Greetings all, it's time for another of our bi-weekly meetings. Same time since we still haven't figured out a time that works better for everyone:: Wednesday at 16:00 UTC, in #fedora-meeting I may not be able to attend this meeting as I think I'll be traveling to the airport during that time but spot will be present to run the meeting. These are the things on the agenda for this week and my votes (unless I can make it): Complex Font Template fix -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fix_Complex_Font_Template(draft) This is also something that FESCo asked us to look at. Since the Complex Fonts template results in unexpanded macros showing up in SRPMs, we need to look at correcting the template to comply with the Buildtime Macro . There were two suggestions on the mailing list. I've put them both there. No answer from the fonts sig about which they'd prefer so it's just a matter of choosing one. |- RPMMacros improvements -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RPMMacros_sharedstatedir_optflags_and_admonitions Till made a bunch of small cleanups for this page. I'm +1 |- Which files to include in python modules -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/No_py_removal%28draft%29 Ville drafted a proposal in response to the question of whether we should remove *.py files in Fedora. Here's the addition to the python Guidelines for that. I'm +1 |- Static Library PICness -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ajax/Static_Library_PICness_Guidelines Ajax drafted this guideline as a response to seeing Debian asking for an explicit okay to package PIC compiled code in static libraries. I'm okay with the concept but I've left comments on the page for things I'd like to see clarified so reviewers know what to look for and packagers know how to deal with the issue. I'm +0 until more work is done on addressing the comments. I can vote on the list if something new gets drafted. |- CMPI Plugin Guideline -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CMPIPlugins mdomsch wrote this for CMPI Plugins. There's a few outstanding questions on the page that need to be addressed. We can look it over for other things we want addressed but I don't think this is ready for a vote yet. If it comes up for a vote, I'm +0 until the questions are resolved. I can vote on the list if something new gets drafted. |- Clarify line between bundled libraries and copied snippets of code -- https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/314 This is the big issue this week. It's something that FESCo has asked us to look into. There's a bit of homework involved as we need to take a look at the code in the first set listed there and see if: 1) We'd recommend an exception for any of them 2) Would we put any conditions on the bundling (like upstream needs to get this code into a state to unbundle), you must contact upstream, you must work on a patch, etc. 3) Can we draw any general criteria out of it so that we don't have to push as many things through the exception process (or if they do, there are some pretty clear rules of whether something should be granted an exception or not.) These are the three files to examine: * http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/branches/2.8/wp-includes/canonical.php * http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/branches/2.8/wp-includes/wp-db.php * http://core.trac.wordpress.org/browser/branches/2.8/wp-includes/Text/Diff.php If people do look at the source code and the history of the libraries that are being bundled before the meeting, I think we could make a recommendation on those specific three files. Looking for general criteria is probably something that we can throw ideas out at the meeting, discuss them on the list, and then generate some useful discussion for a formal draft. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpdHyo2YZv0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
