From Fedora Project Wiki
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2008-08-26

Members Present

  • Denis Leroy (delero)
  • Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
  • Hans de Goede (hansg)
  • Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
  • Ralf Corsepius (racor)
  • Rex Dieter (rdieter)
  • Tom Callaway (spot)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)

Summary

IRC Logs

*** tibbs sets the channel topic to "Packaging Committee Meeting". 12:00
* Rathann present 12:00
* tibbs here 12:00
* spot is here 12:01
racor i am here, have ca. 15 mins time. 12:01
spot racor: thanks for coming 12:02
tibbs rdieter, abadger1999: ping 12:02
rdieter here 12:02
tibbs Anyone else I missed? 12:02
--> delero has joined this channel (n=denis@AMontsouris-156-1-79-180.w90-24.abo.wanadoo.fr). 12:03
abadger1999 here 12:03
delero here 12:03
tibbs That's seven. 12:03
spot we're missing hans and Xavier 12:04
spot but hey, quorum. :) 12:04
abadger1999 Woo hoo :-) 12:04
spot okay, first order of business, the drafts that i sent around via email 12:04
spot some of you voted over email, thanks. 12:04
spot however, some of you did not 12:04
tibbs I saw five sets of votes including my own. 12:05
spot yep. 12:05
* Rathann wonders why the members list link on FPC wikipage points nowhere 12:05
abadger1999 Haskell +1, Lisp: +1, fonts.... I'd like to know if the fonts sig will enforce those if we vote 0. 12:05
spot delero: would you like to vote? 12:06
spot we have votes for everyone else 12:06
Rathann abadger1999: or at least how much work it is to enforce that 12:06
* rdieter just sent email minutes ago, in short, I +1'd all of them (including fonts). 12:06
tibbs Rathann: Probably more damage from the conversion. I keep cleaning things up but there's always something else. 12:06
delero i went over them, +1 for me for all 3 12:06
tibbs There were four. 12:07
Rathann but two were about fonts and related 12:07
tibbs True. But two separate proposals. 12:07
Rathann yup 12:07
spot okay, haskell and lisp clearly pass 12:08
Rathann which is why I should add my vote for font bundles: 0 12:08
spot On the Lisp draft, the following comments were made: 12:08
abadger1999 I like both the font proposals. If the fonts-sig is going to enforce them anyways 9as part of a SIG best practice) then I have even more reason to vote +1. 12:08
spot Needs adding an ASDF system definition file template (or link to syntax). 12:08
spot needs to add an empty %build to his spec template 12:09
tibbs I think the link at the bottom should suffice. 12:09
delero i'm ok with the font bundling proposal as well, +1 from me 12:09
spot my concern around the font bundling proposal is that they were drafted specifically to prevent texlive 12:09
abadger1999 spot: Err... specifically in response to texlive. 12:09
spot yes, rather. 12:10
spot while i think that texlive is a clear exception to that guideline 12:10
Rathann I wonder how much work it would be for texlive packager to adapt texlive to follow that guidline 12:10
tibbs Well, texlive does need cleanup. 12:10
racor my concern is that fonts are being bundled with other sources, whatever the font sig wants doesn't change much about it 12:11
tibbs But it's going to have to evolve in that direction. 12:11
rdieter grandfather'd exception for texlive, +1 (that doesn't mean that efforts to fix it shouldn't happen) 12:11
Rathann if it's doable in reasonable time, then I'd vote +1 on both font proposals 12:11
tibbs I think the "no bundling of fonts" proposal is simply unworkable. 12:11
tibbs If I have a game or something that has a simple bitmap font in its own internal format. 12:12
Rathann hmm 12:12
Rathann good point 12:12
tibbs It's a "font" according to the guideline, but I doubt there's going to be any call to split it. 12:12
spot ok, lets vote on the font bundles proposal first (with an exception for texlive for the time being) 12:12
racor -1 12:13
tibbs -1 12:13
rdieter +1 12:13
spot this is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles 12:13
abadger1999 +1 12:13
tibbs I also have to wonder why fonts are special here. 12:14
Rathann tibbs: because they can be used by other apps? 12:14
tibbs The arguments work for more than just fonts. 12:14
spot well, to be fair, we don't generally permit multiple software items from multiple sources to live in the same srpm 12:15
abadger1999 tibbs: That's true. I could go for a more general rule. 12:15
racor Rathann: Many files can be used by other apps (shared libs, images, sound, movies ...) 12:15
rdieter tibbs: good point, there's currently a best-practice/unwritten rule already about separate sources => separate pkgs. 12:15
abadger1999 But that doesn't eliminate my +1 for the subset :-) 12:15
tibbs I don't know if everyone saw my suggested alternative. 12:15
rdieter tibbs: please refresh our memory. 12:15
tibbs I would 12:16
tibbs consider it it were distilled to a simple strong suggestion that separate 12:16
tibbs upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package. I 12:16
tibbs believe that's an unwritten rule already. 12:16
spot tibbs: "a simple strong suggestion that separate upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package." 12:16
tibbs But I don't want to derail the current vote. I can write a proposal later. 12:16
rdieter I can totally support that. 12:16
spot i'm much more in favor of that 12:16
Rathann 0 unless a list of font formats to which this guideline is applicable is supplied (+1 then) 12:16
abadger1999 tibbs: I'd love to have that written down rather than unwritten. 12:16
delero strictly enforcing it on existing packages is going to be tough, especially on dormant projects where the fedora packager has become the ad-hoc maintainer 12:17
abadger1999 Although textlive, for instance, has already brought issues up wrt that :-( 12:17
Rathann tibbs has a good point about bundled fonts that could not be used system-wide 12:17
tibbs Enforcing anything on existing packages has always proven difficult. 12:17
delero pstoedit is an example, it ships with an old bitmap font 12:17
abadger1999 as texlive is an upstream but is also a conglomeration of other upstreams, how does the rule apply? 12:17
abadger1999 I don't need that answered now, just saying that question has already been raised. 12:18
Rathann also, it doesn't always make sense to make some obscure fonts (symbol fonts, incomplete fonts) visible system-wide 12:18
spot I think that we should say something like "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." 12:18
rdieter I'd say let's ask for the current bundles draft to strike paragraph 1, pending a more general soon-to-come guideline. 12:19
Rathann so while I agree with the guideline in the spirit, it needs to allow for common sense and not be as strict 12:19
abadger1999 I just got a call. I have an electrician coming out to the house and will have to leave when he gets here. 12:19
delero Rathann: +1 12:19
rdieter Rathann: I read it that way already, it says SHOULD 12:19
Rathann ah 12:20
Rathann right, the last paragraph of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages clears it up a bit 12:20
Rathann but I'd limit it to what I suggested above 12:21
racor i think paragraphs 2+3 should be striked. They attempt to special case something which isn't a special case. 12:21
Rathann i.e. not only general-purpose formats but general usability 12:21
tibbs rdieter: The Packaging font bundles proposal doesn't seem to say SHOULD. Lots of MUSTs there. 12:21
rdieter I'm reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles , which includes MUST only in paragraph 1, which I think we've all agreed needs to be stricken anyway 12:22
spot with two -1, and one 0, there is no way that "Packaging_font_bundles" can pass 12:22
rdieter the only must remaining is the licensing bit, but maybe that's not required hee 12:22
tibbs Email from Xavier: he'll be a bit late. 12:22
Rathann does "packaged separately" mean a totally separate package or can it be a subpackage? 12:22
Rathann hm looks like the former 12:23
rdieter Rathann: I read that as either 12:23
tibbs I read it as "totally separate package". 12:23
racor source or binary package? 12:23
rdieter sorry. context matters. ignore me 12:23
tibbs Otherwise arguments about separate upstream release cycles and such make no sense. 12:23
racor demanding a separate source package is silly 12:23
spot can we vote on adding "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." to the main guidelines? 12:23
rdieter spot: +1 to that 12:23
Rathann spot: +1 12:23
delero spot: +1 12:23
tibbs Will we need to discuss exemptions? 12:24
racor -1, superflous not of any importance 12:24
tibbs Circular dependencies was always an interesting one to me. 12:24
tibbs +1 12:24
spot +1 from me 12:24
tibbs racor: What existing guideline does this duplicate? 12:24
Rathann it may be common sense, but common sense is sometimes most difficult to follow ;) 12:25
spot with a +5, it passes 12:25
spot now, it seems like we might be able to reword the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to make it more sensible 12:25
abadger1999 Would it be better to phrase it as a MUST? ie: any package which bundles multiple separate upstream projects MUST justify that decision? 12:26
racor tibbs: this sentence is a waste of text - whether this sentence is presence or not doesn't change anything 12:26
tibbs I don't follow your argument. 12:26
racor upstreams don't care about what we decide 12:26
racor to new-comer packagers this text is not helpful 12:27
racor it's just bloat 12:27
tibbs It answers a question that has been asked of me several times already. 12:27
tibbs I guess I could simply continue to answer as I wish, but I'd rather have an actual guideline. Which it seems we'll have. 12:27
* rdieter is confused now, this guideline only describes downstream packaging, not much to do with upstreams at all 12:28
racor bring this to attention of major upstream projects - You'll be laughed at. 12:28
Rathann racor: some upstreams start caring when we explain it to them 12:28
spot okay, so, if we replace the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to "As noted in the Packaging Guidelines, Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. This applies equally to font packages." 12:28
spot then, leave the rest as is... i think that makes it more reasonable 12:29
racor Rathann: Do you care about SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo packaging desires in packages you are upstream? I don't. 12:29
rdieter I'm still not sure about the "each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package", that seems to be itching for a generalized rule too, no? 12:29
Rathann racor: nobody laughed at me when I started packaging inchi separately from openbabel and submitted patches to fix building with external inchi 12:29
racor try glibc, try gcc, ... 12:30
spot rdieter: i think it makes some sense to do it that way for fonts specifically, especially if other applications want to rely on a single font 12:30
racor anyway, i've got to quit now, sorry. 12:30
spot they wouldn't need to Requires: foo-superfonts-dump, they could Requires: foo-superfonts-myfont 12:31
rdieter umm... do apps really need to care about the fonts used licensing-wise? 12:32
rdieter if so, doesn't that get very scary, very fast? 12:32
spot rdieter: generally, no, but it does make for a reasonable divisor 12:32
Rathann but licensing is a good reason for splitting packages in general 12:33
Rathann i.e. foo licensed under GPL and foo-libs under LGPL 12:33
Rathann assuming that's what upstream does 12:33
Rathann or foo-someplugin under another license (say, BSD) 12:34
abadger1999 You have my +1 to this. 12:34
abadger1999 Electrician is here, gotta run. 12:34
Rathann I wouldn't put so much stress on packaging fonts separately due to licensing issues, it is a more general thing 12:35
spot take a look at this: 12:35
spot https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 12:35
tibbs The first MUST there implies that this guidelines is stronger than the general one. 12:36
Rathann doesn't say why, though 12:36
tibbs Is that still the intention, or is this just supposed to be a clarification of the other guideline as it applies to fonts? 12:36
delero this means ONE font per subpackage ? 12:36
Rathann delero: one font family 12:36
spot delero: font family 12:37
* rdieter likes that draft more. happy happy 12:37
spot i think this is a clarfication for fonts 12:37
Rathann well if it's phrased that way, it becomes redundant 12:38
Rathann the first paragraph 12:38
Rathann but +1 too 12:38
delero I assume this would apply to a package like gnuplot, which ships postscripts fonts 12:38
rdieter not this draft, afaict, the other one... maybe. :) 12:39
Rathann delero: but does it make sense to use them outside gnuplot? 12:39
spot well, should we take a vote on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ? 12:40
delero Rathann: unlikely 12:40
Rathann I wouldn't want to force any package to split their fonts if it doesn't make sense to use them outside their apps 12:40
spot keep in mind that all reasonable exceptions are okay. 12:40
spot (as always) 12:40
rdieter spot: +1 P_F_B2 draft 12:40
delero spot: +1 on v2 draft 12:40
spot +1 from me 12:40
Rathann +1 on v2 draft 12:40
spot abadger1999: gave us a +1 before he left... tibbs? 12:41
tibbs I guess I don't really understand why it mandates a split by license, but I don't have any real problems with it. 12:42
tibbs +1 12:42
spot tibbs: it doesn't mandate that anymore 12:42
spot i changed it to read "make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. " 12:42
Rathann rather, splitting by license is a general "should, if makes sense" 12:42
tibbs I've been reloading but I don't see the change. 12:42
Rathann not only with fonts 12:42
spot tibbs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ? 12:42
tibbs I'm still seeing "but he MUST make sure each bundled font..." 12:43
spot note that i made a copy with changes for v2 12:43
tibbs Yeah, I'm looking at v2. 12:43
spot If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. 12:43
spot old version said "If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package." 12:44
spot anyways, thats +6 12:44
spot i can't think of a quick way to reword No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages in such a way that it would be acceptable 12:45
spot well, i take that back 12:45
spot maybe if we changed item 1 to 12:45
spot 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package 12:46
rdieter item 2 isn't really a MUST, just a pointer 12:46
Rathann spot: I'm fine with a MUST in your modified version even 12:47
spot yeah, but if it makes people think about font licenses, i'm not opposed to it 12:47
rdieter spot: your version of 1 is a lot better, likey likey 12:48
--> hansg has joined this channel (n=hans@ip32-174-211-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl). 12:48
hansg Hi all 12:48
Rathann also if such font has value outside the application, maybe ask upstream to publish font source separately? 12:48
hansg I just saw spot's invitation 12:48
hansg any votes needed from me, or did we already have the quorum? 12:49
spot hansg: you're not too late, we're just going through the last pending draft 12:49
Rathann hansg: we're discussing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages 12:49
hansg -1 12:49
spot hansg: we're trying to fix it. :) 12:49
Rathann <spot> maybe if we changed item 1 to 12:49
Rathann <spot> 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package 12:49
hansg For reasons already mentioned 12:49
Rathann well? any comments on my suggestion? 12:50
spot https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 12:50
spot take a look at that 12:50
spot Rathann: i'm on the fence as to whether it should be a "SHOULD" or a "MUST" 12:51
spot i can see both sides of that argument 12:51
spot (i'm leaning towards a must, as a sub-package) 12:51
Rathann spot: no, I mean the other suggestion ;) 12:52
Rathann I said I was fine with either should or must here 12:52
spot oh yes, that is good, i'll add it 12:52
hansg Hmm, just read Spot's draft I dunno what to think of this 12:52
Rathann hansg: it's just the 1st point that's different 12:52
Rathann I think that was the main contention 12:53
hansg All in all it seems well balanced between making clear that generic fonts must be packaged separately and that specials could be bundled 12:53
hansg I would like to see some language in here about how this all applies only to fonts in font format. 12:53
Rathann "fonts in font format"? 12:54
tibbs Think back to my earlier question. 12:54
Rathann hansg: the last paragraph is not enough? 12:54
hansg Games often package fonts as just a bmp which when you lay a 64x64 grid over it you get each letter 12:54
Rathann ah 12:54
Rathann then the first solves it 12:54
hansg or on XxX format for that mayyer 12:54
spot okay, i added Rathann's suggestion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 12:54
spot hansg: if i made it say "bundled font files" 12:55
spot would that be more appropriate? 12:55
spot or "bundled fonts (in font format)" 12:55
hansg I'm not sure about the "any value outside of the package " wording, that is a bit vagu 12:55
hansg vague I mean 12:56
hansg Spot, +1 for "bundled font files" 12:56
hansg That is better IMHO 12:56
hansg And maybe we should replace the "any value outside of the package " wording by a list of formats and a MUST be in a subpackage if in one of these formats 12:56
Rathann hansg: it's not just formats 12:57
Rathann it's also the usability 12:57
hansg For example if a game has some special font created for it in ttf, it would be good to put it in a sub package so that it can be used more general 12:57
hansg (assuming the licensing is ok) 12:57
hansg Rathann, explain 12:57
Rathann it doesn't make sense if such font contains just a limited subset of characters or symbols which is usable only in that game 12:57
rdieter hansg: but "good" for who? if no one can/will ever use it? 12:58
Rathann hence it also needs to be usable outside the original application 12:58
hansg Rathann, ah yes 12:58
hansg rdieter, will never use it just a matter of advertising, can never user it is another story 12:58
spot how about something like "especially if the font is in a standardized format, and contains a set of characters or symbols which are useful for other packages." 12:58
hansg Ok, lets stick with the "any value outside of the package " 12:59
hansg spot +1 12:59
hansg (although that violates the less is more principle) 12:59
spot it does, and i think the "any value outside of the package" is actually broader. 12:59
hansg I'm fine with keeping just "any value outside of the package " 13:00
* Rathann is fine with either 13:00
Rathann obviously some people need explaining the spirit of the rule ;) 13:00
Rathann so more precise language won't hurt IMHO 13:01
spot how about this 13:01
spot https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 13:01
spot i added it as a clarifier 13:01
tibbs Seems OK to me. 13:02
Rathann yup 13:02
delero excellent 13:02
tibbs I wonder whether we're still within the spirit of the original draft which was submitted. 13:02
spot well, we'll hear back for sure if we're not. 13:02
spot i think we are 13:02
hansg spot, good, about font source, its that mandatory, or does it depend on the font license? 13:02
Rathann I think so too 13:02
Rathann we just added some common sense ;) 13:02
spot hansg: not sure i follow 13:03
Rathann hansg: you mean the point about asking upstream to publish font source separately? 13:03
Rathann it's not mandatory 13:03
hansg Well if someone designed a font for project X and gave project X just the .ttf file and a license to do whatever they want with the ttf, there will be no font source 13:03
spot how about i change that to just "font files" 13:04
spot not "font source" 13:04
spot to eliminate confusion 13:04
Rathann yes 13:04
Rathann that's what I meant 13:04
hansg spot, hmm yes and no 13:04
hansg We do want the preferable format for modification when available 13:04
<-- delero has left this channel. 13:05
spot hansg: yes, but thats a licensing issue 13:05
Rathann the idea is that generally useful fonts should migrate to separate packages alltogether 13:05
Rathann hence my suggestion to ask upstream to publish font files 13:05
hansg spot again yes and no, it can be that we don't need the font "source" from a license pov, that doesn't mean we don't want it if available 13:05
spot by not specifying, we can safely assume we want source 13:06
hansg true 13:06
spot https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 13:06
spot it now says "font files" on that line 13:06
spot guys, i need to dash off to the board meeting 13:06
spot can we vote on this quickly? 13:06
Rathann hansg: but isn't that is already in font packaging guidelines? 13:06
rdieter spot: +1 to v2 13:07
spot +1 from me 13:07
hansg +1 13:07
Rathann hansg: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format" 13:07
tibbs +1 13:07
Rathann +1 from me 13:07
spot do we have quorum? delero dropped... 13:07
hansg Rathann, we should add: "if upstream does not provides them in a source format, the packager should contact upstream and ask them to provide source if possible" 13:07
spot wait, that is +5 13:07
spot ok, it passes. 13:07
hansg yes thats enouh, right?? 13:08
spot and with that i have to go to the board call 13:08
Rathann hansg: that is fine by me 13:08
spot thanks guys 13:08
Rathann thanks spot ;) 13:08
* hansg wonders why my typing is even lousier then normal 13:08
spot i'll update the todo page this afternoon 13:08
tibbs I will try to get minutes out today; with the FESCo move, we have no way to make their 24 hour deadline. 13:09
hansg well that was short (for me) when is the next meeting? 13:12
Rathann hansg: we should discuss the possible times and choose one that works well for everyone if possible, current one was difficult for me until recently 13:17
hansg Didn't we try that by using a wiki page were we all wrote down what worked, and then failed? 13:18
Rathann and I won't know until next week if it continues to be 13:18
tibbs The problem seems to be that there's always some kind of conflict. 13:18
abadger1999 tibbs: FTR, I'm +1 to spots revised fonts guideline. 13:33