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 of {2007-06-12}

Present

  • AxelThimm (thimm)
  • DavidLutterkort (lutter)
  • JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
  • RalfCorsepius (racor)
  • RexDieter (rdieter)
  • TomCallaway (spot)
  • ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)
  • VilleSkyttä (scop)

Writeups

No writeups this week.

Votes

The following proposals were considered:

IRC Logs

[12:01]  * spot shakes his broom at the kde folks
[12:02]  <spot> get offa my lawn!
[12:02]  <rdieter> oh, forgot, ok, I guess we need to finish up.  Thanks Than, Kevin, Sebastian (+ everyone I forgot). :)
[12:02]  <spot> yeah, we need to do "real work". ;)
[12:03]  <lutter> howdy
[12:03]  * tibbs here
[12:03]  <lutter> spot: did the terms for the fpc change ?
[12:03]  <rdieter> here (still)
[12:03]  * lutter is startled by real work
[12:03]  <spot> terms?
[12:03]  --> scop has joined this channel (n=scop@cs181043142.pp.htv.fi).
[12:03]  <spot> oh, no. i'm just poking fun at the kde sig. ;)
[12:03]  <Kevin_Kofler> rdieter: Before I leave: is there still the KDE meeting at 2000 UTC? If not, let's remove it from the wiki. :-)
[12:04]  <spot> we dont actually do any real work in this meeting.
[12:04]  <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: I'll be here for this week anyway, otherwise yeah, remove it (for now).
[12:05]  <spot> abadger1999: alive?
[12:05]  <spot> ok. well, lets get started
[12:06]  <spot> rdieter: your cmake writeup is the only pending item
[12:06]  <thimm> Is there anything that needs full voting body?
[12:06]  <rwmjones> is there an agenda?
[12:06]  * spot cracks the whip
[12:06]  <thimm> I will need to leave early
[12:06]  <rdieter> spot: writup is done.
[12:06]  <spot> yes. there is. :)
[12:06]  <spot> rdieter: please take it off GuidelinesTodo
[12:06]  * rdieter thought he did...
[12:06]  <spot> i might have a cached copy
[12:07]  <rdieter> oops, didn't hit save.
[12:07]  <spot> ok, so the first issue is: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippetsFixes
[12:07]  <spot> The only improvement I can think of for that would be an example.
[12:08]  <spot> the language is correct, but very technically thick.
[12:08]  <tibbs> That and the first sentence is a little confusing.
[12:08]  <spot> I'm a big fan of clarifying examples.
[12:08]  <scop> the main scriptletsnippets page is full of examples...
[12:09]  <spot> scop: i know, but i think an example of where to use : and exit 0 would be useful
[12:09]  <thimm> Maybe shorten to what the guideline is and then explain in further paragraphs?
[12:09]  <spot> since most people are conditioned/used to using || :
[12:09]  <thimm> Like "avoid non-zero exit codes of scriplets as these can mess up a whole yum transaction"?
[12:09]  <lutter> it's hard to understand what exactly you are supposed to do
[12:10]  <spot> It could be as simple as "Processes executed in scriptlets should never exit with a non-zero exit code. Here are the reasons why. Here are some ways that you can prevent it."
[12:10]  <thimm> lutter: "Make your scripts failproof, don't reply on rpm to cater for you"
[12:11]  <spot> (obviously, I'm oversimplifying, but the idea is the same)
[12:12]  <spot> scop: thoughts?
[12:13]  * abadger1999 growls at at pidgin
[12:13]  <scop> no particular thoughts, as long as the info is correct, I don't really care
[12:13]  <spot> so... do we want to approve this as is, or do we want to rework it somewhat?
[12:14]  <scop> if someone wants to rework, feel free
[12:14]  <tibbs> I don't have any real complaints about what's in the draft.
[12:14]  <spot> neither do i. i think its ok to vote on this draft, we can always improve it if people get confused.
[12:14]  <rdieter> approve as-is (for now): +1
[12:14]  <spot> +1
[12:14]  <tibbs> But some of the examples earlier in the page will need to be altered as well, won't they?
[12:15]  <scop> +1
[12:15]  <scop> tibbs, I'll have a look if this passes
[12:15]  <spot> tibbs: yeah, the examples need to be altered to reflect this.
[12:15]  <tibbs> +1
[12:15]  <rdieter> thimm?
[12:16]  <scop> lutter?
[12:16]  <spot> abadger1999?
[12:16]  <rdieter> bueller?
[12:16]  <lutter> +1
[12:16]  <abadger1999> +1
[12:16]  <lutter> (sorry, on the phone)
[12:16]  <racor> +1
[12:16]  <thimm> +1
[12:16]  <spot> ok, thats a pass.
[12:16]  <spot> next item: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
[12:16]  <rwmjones> yes ...
[12:17]  <rwmjones> I summarised everything that happened since last tuesday here:
[12:17]  <rwmjones> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-June/msg00070.html
[12:17]  <rwmjones> & I hope that covers all the things people raised last week
[12:17]  <thimm> Looks like it passed
[12:18]  <tibbs> I think these guidelines are to the point where we can start to make use of them.
[12:18]  <spot> The draft looks good to me.
[12:18]  <thimm> Why do we need signature hashes for ocaml and not all the rest of the languages?
[12:18]  <rwmjones> because of the very strict dependencies that compiled code has
[12:18]  <tibbs> "rest of the languages" being Perl, Python, etc?
[12:18]  <rwmjones> it's very different from dynamic languages
[12:18]  <rwmjones> a good analogy are the kernel module symbols
[12:19]  <rwmjones> which have hashes because of super-strict type (and other) dependencies
[12:19]  <tibbs> It's not really up to us to judge the ABI constraints of a language anyway.
[12:19]  <spot> agreed.
[12:19]  <rdieter> we don't have to like it though... :)
[12:20]  <tibbs> That's what's necessary; our goal is to figure out how to make reasonable guidelines.
[12:20]  <spot> I think these guidelines are extremely well polished and written.
[12:20]  <rdieter> vote on draft?
[12:20]  <spot> +1
[12:20]  <tibbs> +1
[12:20]  <rdieter> +1
[12:20]  <rwmjones> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-May/msg00105.html <-- explanation of the hashes
[12:20]  <tibbs> I guess the RPM folks were amenable to getting the dependency generators into rpm-build?
[12:20]  <scop> +1
[12:21]  <rdieter> tibbs: yes
[12:21]  <lutter> +1
[12:21]  <rwmjones> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg01071.html <-- into RPM
[12:21]  <spot> racor, abadger1999, thimm?
[12:21]  <abadger1999> +1
[12:21]  <tibbs> Should we wait for that or just go ahead with the _use_internal_depencency_generator bit?
[12:22]  <rwmjones> I'm happy to remove those from the specfiles when/if they go in to rpmbuild
[12:22]  <racor> +1, sorry I am distracted and probably will have to leave suddenly
[12:22]  <spot> racor: thats understandable, thank you for your time.
[12:22]  <tibbs> Because I'm concerned that turning off the dependency generation will cause other things to break.
[12:22]  <rdieter> rwmjones:+1
[12:22]  <spot> rwmjones: now is the time to be pushing on the rpm maintainers for these changes in rawhide, very early in the f8 cycle
[12:22]  <rwmjones> the ocaml-find-provides/requires scripts call /usr/lib/rpm/find-{provides,requires}
[12:22]  <rwmjones> I don't know if that is sufficient
[12:23]  <tibbs> That should be OK.
[12:23]  <spot> the draft passes.
[12:23]  <abadger1999> rwmjones: Just a note -- they probably won't hit older rpm versions so we'll need to keep it around for a while and note at which Fedora Release it is no longer required.
[12:23]  <tibbs> Obviously that will have to go before it gets into rpm-build, though.
[12:23]  <rwmjones> thanks ... quick question, do I need to rename that page?
[12:23]  <spot> rwmjones: no, abadger1999 will take care of it
[12:23]  <rwmjones> ok, thanks
[12:23]  <abadger1999> rwmjones: I'll do it
[12:23]  <spot> Next item: EmacsenAddOns
[12:24]  <spot> this one looks like its waiting on some bugzillas to be resolved
[12:24]  <spot> does anyone here have experience/care about emacs? :)
[12:25]  <scop> I do, both :)
[12:25]  <spot> ok, i'll wait for you to tell me that one is ready.
[12:25]  <scop> ok
[12:25]  <spot> is there any thing else anyone would like to discuss?
[12:26]  <tibbs> I use emacs but I know zip about packaging.
[12:26]  <tibbs> abadger1999: Did you want to propose something about static libraries?
[12:26]  <scop> I added the pkgconfig file to the latest xemacs package builds, dunno what's the status of emacs
[12:26]  <abadger1999> I haven't written anything up yet but there are several issues.
[12:27]  <spot> ok, i have one minor item that I came up with
[12:27]  <spot> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DirectoryOwnershipImprovement
[12:27]  <scop> +1
[12:27]  <rdieter> +1
[12:28]  <spot> +1 (i like my own drafts, usually)
[12:28]  <tibbs> +1 my perl example is overly complicated anyway.
[12:28]  <scop> actually s/acceptable/mandatory/
[12:28]  <scop> or something to that effect
[12:28]  <scop> (last sentence of the draft addition)
[12:28]  <spot> ah, thats a good point. I'll reword that before committing
[12:29]  <abadger1999> +1
[12:29]  <spot> In this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory.
[12:29]  <lutter> +1
[12:30]  <spot> ok, it passes
[12:30]  <abadger1999> BTW, caillon asked if directory ownership problems could be addressed in rpm (No bug filed that I know of)
[12:30]  <thimm> +1 (just for counting votes ;)
[12:30]  <tibbs> I love counting votes.
[12:30]  <spot> abadger1999: so, the answer is almost certainly yes, ajax has also pointed this out
[12:31]  <spot> if the guidelines become obsoleted by rpm, then we have less guidelines, but our job is not to point to rpm and demand fixes. :)
[12:31]  <thimm> How would rpm manage directory ownership?
[12:31]  <thimm> This is a cross-package problem
[12:31]  <rdieter> abadger1999,thamm: fwiw, that *other* rpm(5) already does enforce that (ie, no unowned dirs).
[12:31]  <thimm> And rpm never examines the dependency chains (at runtime) during the build
[12:31]  <thimm> rdieter: How?
[12:32]  <thimm> How will rpm5 know that there is no package owning "Animal"
[12:32]  <rdieter> thimm: it adds deps to parent dirs (somehow).
[12:32]  <thimm> Especially if it is not part of the BRs
[12:32]  <rdieter> thimm: only checked at install-time (afaict)
[12:32]  <thimm> So rpm5 does owenrship bloating
[12:32]  <thimm> That's not better than now
[12:32]  <thimm> Point is: Only gloabl tools can ,manage cross-package issues like directory ownerships
[12:33]  <abadger1999> caillon thought checking at install time and recording when an unowned directory was created would work.
[12:33]  <scop> adding deps to parent dirs is not ownership bloating
[12:33]  <rdieter> thimm: only at install time, pkgs don't bloat
[12:33]  <thimm> OK, as a warning then?
[12:33]  <thimm> OK, I'll have to go now
[12:33]  <scop> packges' dependencies do bloat, and yum's filelist behaviour will probably be triggered a lot
[12:33]  <thimm> Hope there is nothing where votes are 50-50
[12:33]  <spot> abadger1999: encourage caillon to patch rpm. We're always willing to let others make our life easier. :)
[12:33]  <spot> are there any other drafts or items of business?
[12:33]  <rdieter> spot: +1
[12:34]  <scop> there were some disagreements about usersandgroups, is anyone working on an alternate draft?
[12:34]  <spot> i'm going to try to work something out
[12:35]  <tibbs> About "no modifications to upstream tarball except...":
[12:35]  <tibbs> That discussion ran on into a different area.
[12:35]  <rdieter> fyi, epel list includes notice that they're going to vote on repotags...
[12:35]  <rdieter> "
[12:35]  <rdieter> We hereby like to ask the Packaging Committee to bless the use of
[12:35]  <rdieter> repotags for EPEL.
[12:35]  <thimm> FPC = pope?
[12:36]  <rdieter> not sure what that means. :)
[12:36]  <spot> Did they vote on that?
[12:36]  <rdieter> spot: going to vote.
[12:36]  <tibbs> I just wanted to ask if the general sentiment was that I could say "removal of unacceptable content ONLY".
[12:36]  <rdieter> sorry, just a proposal at this point.
[12:36]  <spot> OK, well, we'll deal with that when and if it happens.
[12:36]  <thimm> tibbs++
[12:36]  <thimm> OK, now I really need to lift, bye all!
[12:36]  <spot> thimm: thanks
[12:36]  <tibbs> Thanks, thimm.
[12:37]  <rdieter> tibbs++
[12:37]  <abadger1999> tibs: +1
[12:37]  <spot> i agree with tibbs as well
[12:37]  <abadger1999> tibbs even.
[12:37]  <scop> -1
[12:37]  <tibbs> OK, I'll go ahead and draft that for next week.
[12:37]  <tibbs> I spent all of my time on reviews last week...
[12:38]  <spot> alright. i think thats it for this week. i'm going to go feed my hungry cat.
[12:38]  <spot> thanks all.
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Minutes20070612&oldid=66549"