= 2006 September 18 FESCo = Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings == Attending == * thl * jwb * c4chris * scop * bpepple * tibbs * spot * rdieter * abadger1999 * dgilmore == Summary == === Mass Rebuild === * Lot's of people didn't understand "bump Epoch-Version-Release" to mean EVR has to be incremented before rebuilding. * perl packages should be rebuilt too. Only "*large* noarch content" such as game data is excluded. * Packages not rebuilt will be removed from the download repository. === Extras Packages for Enterprise Linux aka EPEL aka Enterprise Extras === * Name will be Extras Packages for Enterprise Linux (by Fedora) aka EPEL * RHEL will be used in the mock buildroots. Contributers can test on CentOS, there shouldn't be any difference between the two. * Disttag will be .elX. * Will EPEL start with RHEL4 or RHEL5? ==== How long will EPEL be supported ==== * RHEL is three years of feature adds and 4 years of security updates. * EPEL packages will be supported for the full length of the targetted RHEL release. * We would like to be able to hand off updating of older EPEL releases to another maintainer (in case the current maintainer no longer is running the older RHEL release.) * Can a miantainer orphan a package or do they have to find a new maintainer first? * EPEL is a rolling release (at least for now) * Open question: Do we target the base RHEL release or the RHEL+updates releases? === Legacy in BuildRoots === * Will be added this weekend === Maintainer Repsonsibilities === * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy === Packaging Committee Report === * Update to the pkgconfig guidelines: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging Drafts/pkgconfig * Directory ownership wording change: "Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages that they depend on. Exceptions to this rule are: perl...." with more detailed text explaining how and when perl packages are excluded from this * New bylaw that a Package Committee member missing four meetings in a row without notifying the list is removed. === AWOL Policy === * To be discussed on the list. == Log == {{{ (10:00:29) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress (10:00:32) jima: ack! (10:00:37) thl: Thursdays again already (10:00:40) ***jwb is here (10:00:44) thl: who's around? (10:00:50) c4chris: thl, hi (10:00:51) jima: blarney: i suppose we should quiet down for the duration of the meeting ;) (10:00:52) scop [n=scop] entered the room. (10:00:56) blarney: jima: k (10:00:56) ***bpepple is here. (10:01:05) scop: yo (10:01:06) thl: jwb, I might have to leave in half an hour or a bit later (10:01:12) jwb: ok (10:01:13) blarney: jima: message me off-channel (10:01:14) ***jima is logging as rabble, in case anyone needs the log afterward. (10:01:22) thl: jwb, could you finish the meeting in that case? (10:01:26) jwb: thl, yep (10:01:34) thl: jwb, tia (10:01:44) tibbs: I'm here. (10:01:47) ***spot is here (10:01:52) spot: (for once) (10:01:54) rdieter: here (10:01:56) thl: so, welcome everybody! (10:01:57) ***abadger1999 here (10:02:10) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- M{ae}ss-Rebuild (10:02:17) thl: scop, any status update? (10:02:40) scop: not here (10:03:00) ***mmcgrath is here. (10:03:05) scop: except that I'm flabbergasted how people didn't grok "bump the EVR" (10:03:09) c4chris: still a ways to go... (10:03:28) ***abadger1999 hit EVR with a stick, does that count? (10:03:38) tibbs: scop: If it's not written down in bold type, most people will miss it. (10:03:43) thl: scop, what about perl packages? (10:03:48) thl: do they need a rebuild? (10:03:48) tibbs: If it is written down in bold type, half of the people will miss it. (10:03:56) thl: a lot of then were not rebuild yet afaics (10:03:59) jwb: can't we add a script in CVS to check if release has been bumped or not? (10:04:03) tibbs: Honestly, why not just rebuild everything and get it over with? (10:04:06) sankarshan left the room (quit: "/me goes off to take a break"). (10:04:28) scop: noarch perl-* which install into the latest perl's versioned dir don't really benefit that much (10:04:31) thl: tibbs, we need to find AWOL maintainers IMHO (10:04:35) scop: (assuming they still build, of course) (10:04:55) thl: well, should we enforce the rebuild for those packages? (10:04:56) ***cweyl is lurking (in other meeting) (10:05:00) tibbs: thl: Of course, that's one of the goals of having everything rebuilt. (10:05:08) thl: scop, that might make stuff easier when we build stuff for RHEL5 later (10:05:08) ***dgilmore is here (10:05:15) tibbs: I wasn't implying that we (or an automated system) should do the rebuilds. (10:05:28) thl: tibbs, ohh, sorry, then I misunderstood you comment (10:05:47) thl: I really think we should poke all packagers (10:06:02) thl: only stuff where it doesn't make any sense at all to rebuild should be left out (10:06:03) scop: the original intention of leaving only *large* noarch content packages such as game date without a rebuild hasn't really happened (10:06:04) dgilmore: scop: yeah i dont get how people thought not bumping EVR would work (10:06:11) thl: e.g. large data packages (10:06:20) c4chris: k, I'll poke again (10:06:41) c4chris: all the ones that still have the needs.rebuild file (10:06:41) thl: c4chris, please poke all packagers of noach packages, too (10:06:54) thl: or does someone dislike that? (10:07:02) bpepple: thl: Sounds good. (10:07:18) c4chris: plus all those not rebuilt ? (10:07:56) thl: c4chris, well, we probably have to manually look at those not rebuild yet where the needs.rebuild file was removed (10:08:25) c4chris: thl, k, but that migth be a piece of work... (10:08:27) thl: c4chris, maybe just mail them and tell them that only "*large* noarch content packages such as game data" don't need a rebuild (10:08:38) c4chris: I'll try to produce some sort of list (10:08:47) thl: c4chris, thx (10:08:56) thl: k, anything else regarding the rebuild? (10:08:58) abadger1999: Is the EVR problem big enough that we need a script to look into that? (10:09:02) thl: what do we do after Sunday? (10:09:18) thl: abadger1999, I don't think so -- maybe in the longer term (10:09:18) dgilmore: thl: send emails and remove unbuilt packages (10:09:28) scop: no (10:09:31) scop: proceed as planned (10:09:38) thl: dgilmore, that might rebult in a great mess (10:09:44) scop: remove packages whose needs.rebuild is not taken care of (10:09:46) tibbs: Unbuild packages should not be in FC6, though. (10:09:52) jima: err, what about in the case of an AWOL maintainer? (10:10:01) thl: scop, +1 (10:10:10) bpepple: scop: +1 (10:10:13) c4chris: scop, +1 (10:10:18) abadger1999: Better to break now than later +1 (10:10:20) spot: +1 (10:10:25) jwb: +1 (10:10:30) c4chris: jima, orphan process... (10:10:36) thl: scop, will you take care of that after Sunday? (10:10:39) tibbs: Is it reasonable to just not auto-branch them for FC-6? (10:10:50) thl: tibbs, they need to be removed from the repo (10:10:56) thl: otherwise they'll be in FE6 (10:11:01) scop: I can take care of that, yes (10:11:10) jima: c4chris: whee. i'd better get moving on that. (10:11:17) thl: scop, move then only aways -- just in case ;-) (10:11:19) Rathann [n=rathann] entered the room. (10:11:27) scop: ha! (10:11:46) scop: (I'll think about that ;)) (10:11:50) thl: scop, could you maybe send a small warning/heads up to the list before they get removed? (10:11:56) thl: maybe today/tomorrow? (10:12:03) ***Rathann sits quietly in the back row (10:12:11) scop: will do (10:12:19) thl: scop, tia (10:12:21) tibbs: When you say "remove from the repo", are you deleting FC-5 and older branches as well? (10:12:31) bpepple: tibbs: -1 (10:12:31) dgilmore: tibbs: no just devel (10:12:33) scop: poke me if I forget, I have a thousand things to do ATM (10:12:35) thl: tibbs, no, only devel (10:12:55) tibbs: OK. (10:13:00) thl: we normally never remove stuff from released version (10:13:04) thl: only devel (10:13:11) thl: okay, anything else? (10:13:19) thl: (regaing the mess rebuild)? (10:13:38) bpepple: If a package is removed to not being rebuilt, how can it be re-added in the future. (10:13:58) tibbs: We'll need a mechanism for requesting devel branches. (10:13:58) dgilmore: bpepple: someone takes ove and requests a branch (10:14:01) nirik: what about dependencies? (10:14:10) c4chris: bpepple, normal orphan process I guess (10:14:13) liquidat [n=liquidat] entered the room. (10:14:20) bpepple: I've got a package that currently be built due to changed in the e-d-s api, that I haven't had a chance to fix. (10:14:21) nirik: ie, something is needs.rebuild and has other items that already rebuilt using the older unrebuilt version? (10:14:27) tibbs: We'll just have to sort out dependency problems as they happen. (10:14:55) c4chris: tibbs, yes (10:15:07) c4chris: they should be reported to f-e-l (10:15:16) scop: we're not going to remove anything from CVS, just the devel package repo (10:15:30) scop: s/just the/just from/ (10:15:35) dgregor [i=dennis] entered the room. (10:15:44) liquidat left the room ("Konversation terminated!"). (10:15:45) dgregor left the room (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). (10:15:47) scop: at least immediately, I think (10:15:59) dgilmore: scop: that sounds right (10:16:10) dgilmore: and add a dead.package file in cvs (10:16:45) thl: dgilmore, we should re-visit this when we come closer to FC6/FE6 (10:16:58) thl: that's probably the best solution (10:17:04) thl: that okay for everybody? (10:17:08) dgilmore: sure (10:17:12) c4chris: thl, agreed (10:17:15) scop: yes (10:17:16) abadger1999: ye (10:17:21) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Enterprise Extras (10:17:26) thl: k, let's move on (10:17:32) thl: mmcgrath, z00dax, are you around? (10:17:36) mmcgrath: pong (10:17:45) thl: hi mmcgrath (10:17:53) thl: just wanted to give you a heads-up (10:18:07) ***mmcgrath is also troubleshooting our torrent system so I'm kind of here and not here. (10:18:21) thl: well, after the last meeting I was wondering if we really need/want CentOS builders (10:18:36) mmcgrath: What are we going to build them on? (10:18:39) thl: wouldn't RHEL in the mock buildroots work better? (10:18:43) jwb: wait (10:18:48) jwb: can we agree on a name first? (10:18:49) mmcgrath: does mock require yum? (10:18:58) thl: people can test on centos if they want (10:19:04) thl: there should be no difference (10:19:14) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Enterprise Extras -- Name? (10:19:18) tibbs: Isn't the name kind of the least important thing? (10:19:33) jwb: tibbs, perhaps. but it's something we _should_ be able to accomplish today (10:19:34) mmcgrath: its also caused the most discussion. (10:19:38) tibbs: It doesn't block any technical or organizational work. (10:19:43) mmcgrath: I think the name depends on whether or not we consider this a branch or a fork. (10:19:45) spot: Fedora RPMS: Enterprise Extras (10:19:46) spot: FREE (10:19:49) ***spot giggles (10:19:49) tibbs: Fedora Extras. (10:19:50) thl: FEEL (10:19:58) jwb: Enterprise Extras (10:20:11) thl: (Fedora Extras for Enterprise Linux) (10:20:18) thl: or Fedora Extras (10:20:25) thl: those get my vote (10:20:31) mmcgrath: I personally like EE, nice generic and easy to understand. (10:20:42) jwb: i'm fine with either EE or FE (10:20:45) bpepple: +1 Fedora Extras. (10:20:48) c4chris: FEEL is the most descriptive of what it actually is (10:21:02) rdieter: FEEL++ (10:21:02) jwb: that's ok too i guess (10:21:08) ***spot thinks having "Fedora" in it will confuse RHEL end-users... but doesn't care. (10:21:14) mmcgrath: +1 to spot. (10:21:17) tibbs: I'd really like to see Fedora in there. (10:21:20) thl: spot, we can always rename it later (10:21:21) jwb: i don't want RH* to be in the name (10:21:22) mmcgrath: these packages will never make it on to a Fedora machine. (10:21:24) bpepple: tibbs: +1 (10:21:25) thl: jwb, +1 (10:21:31) jwb: ok, FEEL+1 (10:21:43) ***dgilmore preferes EE (10:21:55) spot: EE (from Fedora) (10:22:16) abadger1999: spot: How about EE (by Fedora) ? (10:22:22) spot: abadger1999: sure. (10:22:23) bpepple: FEE? (10:22:46) c4chris: abadger1999, ok too (10:22:56) tibbs: I could get behind EE (by Fedora). (10:23:07) jwb: or FEE (10:23:20) scop: FREE or FEE? ;) (10:23:20) spot: FEE: It'll cost you! ;) (10:23:30) thl: I agree slightly with mschwendt when he said that EE sounds like "Software for Enterprise" (10:23:37) ***mmcgrath doesn't understand why such pride exists over making sure Fedora gets into a package brand that will never be on a Fedora machine. (10:23:58) tibbs: Fedora is the project I have volunteered so much of my time to. (10:24:12) tibbs: My packages are Fedora packages. (10:24:17) jwb: wait, stop (10:24:35) jwb: lets settle on 3 options and then vote. EE, FEEL, EE (by Fedora) (10:24:43) c4chris: not necessarily pride, just honesty where they come from... (10:24:58) bpepple: No FEE? :( (10:25:14) abadger1999: bpepple: it's neither fee as in beer, nor fee as in freedom. :-) (10:25:15) spot: bpepple: no, it doesn't cost anything except bandwidth and time. ;) (10:25:23) ***thl considers "Extras Packages for Enterrpise Linux" (10:25:28) thl: EPEL (10:25:34) dgilmore: i think it needs to be distro agnostic as it will be used on RHEL and CentOS and other rebuilds (10:25:44) jwb: dgilmore, fair point (10:25:56) jwb: thl's new suggestion sounds distro agnostic (10:26:04) spot: Enterprise Extras Packages (EEP!) (10:26:17) jwb: spot, stop polluting the name pool ;) (10:26:24) spot: sorry. ;) (10:26:34) thl: spot, same old problems; sound like software for enterprise usage (10:26:35) bpepple: spot: Gotta have a little fun. (10:26:35) abadger1999: spot: As long as the logo has a (!) (10:26:41) dgilmore: i could live with thl's suggestion (10:26:47) thl: "Extras Packages for Enterrpise Linux (by Fedora)" (10:27:05) jwb: does anyone _not_ like EPEL? (10:27:14) spot: shouldn't there be a GNU in there somewhere? *ducks* (10:27:27) c4chris: EPEL is fine with me (10:27:30) ***spot likes EPEL fine (10:27:31) ***thl hits spot with the stick (10:27:36) rdieter: GNUEPEL (10:27:42) dgilmore: EPEL +1 (10:27:42) rdieter: +1 (for any name, really, don't care, there's bigger fish to fry) (10:27:49) abadger1999: EPEL fine (10:27:52) jwb: tibbs, ? (10:28:07) tibbs: I'm thinking. (10:28:20) tibbs: I won't object to it, but I still would like Fedora in the name. (10:28:21) ***jwb hums the jeopardy theme (10:28:29) jima: that name seems to have a lot of EPEL... (10:28:30) ***bpepple agrees with tibbs. (10:28:31) ***jima hides (10:28:52) mmcgrath: +1 epel (10:29:11) jwb: epel +1 (10:29:14) ***spot is _starving_ ... brb, going to steal training food (10:29:17) thl: epel +1 (10:29:19) jwb: i think that's a majority (10:29:51) thl: jwb, agreed (10:29:55) jwb: yay, we accomplished something today! (10:29:56) jwb: :) (10:29:59) mmcgrath: lol (10:30:00) thl: we can still revisit it if poeple don#t like it (10:30:05) jwb: right (10:30:35) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Enterprise Extras -- build on centos or RHEL (10:30:40) spot: eww. really bad chinese. (10:30:41) thl: okay, back to this one (10:30:49) mmcgrath: thl: honestly I'd be fine packaging both. (10:30:58) dgilmore: thl: either is fine (10:31:04) mmcgrath: I'm just unfamiliar with mock building RHEL (10:31:06) bpepple: either seems ok. (10:31:08) thl: I'd prefer RHEL (10:31:09) spot: do we want a different dist tag for centos? (10:31:14) jwb: thl, why? (10:31:17) spot: we have established tags for RHEL (10:31:17) thl: centos should always be compatible to RHEL (10:31:21) rdieter: spot: imo, no. (10:31:22) spot: but none for centos (10:31:27) dgilmore: spot: nope disttag of .el5 (10:31:28) thl: centos -> RHEL should work too (10:31:36) mmcgrath: yeah, I'd say we could give these a dist tag similar to .el or .epel (10:31:46) spot: ok, so if centos == RHEL, lets use RHEL. Red Hat will give us RHEL, i'm sure of it. (10:31:58) dgilmore: i sya stick with .el? its already setup (10:31:59) mmcgrath: Not to mention if the centos guys want branding, they're a build away from getting it :-) (10:31:59) jwb: i can't test on RHEL though (10:32:08) spot: jwb: but centos == RHEL (10:32:18) spot: anything that differs is a centos bug (10:32:19) thl: jwb, testing on centos should wrok, too (10:32:19) spot: not a RHEL bug (10:32:21) thl: or not? (10:32:31) thl: (me has no access to rhel, only centos (10:32:37) dgilmore: thl: same (10:32:41) jwb: it doesn't bother me much (10:32:50) mmcgrath: If packages don't cross-work then we should aid in correcting the OS. (10:32:54) dgilmore: i think we can asuse for the most part binary compatability (10:32:56) spot: mmcgrath: +1 (10:32:57) thl: mmcgrath, +1 (10:32:57) mmcgrath: in theory anyway :) (10:33:05) rdieter: mmcgrath: +1 (10:33:10) spot: so, since RHEL is everyone's lowest common denominator... (10:33:23) jwb: ok, that makes sense (10:33:26) c4chris: spot, :) (10:33:31) dgilmore: we use RHEL on builders (10:33:41) dgilmore: easy to do (10:33:46) thl: spot, can you help us getting a RHEL in a local yum-repo on the builders? (10:33:46) jwb: dgilmore, we being EPEL or CentOS? (10:33:53) thl: spot, with updates of course? (10:33:55) dgilmore: jwb: EPEL (10:33:56) spot: thl: sure. (10:34:06) spot: thl: just tell me where you want it. (10:34:08) jwb: k (10:34:18) thl: spot: dgilmore and mmcgrath will know (10:34:32) spot: i don't know either of them very well, but ok. ;) (10:34:40) ***dgilmore slaps spot (10:34:40) mmcgrath: hah (10:34:53) scop: for how long are packagers expected to support RHEL releases? (10:35:11) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Enterprise Extras -- how long are packagers expected to support RHEL releases (10:35:18) thl: scop, good question (10:35:23) tibbs: Probably the full seven years or whatever it is. (10:35:27) scop: I'm interested in participating, but not for older EL/CentOS versions than what I use (10:35:27) dgilmore: scop: as long as RH does but we need a process to allow them to step down (10:35:29) mmcgrath: actually we can get rhel copies from humphrey (10:35:41) spot: the 7 years of RHEL isn't seven years of updates... its 3 years of feature adds, then the rest is just security (10:35:54) thl: scop, I think we are talking about building for RHEL4 and later afaics (10:36:01) scop: yes (10:36:02) thl: or does anyone want to build for RHEL3? (10:36:06) dgilmore: thl: i thought for RHEL5 (10:36:08) bpepple: thl: -1 (10:36:09) jwb: i think we should start with RHEL5 (10:36:09) thl: (jsut to be sure) (10:36:15) c4chris: thl, nope (10:36:23) thl: I think we should start with RHEL4 (10:36:24) scop: anyway, RHEL4 or not, that makes a fine example (10:36:25) mmcgrath: I think http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/ should be authoritative (10:36:33) tibbs: Packagers are going to have to think hard about whether they want to branch for EL at all. (10:36:44) scop: I use 4 today, but will pretty quickly update everything to 5 when it's out (10:36:49) thl: tibbs, +1 (10:36:54) tibbs: I imagine that some will only branch once someone shows up who wants to co-maintain on EL. (10:37:02) jwb: tibbs, yes (10:37:02) scop: after that I'm not personally too keen on working on 4 (10:37:11) mmcgrath: we also have xen boxes now so in theory when a developer can't test something we should be able to set an instance up for them, though that hasn't really been discussed as far as how possible it is. (10:37:12) scop: does that preclude me from contributing? (10:37:31) dgilmore: scop: i dont think so (10:37:38) spot: scop: i say no, as long as you're willing to let someone else do any dists you don't want to (10:37:51) scop: okay, good (10:38:02) mmcgrath: Thats my question, what do we do when someone owns a package and doesn't want to create a branch for EL or for a specific version of it? (10:38:03) scop: (of course I have nothing against others chiming in on earlier releases) (10:38:04) c4chris: spot, sounds good to me (10:38:13) tibbs: What architectures are we going to build on? (10:38:25) dgilmore: mmcgrath: then it doesnt get done (10:38:29) spot: tibbs: right now? x86, x86_64, ppc. ;) (10:38:37) jwb: dgilmore, why? (10:38:43) spot: unless someone has an s390 lying around. (10:38:43) jwb: dgilmore, why couldn't someone else do it? (10:38:44) ***thl has to leave now (10:38:56) mmcgrath: later thl (10:39:01) jwb: thl, ok i'll run (10:39:01) dgilmore: jwb: if no one wants to branch for EL then it doesnt branch (10:39:03) thl: sorry guys; I'm sure you'll have a nice meeting without me (10:39:06) c4chris: thl, later (10:39:08) jwb: dgilmore, that wasn't the question (10:39:15) dgilmore: jwb: someone else could if wanted (10:39:24) jwb: dgilmore, ok that's what i was getting at (10:39:49) mmcgrath: who's going to be topic mediator while thl's out? (10:39:53) jwb: me (10:40:27) jwb: so have we agreed that EPEL packages should be supported for the full RHEL release? (10:40:36) bpepple: jwb: +1 (10:40:41) ***scop needs to go in 10 minutes (10:40:42) rdieter: +1 (10:40:45) c4chris: jwb, +1 (10:40:48) tibbs: +1 (10:40:49) mmcgrath: +1 (10:40:51) jwb: +1 (10:40:53) mmcgrath: as much as possible. (10:40:56) spot: ehh, why not. i wanna be owning lapack until i die. (10:41:21) jwb: ok, so we've got full release support and building on RHEL (10:41:23) spot: what about update releases of RHEL? (10:41:33) spot: every quarter or so, RHEL respins itself with new packages (10:41:46) c4chris: spot, we do rolling releases (10:41:47) jwb: spot, do those get a new full 7 years? (10:41:51) tibbs: There's no reason we have to sync to any release. (10:41:53) mmcgrath: hmmmm. (10:41:55) spot: jwb: no, we don't. (10:42:05) mmcgrath: I'd be fine doing releases as well. (10:42:06) spot: but these update releases might (shouldn't) break ABI/API (10:42:23) mmcgrath: EPELu4 (10:42:33) rdieter: then deal with breakage on a case-by-case basis. (10:42:33) jwb: spot, i think a rolling release strategy will cope with that (10:42:37) spot: jwb: ok. (10:42:41) c4chris: mmcgrath, EPEL-4u3 ? (10:42:44) jwb: or does anyone disagree? (10:42:55) rdieter: rolling++ (10:43:01) mmcgrath: EPEL4-u3, Spot, they're really just snapshots right? (10:43:11) c4chris: rolling++ (10:43:11) mmcgrath: so literally we'd be talking about making a copy of a point in time? (10:43:23) dgilmore: rolling ++ (10:43:33) jwb: mmcgrath, snapshots for what? (10:43:42) mmcgrath: for the specific releases of a redhat update. (10:43:43) spot: mdomsch: yeah (10:43:54) spot: err... mmcgrath: yeah (10:43:56) jwb: mmcgrath, why are those needed? (10:44:17) mmcgrath: I don't think they're needed really, but they would better comply with upstream. (10:44:22) dgilmore: jwb: you could take a snapshot and release a CD (10:44:26) spot: RHEL might add a feature to a library in U2 (10:44:27) mmcgrath: We can revisit that later though. (10:44:36) mmcgrath: Its trivial to add later. (10:44:43) spot: a EPEL package decides it wants to use that (10:44:47) jwb: i say we cross that bridge later then (10:44:55) spot: ok. (10:45:01) jwb: we don't do Extras CDs ATM either (10:45:08) dgilmore: spot: then they add BR's etc and build a new version (10:45:15) ***mmcgrath is in an enterprise environment where the 'official releases' are a big deal. (10:45:25) dgilmore: jwb: no but we shoul when core can support them at install time (10:45:39) jwb: dgilmore, i don't disagree. but that's a different topic ;) (10:45:44) dgilmore: yup (10:45:52) jwb: dgilmore, and we can handle it then so both Extras and EPEL can cope (10:46:00) jwb: or at least i would think (10:46:09) dgilmore: jwb: yeah i agree with you (10:46:18) jwb: ok. anything left for EPEL today? (10:46:43) jwb has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- comps.xml (10:46:50) mmcgrath: not right now, I have plenty of other questions to bring up later. (10:46:52) jwb: c4chris, dgilmore: ? (10:47:05) dgilmore: jwb: nothing to add right now (10:47:07) c4chris: not much new (10:47:07) jwb: mmcgrath, sure no problem. just trying to get to some other stuff today :) (10:47:07) mmcgrath: brb, lunch (10:47:14) ***mmcgrath ^z (10:47:19) jwb: ok. anyone else on comps? (10:47:33) dgilmore: jwb: nope (10:47:43) jwb has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Activate legacy in buildroots (10:47:53) jwb: dgilmore, you're up again :) (10:48:12) dgilmore: jwb: it will be done by endf of weekend (10:48:17) dgilmore: end of (10:48:28) dgilmore: ive cleared up some things and will get it done (10:48:35) jwb: ok good. is anyone working on the maintainers responsibilities part? (10:49:04) jwb: i take that as a no (10:49:08) tibbs: Well, there was the draft, but I haven't received any comments. (10:49:18) jwb: tibbs, where was that again? (10:49:29) abadger1999: tibbs: Hey -- I posted :-) (10:49:38) tibbs: Let me see if I can find it agai. (10:49:43) abadger1999: (Too the list, not the wiki) (10:49:57) tibbs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy (10:50:01) jwb: dgilmore, and you will document in the wiki the FE branches in maintenance mode use Legacy packages? (10:50:22) jwb: tibbs, can you add a link to that in the status section? or do you think it needs to be it's own topic? (10:50:35) dgilmore: jwb: it will be done (10:50:44) tibbs: I thought thl had done so when he moved it under Extras/Schedule. (10:50:44) jwb: dgilmore, excellent (10:51:06) jwb: tibbs, i don't see it (10:51:12) ***scop needs to go now, seeya (10:51:15) tibbs: Honestly I think it should be its own topic. (10:51:23) jwb: tibbs, i agree. want to add it? (10:51:30) tibbs: Yes, I'm in there now. (10:51:38) jwb: great (10:51:45) jwb: ok, anything else on this? (10:52:01) jwb has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- PC report (10:52:08) jwb: anything from the PC this week? (10:52:09) c4chris: scop, later (10:52:17) jwb: bye scop (10:52:19) tibbs: We did make some progress. (10:52:52) tibbs: Unfortunately it really needs to be written up in a presentable format. (10:53:09) tibbs: We have to get these meetings separated in time a bit. (10:53:09) spot: ok, so here are the items that we handled (10:53:24) jwb: tibbs, understand (10:53:40) spot: We approved an update to the pkgconfig guideline. (10:53:42) spot: PackagingDrafts/pkgconfig (10:54:11) spot: We also approved a change in wording around Directory ownership: (10:54:20) spot: "Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages that they depend on. Exceptions to this rule are: perl...." (10:54:48) spot: with more detailed text explaining how and when perl packages are excluded from this (10:55:32) spot: And: We passed a rule that if a PC member misses four meetings in a row (without notifying the list), they're removed. (10:55:33) jwb: ok (10:55:41) jwb: oh (10:55:43) jwb: ok (10:55:45) spot: They get a warning at three. (10:55:59) jwb: has that been a problem? (10:56:05) spot: unfortunately, yes. (10:56:19) jwb: well i'm glad to see FESCo hasn't hit that yet :) (10:56:25) jwb: spot, ok. anything else? (10:56:32) spot: nope. thats a lot for us. :) (10:56:41) xris [n=xris] entered the room. (10:56:44) jwb: ok. thanks (10:56:46) jima: might not be a bad idea to vote in that idea for FESCo. (10:57:01) jwb: jima, perhaps. but not this week (10:57:08) jwb: ok, we've got 1 minute (10:57:10) bpepple: jima: It doesn't seem to be a problem so far. (10:57:16) jima: bpepple: so far. (10:57:29) jwb: is there anything people want to discuss that needs to be done this week? (10:57:40) tibbs: AWOL Policy. (10:57:49) tibbs: But we can do this on-list. (10:58:01) jwb: tibbs, yes let's do it on-list this week (10:58:09) jwb: thanks for emailing that out (10:58:28) jwb: ok. i have to leave now, but you guys can keep going (10:58:30) jwb: who wants the topic baton? (10:58:44) pygi left the room (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). (10:58:46) jwb: or i'll ajourn in 30 (10:58:55) bpepple: ajourn. (10:59:02) tibbs: Sorry, I'm buried in wikicode. (10:59:12) tibbs: I have nothing else to add. (10:59:26) abadger1999: nothing from me either. (10:59:27) jwb: ok. it seems like a good stopping point anyway (10:59:35) ***jwb closes the meeting (10:59:50) jwb: -- MARK -- }}}
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
