From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-02-03
Present
- Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Ralf Corsepius (racor)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
Regrets
- Denis Leroy (delero)
- Hans de Goede (hansg)
- Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)
Writeups
The following drafts have been accepted by FESCO and are to be written into the guidelines:
- Updated Haskell Guidelines - PackagingDrafts/Haskell
- Symlinks - PackagingDrafts/Symlinks
Votes
- Non-obvious spec file items
- PackagingDrafts/Non-obvious_spec_file_items
- This was previously submitted to FESCo but was rejected. FPC has attempted
to address FESCo commentary
Other Discussions
The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.
- PHP guideline modifications for dealing with channels - PackagingDrafts/PHP
- FPC requested additional cleanups and clarifications.
- ReviewGuideline for fonts - PackagingDrafts/ReviewGuideline_for_fonts_(2009-01-22)
- FPC did not accept the draft.
IRC Logs
| * spot looks around for FPC | 11:14 | |
| * Rathann|work present | 11:14 | |
| spot | abadger1999, tibbs, racor, rdieter ? | 11:16 |
|---|---|---|
| tibbs | Yep. | 11:16 |
| rdieter | here | 11:16 |
| abadger1999 | here | 11:16 |
| racor | here | 11:16 |
| spot | i don't see anyone else online | 11:16 |
| * abadger1999 apparently has an off-by-a-week bug :-) | 11:16 | |
| spot | so i think it is just us | 11:17 |
| spot | abadger1999: did i get the date wrong? | 11:17 |
| tibbs | No, this is the right day. | 11:17 |
| spot | oh, good. | 11:17 |
| abadger1999 | Just me. | 11:17 |
| spot | okay, lets get started | 11:17 |
| * RemiFedora present | 11:17 | |
| tibbs | I'd be willing to help. | 11:17 |
| spot | tibbs: that would be a huge help | 11:17 |
| tibbs | Let's talk about it later. | 11:18 |
| spot | basically, the PHP people want to standardize naming and packaging of PHP channels | 11:18 |
| spot | i know practically nothing about PHP | 11:18 |
| tibbs | I don't really object to it in principle. | 11:18 |
| tibbs | I think we already have at least one channel package. | 11:18 |
| tibbs | Four of them, actually. | 11:19 |
| RemiFedora | we already have 4 extras channels in repository (phing, phpdb, symfony and phpunit). A new one (ezc) is on the road | 11:19 |
| spot | yeah, i'm inclined to approve this, as nothing appears to be horrifying or awful inside of it | 11:19 |
| Rathann|work | I don't understand something here | 11:19 |
| Rathann|work | * CHANNEL packages should be named php-channel-ChannelAlias-%{version}-%{release}.noarch.rpm | 11:19 |
| Rathann|work | * Packages from another channel should be named php-ChannelAlias-PackageName-%{version}-%{release}.noarch.rpm. | 11:19 |
| Rathann|work | does the first refer to some channel-common package? | 11:20 |
| tibbs | For example, a channel package: | 11:20 |
| tibbs | php-channel-symfony.noarch | 11:20 |
| Rathann|work | ok, but if pear and pecl follow the same template, why list them separately? | 11:20 |
| Rathann|work | that confused me a bit | 11:21 |
| spot | should the naming in the second line be " php-channel-ChannelAlias-PackageName-%{version}-%{release}.noarch.rpm" ? | 11:21 |
| RemiFedora | If you take a package from "pear" channel it's named php-pear-xxxx | 11:21 |
| RemiFedora | from pecl channel : php-pecl-xxx | 11:21 |
| tibbs | I don't think so. That's not a channel, it's a package from the "ChannelAlias" channel. | 11:21 |
| spot | tibbs: okay | 11:21 |
| * spot already admitted that he doesn't understand PHP | 11:22 | |
| tibbs | But that's what PHP folks do, and we should at least figure out how to cope. | 11:22 |
| spot | i think if anything in here causes problems, we'll hear about it. | 11:22 |
| spot | also, the PHP folks are pretty good about this in general | 11:22 |
| spot | so, +1 from me | 11:22 |
| tibbs | Also, the change in the pear template from Requires: php to Requires: php-common is snuck in there. I think that's a good idea as well. | 11:23 |
| Rathann|work | I think this proposal needs a bit of cleanup (typos, for example) | 11:24 |
| Rathann|work | also the phrase "channel package" is confusing | 11:24 |
| Rathann|work | does it mean "a package from some channel" or "a metapackage for some channel"? | 11:24 |
| Rathann|work | seems like both, depending on the context | 11:24 |
| spot | Rathann|work: i'll cleanup typos when i merge it | 11:24 |
| tibbs | You have to package the channel itself. | 11:24 |
| Rathann|work | tibbs: yes, I got that | 11:25 |
| RemiFedora | Rathann|work, an channel package is a repository config file (like fedora-release) | 11:25 |
| Rathann|work | but for example there's | 11:25 |
| Rathann|work | A CHANNEL package 'MUST have : ... | 11:25 |
| Rathann|work | A PEAR package MUST have: | 11:25 |
| Rathann|work | isn't PEAR a channel too? | 11:26 |
| RemiFedora | We probably could write : A package from PEAR channel | 11:26 |
| RemiFedora | And yes, pear is a channel, installed by default (php-pear) | 11:26 |
| Rathann|work | RemiFedora: we should! ;) the current text is confusing to me | 11:26 |
| tibbs | I think I would like to see what the final guideline page looks like. | 11:27 |
| * Rathann|work too | 11:27 | |
| Rathann|work | as it is, I don't even want to vote on it | 11:28 |
| spot | RemiFedora: can you rework the draft to make it a bit less confusing? | 11:28 |
| RemiFedora | yes | 11:28 |
| spot | alright, we'll table it for now and revisit next meeting | 11:28 |
| Rathann|work | I mean, any idea to make things consistent gets +1 from me | 11:28 |
| RemiFedora | but if I put the "final" version, diff will be difficult... | 11:28 |
| Rathann|work | but it shouldn't be ambiguous | 11:28 |
| spot | RemiFedora: do your best. :) | 11:29 |
| spot | Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ReviewGuideline_for_fonts_%282009-01-22%29 | 11:29 |
| tibbs | mediawiki makes diffs pretty easy. | 11:29 |
| spot | basically, nim-nim would like us to add a line to the review guidelines to remind viewers to check for fonts and their legal status | 11:29 |
| spot | "reviewers", rather | 11:29 |
| tibbs | How is that different from any other content that reviewers would need to check the legal status of? | 11:30 |
| tibbs | Poor grammar, that. | 11:30 |
| spot | How about "MUST: Font files (if any) are packaged according to Packaging:FontsPolicy." | 11:31 |
| racor | is Packaging:FontsPolicy part of the FPG? | 11:31 |
| spot | racor: yes... | 11:31 |
| spot | so, technically, this is redundant | 11:31 |
| racor | no external documents. | 11:31 |
| Rathann|work | racor: we have external documents for Perl, Python, Java, ... | 11:32 |
| abadger1999 | Long term, this needs to be something that docs helps us reorganize. | 11:32 |
| racor | The point is access to them. I do not want to have us undermined. | 11:32 |
| spot | racor: they can't edit that page anymore than anything under Packaging/ | 11:32 |
| spot | Packaging: is the same as Packaging/ | 11:32 |
| Rathann|work | spot: For fonts, I'd just add a footnote like for Perl/Python/PHP/Java | 11:33 |
| Rathann|work | no need for fonts-specific line in the guidelines | 11:33 |
| abadger1999 | short term... I'm a bit ambivalent. redundancy and clutter are just as harmful as too little information when we have too many disorganized Guidelines. | 11:33 |
| spot | Rathann|work: this is the ReviewGuidelines | 11:33 |
| Rathann|work | yes, I know | 11:34 |
| spot | many people are using ReviewGuidelines as the basis for things that they should remember to check on every review (for better or worse) | 11:34 |
| Rathann|work | that is, -1 for adding this to ReviewGuidelines, +1 for adding at the end of PackagingGuidelines | 11:34 |
| tibbs | I do believe this is addressing two real problems, and one of them isn't really restricted to fonts. | 11:34 |
| spot | i think that is why nim-nim wants a specific "check for fonts, make sure you follow guidelines" | 11:34 |
| spot | technically, everything in ReviewGuidelines is covered elsewhere in the Packaging Guidelines now | 11:35 |
| Rathann|work | hm, I missed it but it's already there in the Packaging Guidelines | 11:35 |
| tibbs | So, do we need a mention in the review guidelines relating to any necessary legal checks? | 11:36 |
| Rathann|work | why are fonts so special that they need an explicit mention in Review Guidelines? | 11:36 |
| spot | tibbs: we have "MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines ." | 11:36 |
| tibbs | Rathann|work: I guess because folks keep missing them. | 11:36 |
| tibbs | spot: That's licensing, I guess. Are there other legal checks? Patents? | 11:37 |
| tibbs | I don't really know how we can ask anyone to do that, though. | 11:37 |
| spot | we have to walk a blurry line there | 11:37 |
| Rathann|work | hmm | 11:37 |
| spot | the vast majority of reviewers are doing fine in the legal area | 11:38 |
| tibbs | The problem is that people are using this document and still missing the fonts stuff. | 11:38 |
| spot | i think that many people might forget to check for fonts and font licensing | 11:38 |
| Rathann|work | all right | 11:38 |
| tibbs | So do we evolve the documents to help revieiers not miss things? Or do we pedantically say that it's all in the guidelines, and they should memorize them all? | 11:38 |
| abadger1999 | I don't like this... OTOH, I think adding something to the review process that helped people find out if they had certain types of files and apply certain Guidelines if they do would be nice. | 11:39 |
| Rathann|work | but this should be added as a subpoint of MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . | 11:39 |
| abadger1999 | that's a more comprehensive document though. | 11:39 |
| spot | i'm more interested in something like: "MUST: Font files (if any) are packaged according to Packaging:FontsPolicy." | 11:39 |
| spot | that page has links to the packaging and legal concerns around fonts | 11:40 |
| Rathann|work | spot: fine... | 11:40 |
| Rathann|work | although I'd prefer something more general with fonts given as an example of content that needs special checks | 11:40 |
| spot | longer term, i think there is merit in making ReviewGuidelines extinct, and automating as much of it as possible | 11:40 |
| rdieter | spot: +1 (to MUST, and long term plan/intentions) | 11:40 |
| spot | +1 for my proposed MUST | 11:41 |
| tibbs | Is there a more general notice that would fit? "This document isn't intended to indicate everything that must be checked. Be aware of specific guidelines, such as the font packaging guidelines which must be followed for fonts which may be part of the package." | 11:41 |
| rdieter | sorry, I've got to leave early in a minute or 2... anything else (quick)? | 11:42 |
| spot | tibbs: i don't know if it will have the same effect | 11:42 |
| Rathann|work | i.e. MUST: Any included content must be appropriately licensed. For example, for fonts, see Packaging:FontsPolicy. | 11:42 |
| spot | Rathann|work: yes, but this is more than a licensing issue | 11:42 |
| spot | Rathann|work: fonts have to be packaged in a unique way | 11:42 |
| Rathann|work | alright then, +1 to spot's MUST | 11:42 |
| tibbs | +1 spot | 11:42 |
| abadger1999 | rdieter: The Fonts update from last week was rejected by FESCo, but I don't know that we can vote on revisions without discussion. | 11:43 |
| spot | abadger1999: it was? | 11:43 |
| abadger1999 | spot: yes. | 11:43 |
| tibbs | Yes, fesco rejected some things, but I wasn't able to be at their meeting. | 11:43 |
| spot | the feature? | 11:43 |
| tibbs | It keeps moving and I keep missing it. | 11:43 |
| abadger1999 | The one that we split into two parts. | 11:43 |
| spot | oh hell. | 11:43 |
| abadger1999 | I'll dig it up after this. | 11:43 |
| spot | i wrote that up into the guidelines | 11:43 |
| abadger1999 | Oops. | 11:44 |
| * spot apologizes. i hadn't seen them reject anything. | 11:44 | |
| tibbs | Who here is still on fesco? | 11:44 |
| tibbs | Any of us? | 11:44 |
| rdieter | heh, I'll be avail on-irc/onilnes later, if votes are needed. my apologies. | 11:44 |
| *** rdieter is now known as rdieter_away. | 11:44 | |
| spot | well, one thing at a time | 11:45 |
| spot | we have +4 for my MUST | 11:45 |
| spot | abadger1999, racor? | 11:45 |
| abadger1999 | Oh it wasn't fonts.. it was ExplicitRequires that we split into two. | 11:45 |
| racor | I am not convinced and prefer to abstain: 0 | 11:45 |
| abadger1999 | -1 | 11:45 |
| spot | okay, at +4 it does not pass. | 11:45 |
| abadger1999 | I don't think this direction is going to scale. | 11:46 |
| spot | alright. it is worth noting for the record that the lack of a mention in ReviewGuidelines doesn't mean that reviewers shouldn't check for fonts and be sure they comply with Font packaging guidelines | 11:46 |
| Rathann|work | abadger1999: when was that last fesco meeting? the log from Jan 16 shows they've approved some fonts guidelines | 11:47 |
| spot | abadger1999: ExplicitRequires is not written up yet | 11:47 |
| Rathann|work | abadger1999: http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-01-16.html | 11:47 |
| tibbs | Maybe this is something that the package review sig could take up. | 11:47 |
| Rathann|work | https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/18 <- this is approved | 11:48 |
| spot | abadger1999: i don't see any logs or minutes newer than jan 16 | 11:48 |
| spot | i'll poke jon stanley and see what happened to them | 11:49 |
| tibbs | So, if there is no longer any overlap between FESCo and this group then we need to figure out how we want the communication to work. | 11:49 |
| spot | thats all i have on today's agenda | 11:49 |
| abadger1999 | https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/29 | 11:50 |
| abadger1999 | ExplicitRequires was on their agenda for that meeting and rejected. | 11:50 |
| spot | okay | 11:50 |
| Rathann|work | ah | 11:50 |
| spot | 'need less enumeration into "non-obvious"' ? | 11:51 |
| bpepple | spot: we started rotating writing meeting summaries, and it looks like not everyone has been putting them on the wiki. :( | 11:51 |
| spot | they want us to be more vague about what is non-obvious? | 11:51 |
| tibbs | So much for trying to leave some things to the good sense of the packager.... | 11:51 |
| spot | does anyone want to take a pass at trying to fix this up for FESCo? | 11:52 |
| Rathann|work | one would first have to know what the issue was | 11:52 |
| abadger1999 | So I think that part is basically, take out the list of examples. | 11:53 |
| tibbs | I have the minutes archived somewhere. Let me dig them out. | 11:53 |
| Rathann|work | that's a bad move IMHO, examples are necessary | 11:53 |
| tibbs | Well, not the minutes; the actual log. | 11:53 |
| spot | i really disagree with that | 11:53 |
| abadger1999 | Also, I think it wasn't obvious to FESCo that these were now intended to be read as two separate Guidelines. | 11:53 |
| spot | the examples are necessary | 11:53 |
| abadger1999 | They brought up rwmjones's comment about FHS and cross-compilers. | 11:54 |
| abadger1999 | WRT the list. | 11:54 |
| tibbs | [Fri Jan 23 2009] [11:51:28] <nirik> I'm a bit worried about how vuage the 'Non obvious items' thing is... but ho | 11:54 |
| tibbs | pefully people will use common sense. | 11:54 |
| spot | okay, so we can clarify the FHS example | 11:54 |
| tibbs | [Fri Jan 23 2009] [11:52:39] <notting> -1 to ExplicitRequires, both because non-obvious seems to be overly specifie | 11:55 |
| tibbs | d, and the ExplicitRequires isn't confined to library dependencies | 11:55 |
| tibbs | [Fri Jan 23 2009] [11:54:29] <jds2001> so for explicitrequires, I'd like to see a little less guidance on what "non | 11:55 |
| tibbs | -obvious" means. | 11:55 |
| spot | perhaps change it to "FHS violations (except for documented exceptions such as libexecdir and cross-compilers)" | 11:55 |
| tibbs | [Fri Jan 23 2009] [11:57:17] <j-rod> something adding a note about commenting non-obvious stuff that is completel | 11:55 |
| tibbs | y unrelated to Requires: seems, uh, out of place, on a page titled 'explicitRequires' | 11:55 |
| spot | why would we want to confine ExplicitRequires to library deps? | 11:55 |
| tibbs | Looks like they missed the fact that there were two completely separate proposals on one page. | 11:55 |
| tibbs | Anyway, I think that covers the objections from the log. | 11:56 |
| spot | so, i think i'd like to try to sell it to FESCo | 11:56 |
| spot | when is their next meeting? | 11:56 |
| tibbs | Friday. | 11:57 |
| tibbs | At least I think it's on Fridays now. | 11:57 |
| spot | crap. i will be in route to Brussels then | 11:57 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Friday. Maybe we should take out the FHS entry specifically. | 11:57 |
| spot | abadger1999: yeah, seems fine to me | 11:57 |
| spot | is someone willing to help FESCo understand the draft on friday? | 11:57 |
| spot | Also, please toss in votes for dropping the FHS example | 11:58 |
| spot | +1 from me | 11:58 |
| tibbs | My in-laws are in from Norway then; I can't promise to be around then. | 11:58 |
| abadger1999 | notting also had an objection to the Explicit Requires section not limiting itself to dynamic libraries but no one else followed up on his comment. | 11:58 |
| abadger1999 | +1 to dropping | 11:58 |
| racor | +1 to dropping | 11:58 |
| spot | abadger1999: can i ask you to represent this at FESCo on friday? | 11:58 |
| Rathann|work | +1 from me as well | 11:59 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Yeah -- not sure I'll be good at it though. | 11:59 |
| abadger1999 | I'm willing to make the Guideline very vague. | 11:59 |
| spot | well, lets see if with explanation, they will approve it | 11:59 |
| tibbs | +1 dropping the FHS example if that's what it takes. | 11:59 |
| spot | if not, we'll revisit it and make it so vague it could describe badger mating patterns. | 11:59 |
| spot | okay, the FHS example is dropped | 12:00 |
| spot | are there any other issues for today? | 12:00 |
| tibbs | Meeting agenda. When should it be posted, and where should I take the items from? | 12:01 |
| tibbs | Maybe Friday previous to the meeting? | 12:01 |
| Rathann|work | tibbs: not a bad idea, that'd give us time to look it over during the weekend | 12:01 |
| spot | tibbs: start with Packaging/GuidelinesTodo | 12:01 |
| Rathann|work | or monday latest | 12:01 |
| spot | tibbs: and anything you think is agenda worthy from the -packaging list | 12:02 |
| tibbs | Is GuidelinesTodo sufficiently updated? | 12:02 |
| spot | tibbs: i generally keep it clean | 12:02 |
| tibbs | OK, I'll use that. | 12:02 |
| tibbs | We'll try it in 1.5 weeks.... | 12:02 |
| spot | okay, thanks! | 12:02 |
| Rathann|work | thanks tibbs | 12:02 |
| spot | i think we're done then. thanks everyone. | 12:02 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!