10:02) c4chris: so the threat is: they won't ship in FC6 until rebuilt (or a short explanation why they are not rebuilt...) (10:10:16) jwb: that seems reasonable (10:10:19) rdieter: yup (10:10:26) thl: so just to be sure: +1 for "delete all packages that are not rebuild in time" please (10:10:27) tibbs: +1 (10:10:34) jwb: +1 (10:10:34) c4chris: +1 (10:10:36) abadger1999: +1 (10:10:38) rdieter: +1 (10:10:42) dgilmore: +1 (10:10:51) tibbs: +1 (10:10:58) abadger1999: For ignacio specifically, has the AWOL packagers process been started? (10:11:26) dgilmore: abadger1999: no but it really needs to (10:11:32) jwb: agreed (10:11:41) bpepple: dgilmore: +1 (10:11:48) warren: Want me to attempt to use non-email to contact him? (10:11:52) BobJensen: dgilmore: +1 (10:11:57) warren: Ask him what he wants us to do with his packages. (10:12:00) abadger1999: warren: +1 (10:12:05) thl: warren, maybe that would be a good idea (10:12:08) c4chris: warren, +1 (10:12:09) Daveman: :o (10:12:15) tibbs: If someone has his phone number, it would certainly be a good idea to try it. (10:12:21) BobJensen: I tried calling all I got was VM (10:12:36) Daveman: FC6? (10:12:36) dgilmore: warren: +1 (10:12:42) warren: I'll give it a try. (10:12:58) thl: k -- lets ignore the question "remove pacakges from cvs or only orphan them later" (10:13:09) thl: maybe we could use a scheme like this: (10:13:25) thl: remove all packages that were not rebuild three weeks before FC6 (10:13:53) thl: and remove all those from cvs when the branch for FC6 happens, that don#t have a new maintainer yet (10:14:37) thl: so let's move on (10:14:47) dgilmore: thl: they stay in cvs but get flagged so they wont build (10:15:08) thl: dgilmore, could work, too (10:15:24) thl: how hard it restoring of deleted things? (10:15:43) thl: (in cvs) (10:15:48) c4chris: easy (10:15:50) dgilmore: harder than fixing a spec file set to not build (10:16:04) thl: let's stop here (10:16:13) thl: we can discuss this later (10:16:16) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Use comps.xml properly (10:16:22) thl: c4chris, the nag mails worked great (10:16:29) c4chris: thl, yup (10:16:33) jwb: yes, they do (10:16:45) thl: dgilmore: automate comps file during push or via cron (10:16:49) c4chris: Now I have a few questions... (10:16:51) thl: dgilmore, did you look into this? (10:16:53) abadger1999: c4chris: I don't think I received any though (and I should have) (10:17:07) thl: ohh, shoot (dgilmore, we'll discuss this later) (10:17:08) c4chris: abadger1999, I'll check (10:17:12) dgilmore: thl: i was going to help who was but i cant rember who that was. (10:17:36) thl: dgilmore, probably scop -- he knows a lot of the push-script details (10:17:39) c4chris: Is there a plan to remove the group tag in spec files? (10:17:56) dgilmore: c4chris: not that i know of (10:18:02) abadger1999: c4chris: Packaging Committee talked about it today. (10:18:03) tibbs: Yes. (10:18:05) bpepple: c4chris: I think it's only be discussed so far. (10:18:29) c4chris: So it's on the PC agenda? (10:18:46) abadger1999: Won't happen for FC6 but we're coming up with a timeline to make it optional and then dropped. (10:19:03) c4chris: abadger1999, ok. Great. (10:19:35) c4chris: Another one is: can we have a hidden group in comps? (10:20:01) c4chris: I think it'd be way easier to tell people: add all your packages in comps (10:20:19) thl: that was my stupid idea -- I think there were hidden groups possible in the past (10:20:22) c4chris: (until the day we have a shiny package database, that is... :-) ) (10:21:00) abadger1999: Would be even better to have a hidden attribute. (10:21:15) c4chris: I'm afraid there's no automated way to decide which packages should appear in comps, no matter how hard we try (10:21:54) abadger1999: So if Fedora policy is not to have commandline tools generally, you can still put your application in and properly categorized but flagged to be hidden. (10:21:56) jima: all my packages are non-gui; only one (dnsmasq) seemed common enough for me to bother putting it in comps. (10:22:41) thl: jima, maybe a "command line tools" group would be a good idea (10:22:44) c4chris: IMHO, comps is a way to make some publicity for your package (10:22:56) rdieter: just put 'em all in there then (at least for now until a better solution magically appears) (10:23:02) jima: c4chris: if there's a category your package fits in. (10:23:03) c4chris: you went to the trouble of packaging it: why not advertise it somehow (10:23:17) thl: c4chris, +1 (10:23:35) thl: c4chris, we IMHO really need a real comps SIG (10:23:37) jima: (admittedly i only have one package that didn't fit perfectly into a category) (10:23:46) thl: or at least some people that really take care of it (10:23:57) thl: there were so many questions on f-e-l in the past days (10:24:02) c4chris: thl, yea probably (10:24:02) abadger1999: c4chris: Is there a plan to have groups in the package database? (Or a desire?) (10:24:09) thl: or should the PC handle comps? (10:24:28) c4chris: thl, it affects core too... (10:24:50) thl: yes and no (10:24:53) c4chris: abadger1999, not completely sure (10:25:11) thl: we IMHO need agroup that handles the comps stuff for extras and watches it over (10:25:11) abadger1999: It's not listed on the pages yet -- os if it's a desire, it needs to get listed. (10:25:22) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:25:22) abadger1999: s/os/so/ (10:25:22) c4chris: but the package database would be a nice place to put such attributes I think (10:25:39) rdieter: SIG++, it needs/deserves extra tlc (10:25:51) rdieter: it = comps (10:25:58) c4chris: tlc? (10:26:07) rdieter: tender loving care. (10:26:14) c4chris: Oh :-) (10:26:22) c4chris: yes! (10:26:25) thl: c4chris, well, seems you have a new job (10:26:39) thl: c4chris, can you find one or two more poeple for the sig? (10:26:46) c4chris: thl, k (10:26:49) ***bpepple would be willing to help/ (10:26:53) c4chris: Yup, I'll need help (10:26:59) c4chris: bpepple, thanks (10:27:17) bpepple: no prob. (10:27:17) thl: c4chris, anything else regarding comps we should discuss? (10:27:31) c4chris: thl, no I'm fine (10:27:40) c4chris: I'll start a wiki page soon(ish) (10:28:11) thl: k, so let's move on (10:28:23) thl: c4chris, can you update the status page on the schedule please? (10:28:33) thl: to reflect the recent discusssions? (10:28:35) c4chris: thl, will do (10:29:00) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Activate legacy in buildroots (10:29:12) thl: dgilmore told me that it's not activated yet (10:29:20) thl: so I think we can skip this today (10:29:22) dgilmore: not yet (10:30:01) dgilmore: hopefully this week we can get everything in place. i need to setup legacy to use the buildsys first or they wont have fc4 ppc updates (10:30:13) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- CTRL-C problem (10:30:17) thl: skipping as well (10:30:20) thl: ohh (10:30:25) thl: or, no (10:30:38) thl: warren, did you bring it up in the last infrasctructure meeting? (10:30:51) warren: bad news (10:31:13) warren: It is the judgement of the infrastructure team that this simply is not a priority. (10:31:26) warren: If someone has ideas they're willing to try it. (10:31:35) warren: that is all. (10:31:52) thl: warren, not nice, but life sucks sometimes (10:32:02) thl: warren, related to this (10:32:14) thl: how is the schedule for the new VCS? (10:32:25) thl: are there detailsed plans yet? (10:32:30) warren: Infrastructure rather focus efforts on making VCS happen sooner than to improve the existing one. (10:32:43) thl: otherwise it'll be FC( until it's in place... (10:32:50) warren: late August two new servers will be installed, and we will simultaneously test mercurial and bazaar-ng (10:33:35) tibbs: That's great news. (10:33:59) warren: we're ordering a pretty sweet beefy box today (10:34:03) thl: warren, yeah, great (10:34:09) dgilmore: thl: from memory we hopped to have something ready for testing when FC7 test1 hits the streets (10:34:11) abadger1999: I've got the backend for a bzr implementation but we also need work done on the packaging database to work on a finished front end. (10:34:27) warren: 2x2 xeon, 8GB RAM, big SCSI drives. It should host a few xen guests comfortably for greater infrastructure flexibility. (10:34:41) jima: nice! (10:34:53) thl: k, let's stop here now and move on (10:35:06) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Packaging Committee Report (10:35:34) abadger1999: We started discussion of removing the Group tag today. (10:35:54) abadger1999: Approved trying to get a patch into rpm to make the tag optional for FC6. (10:36:20) abadger1999: We'll look at the timeline for changing the guidelines based on when that makes it into rpm. (10:36:47) jima: if it's in by the time we're supposed to do the final mass-rebuild, i wouldn't have any qualms with removing the tag from my specs while i'm incrementing. (10:37:03) abadger1999: ldconfig wording on the Guidelines page was clarified but with the same meaning (10:37:08) c4chris: sounds cool (10:37:11) tibbs: jima: We're not targeting FC6 for this. (10:37:46) abadger1999: That's all for changes. (10:37:54) thl: abadger1999, thx (10:38:01) abadger1999: Oh -- we're talking about changing meeting date/time (10:38:10) abadger1999: But we're continuing that on the mailing list. (10:38:22) thl: I saw it roughly (10:38:29) thl: there was the problem with DST (10:38:50) thl: weco meets at 18:00 UTC during winters IIRC (10:38:57) thl: and 17:00 during summers (10:39:10) thl: so the effective meeting time stays the same (10:39:28) thl: s/weco/FESCo/ (10:39:43) thl: is that scheme fine for all the new FESCo members, too? (10:39:49) bpepple: Yup. (10:39:56) abadger1999: Yes. (10:40:00) c4chris: it's ok (10:40:03) tibbs: Yes. (10:40:14) rdieter: ok (10:40:16) thl: k (10:40:36) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Sponsorship nominations (10:40:41) thl: any new nominations? (10:41:02) jwb: are we supposed to send them to FESCo list first? (10:41:06) thl: btw, someone really should send Nodoid a summary why we didn#t apporve him last time (10:41:18) c4chris: I don't get mails from the sponsor list (10:41:21) thl: does anyone still have the mails that were send around when we discussed it? (10:41:39) tibbs: I probably do. (10:41:46) thl: I'd like to porpose that we send it to both lists (10:41:56) thl: e.g. FESCo and sponsors (10:42:05) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:42:07) c4chris: thl, yup, that's be useful (10:42:08) thl: or we need to create a special mailinglist (10:42:16) thl: but that's probaly overkill (10:42:24) warren: any self-nominations? (10:42:39) thl: I'm wonering if we should make c4chris a sponsor (10:42:48) thl: FESCo members IMHO should also be sponsors (10:42:51) tibbs: I have everything sent to cvsextras-sponsors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx since the beginning of May, BTW. (10:43:25) thl: tibbs, can you send me the discussions around upgrading nodoid? then I'l send him a summary why we didn't approve him (10:43:35) tibbs: Going by the top reviewiers, Patrice Dumas would up for sponsorship. (10:44:36) dgilmore: thl: honestly you could make me a sponser. but i dont know if i would be a good one (10:44:41) thl: tibbs, can you send a mail to the list to start the discussions (10:44:51) dgilmore: tibbs: thats bad not all of fesco get that (10:45:11) thl: dgilmore, you don't have to use your powers if you don't feel compfortable with it (10:45:33) thl: who else from FESCo isn't a sponsor? Currently c4chris and dgilmore afaics (10:46:09) thl: a lot of silence here (10:46:18) c4chris: I guess we are the only 2... (10:46:24) thl: seems poeple don't like the iea to make all FESCo members sponsors... (10:46:28) dgilmore: thl: i guess its just me and c4chris (10:46:52) thl: s/iea/iea/ (10:46:53) c4chris: the thing is I don't do that many reviews (10:46:56) thl: s/iea/idea/ (10:46:57) abadger1999: It's overloading the sponsorship role... (10:47:13) jima: i don't see the justification, personally. (10:47:27) thl: abadger1999, okay, so let's just drop that idea of mine (10:47:33) jima: sponsors become sponsors based on merit, don't they? (10:47:55) c4chris: yup, that's the idea (10:48:03) thl: jima, yes, but that merit doesn't always mean "reviews" (10:48:06) rdieter: Hopefully, FESCo implies merit... (: (10:48:12) c4chris: and a deep knowledge of the packaging rules... (10:48:13) thl: I didn't do to much reviews (10:48:15) dgilmore: i guess being in Fesco means your trusted by the community (10:48:20) thl: but I'm here and a sponsor, too (10:48:23) BobJensen is now known as BobJensen-Away (10:48:25) warren: I'm for giving them sponsorship, I trust that they would do the right thing. (10:48:34) rdieter: +1 (10:48:38) thl: +1 (10:48:41) bpepple: warren: +1 (10:48:54) abadger1999: I would give them sponsorship too -- but that's separate from making all FESCo members sponsors. (10:49:21) abadger1999: So c4chris, dgilmore sponsorship +1 (10:49:23) thl: abadger1999, yeah, your right (10:49:25) thl: abadger1999, +1 (10:49:37) c4chris: So you need to simple rule to always nominate DESCo members to sponsorship, and then simply debate it like usual... (10:50:02) jima: c4chris: that sounds better to me than just automatically upgrading them. (10:50:03) c4chris: s/D/F/ doh (10:50:15) tibbs: But the debate wouldn't necessarily be based on the number and quality of reviews. (10:50:20) jima: if they have merit, that's fine, imo. (10:50:38) thl: I'm counting 5 votes to make c4chris and dgilmore sponsors currently (four indirect) (10:50:49) thl: so I think they are accepted (10:50:58) thl: please yell now if you disagree (10:51:02) jima: otherwise sponsorship can be attained by winning a popularity contest (the fesco election) :) (10:51:03) tibbs: I don't have any problem with having more sponsors, but I am curious that we seem to have changed the qualifications. (10:51:38) thl: tibbs, as I said -- I also didn't do to much reviews (10:52:11) tibbs: Perhaps we can consider the qualifications at a future meeting. Because honestly we do need more active sponsors. (10:52:27) thl: tibbs, yeah (10:52:35) c4chris: tibbs, wouldn't be a bad idea (10:52:47) tibbs: In any case, +1 for both folks. (10:52:57) c4chris: that reminds me we need to discuss responsibilities at some point... (10:52:58) thl: I consider them accepted them (10:53:11) thl: s/them/then/ (10:53:23) thl: there must be something wrong with my keyboard today ;-) (10:53:23) tibbs: Do remember that you have to review in order to actually sponsor someone. (10:53:28) thl: so let's move on now (10:53:50) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- approve kmod's (10:54:01) thl: I didn#t get new request for approvals (10:54:13) c4chris: no wonder... (10:54:14) thl: and I didn#t find time to forward the zaptel issue to FAB (10:54:31) tibbs: Wasn't new kmod approval put on hold? (10:54:41) thl: let's get the other stuff around kmods sorted out first before we bring that on hte table again (10:55:03) c4chris: yea, my inbox needs a break... (10:55:12) bpepple: no doubt. (10:55:14) thl: :) (10:55:17) thl: so let's move on (10:55:30) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule (10:55:41) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule -- Proposal for (FC and) FE Package Review Request template (10:55:47) thl: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00361.html (10:55:50) thl: do we like the idea? (10:56:04) c4chris: yes (10:56:15) tibbs: Yes, the summary would be nice to have. (10:56:22) abadger1999: Makes sense to me. (10:56:27) tibbs: It would also be nice if people knew to remove the angle brackets. (10:56:44) c4chris: tibbs, yes (10:56:45) ***bpepple doesn't have a problem with it. (10:56:47) tibbs: I've found that it's not nearly as obvious to some folks as you'd think. (10:57:07) c4chris: maybe remove them from the template? (10:57:27) thl: c4chris, +1 (10:57:47) thl: so we consider this accepted? (10:57:49) bpepple: c4chris: +1 (10:57:57) c4chris: thl, +1 (10:58:03) rdieter: +1 (10:58:03) tibbs: +1 (10:58:06) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:58:14) thl: k, moving on (10:58:21) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule -- create a FESCO user in the wiki that sends mails to the FESCo list and subscribe it to /Extras/Schedul.* in the wiki (10:58:29) thl: I send this to the fesco list (10:58:30) c4chris: who can update the template? (10:58:41) bpepple: thl: +1, this sounds like a good idea. (10:58:56) tibbs: Yes, this is definitely good. +1 (10:59:06) thl: c4chris, djb (or what was his nick?); I'll take care of it (10:59:07) c4chris: why not. I'm subscribed, but that would give us a log of things (10:59:17) c4chris: thl, k thx (10:59:18) abadger1999: +1 (10:59:26) rdieter: sounds good to me, +1 (10:59:34) c4chris: (for the next time the wiki crashes... :-P) (10:59:40) warren: Just do it (10:59:47) thl: k (11:00:06) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule -- jwb suggested in #fedora-extras that we discuss the current kmod discusions (11:00:06) warren: would that user's e-mail address be the fesco list ? (11:00:16) thl: warren, yes (11:00:32) thl: I'd like to stay mostly quiet on the kmod stuff (11:00:34) thl: jwb, ? (11:00:49) jwb: actually (11:00:55) warren: The kmod issue.... is big and complicated. For this reason we scheduled tomorrow's meeting. But even then I don't think we will be successful. (11:01:16) warren: I am uncertain what to do at this point. (11:01:20) dgilmore: warren: ? toomorrows meeting (11:01:32) jwb: warren, yeah... what dgilmore said (11:01:47) tibbs: There's some sort of telephone conference scheduled. (11:01:57) warren: thinking to do it on IRC instead (11:01:57) jwb: with who? (11:01:59) warren: haven't decided yet (11:02:06) warren: see fedora-packaging for details (11:02:18) jwb: kmod is bigger than just packaging (11:02:25) warren: yes it is (11:02:50) jwb: we've got davej and dwmw2 saying they should die in Extras and Core all together (11:03:00) jwb: among others (11:03:02) dgilmore: I think that kmods are important for testing and proving things. but that perhaps it should have its own repo fedora-kmods make the user have a clear decission to make knowing that core kernel developers wont support them (11:03:28) jwb: dgilmore, that's what 3rd party repos are for (11:03:49) jwb: dgilmore, IMHO, an "unsupported" repo by the kernel devs cannot be part of the fedora project officially (11:03:54) warren: Those kinds of decisions are FPB's to make. (11:04:13) jwb: warren, that doesn't mean we don't get to make suggestions (11:04:41) abadger1999: If the guidelines are just for other repos, then the whole landscape of what's a good guideline changes. (11:04:55) jwb: agreed (11:05:23) jwb: i think this is a case where we either care enough to allow it in fedora repos, or we get off the pot and let 3rd party repos decide what they want to do (11:05:28) warren: If you truly care about the kmod issues, then please seriously participate in the fedora-packaging list discussions. (11:05:32) dgilmore: i think we could have a repo within fedora thats disablled by default where they can live (11:05:39) warren: Right now it is a big mess. (11:06:06) jwb: warren, i care more about having/not having modules in fedora to begin with (11:06:20) jwb: warren, i think that needs to be settled before any kind of packaging standard comes about (11:06:50) warren: OK, then that is defnitely something you need to bring to FAB (11:06:52) warren: are you on FAB? (11:07:06) jwb: which i realize is confusing because kmods already exist... where were davej and dwmw2 when kmods originated? (11:07:10) jwb: warren, yes. i can email FAB (11:07:30) warren: jwb, package committee and fesco decides mainly on technical details, you are asking about quasi-political policy (11:07:36) thl: jwb, davej was asked by jeremy for permission of the kmod stuff iirc (11:07:44) jwb: thl, that's what i thought (11:07:49) rdieter: gotta run, another meeting (fun). (11:07:52) jwb: ok, i'd like to take a vote really quick (11:07:59) rdieter: (ok, I'll wait) (11:08:02) jwb: who in FESCo thinks we should have kmods? (11:08:12) rdieter: have, vs. not have? (11:08:17) dgilmore: jwb: my vote is for a kmod repository (11:08:18) jwb: rdieter, right (11:08:22) rdieter: have +1. (11:08:27) tibbs: I'm undecided, sorry. (11:08:50) thl: from the political standpoint: not have (11:08:57) c4chris: I think we can have modules in Extras (11:08:59) ***rdieter runs... (11:09:04) rdieter is now known as rdieter_away (11:09:10) skvidal: rdieter_away: come back here (11:09:13) thl: but we compete with ubuntu and suse: and they have all the stuff, so we should have it, too (11:09:25) bpepple: have +1 (11:09:36) rdieter_away: skvidal: huh? (11:09:41) warren: I think the current kmod standard with its strict restrictions is a generally good thing. (11:09:53) dgilmore: i think we can but if its in its own repository then users will be more aware of what support they can expect (11:09:56) jwb: so in general, FESCo feels kmods should remain (11:10:01) warren: It isn't a "free ride" into Fedora with any kmod. it must satisfy requirements, and pressure is put to push things upstream. (11:10:02) thl: warren, maybe we shopuld put the "time restiction" back on the table, too (11:10:16) thl: e.g. allow each kmod in extras only for a certain time (11:10:20) rdieter_away is now known as rdieter (11:10:21) ***cweyl scrolls back and reads (11:10:24) tibbs: I think that from a user's standpoint having access under the Fedora umbrella to every module which does not violate the law is a good thing. (11:10:24) thl: three releases (11:10:45) thl: tibbs, we should work towards modules that get merged upstream (11:10:59) dgilmore: warren: which can only be done in a fedora project controlled repo. 3rd party repos == "no input from us" (11:11:00) tibbs: But maintenance is paramount and the argument of the kernel devs atainst having to deal with bug reports arising from external modules is compelling. (11:11:11) thl: It's really important that they get merged into the vanilla kernel (11:11:16) tibbs: thl: I disagree; I don't think it's our business to push any code author towards anything they don't want to do. (11:11:56) thl: tibbs, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives : To do as much of the development work as possible directly in the upstream packages. (11:12:12) bpepple: thl: +1 (11:12:16) tibbs: I don't see how that applies. (11:12:28) tibbs: A kernel module's upstream isn't necessarily the kernel. (11:12:32) dgilmore: thl: yes but a kmod upstream is different to kernel upstream (11:12:40) abadger1999: tibbs: +1 (11:12:48) tibbs: That objective just says we shouldn't carry around fedora-specific patches in fedora packages. (11:13:06) cweyl: tibbs: +1 on "...is a good thing" (11:13:08) dgilmore: thl: if we patch a kmod we should get it upstream whereever that is (11:13:16) warren: The way spot describes it, the restrictions set by packaging committee on what qualifies for kmod is strict. (11:13:34) jwb: thl, i'll email FAB asking for a political decision (11:13:42) thl: jwb, thx (11:13:49) ***jwb steps away for a second (11:13:51) thl: so let's stop here for today (11:14:02) warren: The time requirement is not exactly important to decide now, it is closer to a political decision. The bigger problem is the technical issues for the near-term. (11:14:03) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- free discussion (11:14:16) tibbs: I started on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy (11:14:16) thl: anything else we should discuss? (11:14:40) tibbs: A nice rat's nest there which will require a good bit of spirited discussion. (11:14:56) tibbs: I'd like to see anyone interested contribute to that document. (11:15:34) thl: tibbs, can you move that over to the FESCo namespace please (11:15:36) tibbs: Unfortunately my wiki-fu is still crap and I can't get the list indentation right. (11:15:44) thl: then I'll create a entry on the schedule (11:15:50) rdieter is now known as rdieter_away (11:16:00) tibbs: Where would you like it to live? (11:16:08) tibbs: Under Schedule? (11:16:45) thl: tibbs, let me handle the moving (11:16:55) thl: I can also look at the list indentation (11:17:16) cweyl: tibbs: I assume rabble contributions are good as well? (11:17:24) tibbs: I was trying to get too fancy with boxed bits within a list. (11:17:36) tibbs: cweyl: I want to see as much input on this kind of thing as is possible. (11:17:42) cweyl: cool. (11:17:42) c4chris: cweyl, sure (11:18:13) cweyl: not that I've ever asked before.... ;) (11:18:29) c4chris: FYI I won't be here next week (vacations, yay! :-) ) (11:18:37) jima: err, can rabble edit things under FESCo namespace? (11:18:47) thl: jima, yes (11:19:02) jima: ok, wasn't sure if it was locked down like Packaging (11:19:09) cweyl: yah. same here (11:19:20) tibbs: Packaging is an anomaly, I think. (11:19:32) jima: ok (11:19:40) tibbs: You just need to be in EditGroup. (11:20:25) thl: k, anything else? (11:20:31) ***thl needs to leave soon (11:20:41) thl: abadger1999, btw, many thx for writing the summaries (11:20:48) tibbs: Nothing else from me. (11:20:53) ***thl will close the meeting in 60 (11:21:17) abadger1999: jima: BTW: PackagingDrafts shouldn't be locked down, just the actual Packaging hierarchy. (11:21:21) ***thl will close the meeting in 30 (11:21:28) abadger1999: thl: np. (11:21:41) ***thl will close the meeting in 10 (11:21:53) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting end (11:21:57) thl: thx everyone! (11:22:03) c4chris: thl, thx. }}}
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
