Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060713

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2006 July, 13 FESCo Meeting

Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings

Attending

Summary

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/RecapitulateStateOfExtras

IRC Log 

(10:00:22)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
init
(10:00:29) thl: who's around from fesco?
(10:00:30) ***scop boots
(10:00:36) jwb: me me me
(10:00:40) ***spot is here
(10:00:41) tibbs: I'm around.
(10:00:48) abadger1999: 3/4 here
(10:00:52) rdieter: here
(10:00:54) spot: gimme a minute to make the notes from FP
(10:01:08) ***c4chris_ waves
(10:01:15) thl: spot, we'll do that after we're gone trough all topics
with priority "1"
(10:01:26) thl: well, then let's start slowly
(10:01:35) spot: ok
(10:01:35)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
VP
(10:01:50) thl: okay, so who want's the job now?
(10:02:05) jwb: i said i would take it if nobody else wanted to
(10:02:09) thl: "frearless leader backup"
(10:02:25) ***jima loves the "fearless leader" line ;)
(10:02:45) thl: any other (self?) nominations?
(10:02:58) c4chris_: we like jwb :)
(10:03:02) thl: seems no
(10:03:09) ***dgilmore is here
(10:03:11) thl: so jwb for vp get a +1 from me
(10:03:17) c4chris_: +1
(10:03:17) scop: +1
(10:03:21) abadger1999: +1
(10:03:23) jima: +1 (rabble)
(10:03:26) rdieter: jwb++
(10:03:31) tibbs: +1
(10:03:38) dgilmore: +1
(10:03:45) jima: jwb = screwed
(10:03:47) thl: okay, seems we're in agreement
(10:03:49) jwb: heh
(10:03:53) thl: jwb, you lost ;-)
(10:04:07) jwb: that's ok. i'm used to running meetings ;)
(10:04:17) thl: okay, so let's move on
(10:04:31)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Mess-Rebuild for FC6
(10:04:38) thl: I added that to the topic
(10:04:46) thl: we should slowly plan what to do
(10:04:49) c4chris_: intended type?
(10:04:54) thl: we don't need decisions today
(10:04:58)  dgilmore: it needs to be done earlier than it was in fc5 i
think
(10:05:04) c4chris_: s/type/typo/ doh
(10:05:26) jwb: dgilmore, i agree
(10:05:30) thl: c4chris_, which typo (me often does typos....)
(10:05:41) c4chris_: s/Mess/Mass/...
(10:05:42)  jima:  c4chris_: ssshhh, you could have pretended that was
ironic.
(10:05:45) thl: ping jeremy, f13, warren
(10:05:50) thl: c4chris_, ohhhh :)
(10:06:03) thl: no, not intended, but a nice one :)
(10:06:10) c4chris_: yup :)
(10:06:13)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Mass-Rebuild for FC6
(10:06:33) jwb: perhaps start rebuilding after test2 releases
(10:06:35)  thl:  jeremy,  f13,  warren,  when can we start rebuilding
Extras for FC6?
(10:06:48) thl: I suppose when the current mass-rebuild is done?
(10:06:48) c4chris_: I think a rebuild is a good thing
(10:06:52) scop: I have mixed feelings about it
(10:06:58) thl: e.g. after FC6T2?
(10:07:06)  dgilmore:  jwb:  probably  best  time. I hope that our big
glibc change will have settled down by then
(10:07:17)  scop:  all  packages  for  which it makes sense need to be
rebuilt
(10:07:29) jwb: scop, meaning all non-noarch?
(10:07:37) scop: not necessarily
(10:07:57) scop: think eg. versioned dirs
(10:07:57) thl: scop, "--verbose" ?
(10:08:37) scop: the other side of the "mix" is that a mass rebuild is
a lost opportnity for catching awol maintainers
(10:08:54)  c4chris_:  in  cases  where  maintainer  doesn't  want  to
rebuild,  I'd  like  to at least see a message stating "no rebuild for
foo.."
(10:09:06) wart-cellphone [n=upirc]  entered the room.
(10:09:06)  scop:  regarding versioned dirs, think eg. a perl 5.8.x ->
perl 6.x upgrade
(10:09:08)  ***thl  likes catching awol maintainers with a manual mass
rebuild as we did for FC5
(10:09:26) jwb: thl, yeah that was a good point
(10:09:28) scop: I like that too
(10:09:32) jima: i agree with it being manual
(10:09:42) warren: huh!?
(10:09:42) jwb: c4chris, and maybe _why_ they don't want to rebuild
(10:09:46) warren: we went to perl 6.x?
(10:09:50) jima: now's a great time to find the AWOL people
(10:09:51) thl: c4chris_, could a tag in cvs be used?
(10:09:55) tibbs: Who doesn't love to stress test the build system?
(10:10:02)  scop:  warren,  it  was just a hypothetical example, don't
worry ;)
(10:10:12)    _wart_    left   the   room   (quit:   "Download   Gaim:
http://gaim.sourceforge.net/").
(10:10:15) thl: btw, regarding the mass-rebuild
(10:10:16) c4chris_: thl: ?
(10:10:37)  warren: If we want to catch AWOL maintainers, the best way
to do that is to ask the maintainers themselves to launch the rebuilds
of their own packages.
(10:10:39) thl: do the builders use the reduced package set yet?
(10:11:00) c4chris_: jwb: that would be good, yes
(10:11:04)  tibbs:  thl:  do you mean, check in a file to CVS that the
maintainer removes when they rebuild?
(10:11:14) dgilmore: warren: thats the way it was done for fc5
(10:11:20) ***jwb steps away for 2 seconds
(10:11:23)  thl:  c4chris_,  regarding:  'I'd  like  to at least see a
message  stating "no rebuild for foo.."' -- maybe we could use cvs for
it
(10:11:26) dgilmore: thl: we should make sure that is the case
(10:11:33) thl: dgilmore, agreed
(10:11:42) c4chris_: thl: ah, ok
(10:11:56) c4chris_: thl: why not.
(10:12:01) thl: tibbs, mmmm, yes, that could work, but it's probably a
lot of noise
(10:12:21) scop: use dead.package for the marker? ;)
(10:12:32) c4chris_: scop: :)
(10:12:50) c4chris_: commatose ?
(10:12:50) thl: or a file "rebuild.me" ;-)
(10:13:07) ***jwb is back
(10:13:41) c4chris_: that might get quite noisy on the ml, though...
(10:13:54) thl: warren, who is our contact for the buildsys atm?
(10:14:03) warren: thl, good question...
(10:14:05)  scop:  I  think  the  idea of using a file in CVS is worth
trying
(10:14:09) thl: warren, the infrastructure group? skvidal? dcbw?
(10:14:25) jwb: file to mark for rebuild or no rebuild though?
(10:14:29)  thl:  warren, we should soon switch to the reduced package
set in the default buildroot
(10:14:35)  scop:  the  commit  message  can  then  explain stuff if a
rebuild is not needed
(10:14:43) dgilmore: thl it would be the infrustructure team
(10:15:01) dgilmore: thl i can bring it up in the fedora-admin meeting
this afternoon
(10:15:09) thl: dgilmore, great, thx
(10:15:18) scop: no file (cvs rm'd) means "done, rebuilt"
(10:15:27) scop: or "done, does not need to be rebuilt"
(10:15:27)  thl:  dgilmore,  what about plague? does it need a update,
too?
(10:15:36) thl: I lost track on the diffferent plague versions
(10:15:39) c4chris_: scop: I like the idea
(10:15:46) warren: thl, kind of skvidal
(10:15:51) jwb: scop, and who puts the file there in the first place?
(10:15:51)  dgilmore:  thl:  plague  wont  need an update but its mock
configs might
(10:15:55) warren: thl, infrastructure group is capable of helping
(10:16:12) scop: jwb, whoever, for example I can volunteer for that
(10:16:18) thl: dgilmore, you you handle that task? poke skvidal if he
needs to do something?
(10:16:23) jwb: scop, ok just checking
(10:16:28) dgilmore: thl: sure
(10:16:32) thl: dgilmore, tia
(10:16:50) jwb: i like the rebuild.me file in CVS as well
(10:17:20) ***thl likes rebuild.me file in CVS as well
(10:17:32) scop: it should probably be added after CVS is branched for
FC-6, right?
(10:17:33)  thl: but we need to define which arch packages really need
a rebuild
(10:17:41)  abadger1999:  jwb:  As  in a file that asks some automated
process to rebuild it?
(10:17:46) thl: scop, why?
(10:17:56) c4chris_: abadger1999, no: asks the maintainer
(10:18:03)  thl: scop, we normally branch when FC6 ships -- that a bit
late for a mass rebuild
(10:18:06)  jwb:  abadger1999, no as in a file that maintainers remove
when they rebuild (or say why they aren't)
(10:18:07) abadger1999: Okay. that's fine.
(10:18:16) scop: thl, okay, that would be too late indeed, then
(10:18:33) c4chris_: why not branch sooner ?
(10:18:43) thl: c4chris_, why should we?
(10:18:48) jwb: c4chris_, coordination with Core is best
(10:18:51) thl: is there any need?
(10:18:53) thl: jwb, +1
(10:19:11) jwb: i say the rebuild starts after FC6T2
(10:19:17)  c4chris_:  oh,  I thought core did a kind of frozen branch
already...
(10:19:17) thl: jwb, I
(10:19:29) thl: jwb, I'd like to have a ACk from Jeremy first
(10:19:33) skvidal: thl: what am I being poked for?
(10:19:35) jwb: thl, sure
(10:19:43) c4chris_: I agree we should not branch before Core
(10:19:47) thl: skvidal, nothing (yet)
(10:19:52) dgilmore: skvidal: minimal buildroots if needed
(10:20:04)    skvidal:    dgilmore:   okay   -   just   for   anything
infrastructure-related
(10:20:14)  skvidal: email admin@fedoraproject.org or file a ticket in
otrs
(10:20:26) skvidal: that way things don't block on me
(10:20:26) dgilmore: skvidal:will do if we need you
(10:20:33) skvidal: okie doke
(10:20:35) thl: okay; then let's stop here now
(10:20:36) ***skvidal goes back to hiding
(10:20:47)  scop:  skvidal, what's the role of "fedora infrastructure"
in bugzilla?
(10:20:48) thl: and proceed next week
(10:21:03) skvidal: scop: in bugzilla?
(10:21:08) c4chris_: thl, k
(10:21:10)  thl:  someone should own this task -- e.g. poke jeremy for
informations and mail to the list
(10:21:17) thl: any volunteers?
(10:21:28) dgilmore: thl: Ill do it
(10:21:33)    scop:    skvidal,    grep    for    infrastructure    at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi
(10:21:35)  thl:  we  also  need  to know which packages really need a
rebuild (and which one not)
(10:21:44) thl: dgilmore, k
(10:21:55)  skvidal: scop: oh - I dunno - we still get those - I think
we've been pushing more things to otrs
(10:22:12) ***thl will move on soon
(10:22:17) scop: skvidal, ok
(10:22:27) scop: it's not too prominent I think, though
(10:22:31)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Next FESCo future/election
(10:22:41) thl: someone should own this task, too
(10:22:42) skvidal: scop: it just started being used
(10:22:51) skvidal: scop: give it a bit more time
(10:22:56) thl: e.g. analyse the last election
(10:23:03) thl: write down how we did it
(10:23:10) thl: when the next one is planed
(10:23:13) ***spot starts to burn his stuffed ballots
(10:23:13) thl: and all that stuff
(10:23:22) thl: any volunteers?
(10:23:39)  jwb: i think abadger1999 and spot are the logical choices.
they did most of the work :)
(10:23:47) ***scop aims spot with a bucketful
(10:23:53) spot: abadger1999 did most of the work. :)
(10:23:54) abadger1999: Sure, I'm up for it.
(10:24:04) thl: abadger1999, thx
(10:24:05) spot: most of my code was thrown away (and rightfully so)
(10:24:13) thl: abadger1999, there is no need to hurry
(10:24:17) abadger1999: What sorts of things do we want to know/do?
(10:24:39) abadger1999: How to make the app better?
(10:24:39)  thl:  but  I'd  like to get this done until end of august?
that okay?
(10:24:44) abadger1999: How to publicise more?
(10:25:05) thl: the app worked fine afaics
(10:25:11) scop: who voted for himself ;)
(10:25:37)  thl:  abadger1999,  but do we need another vote-model next
time (don#t know if that's the proper describtion)
(10:25:44)  spot:  i voted for pat buchanan by mistake. the ballot was
confusing. ;)
(10:25:57) skvidal: spot: I want to hang chad
(10:26:01)  thl:  e.g.  a  model  more  like "you can vote for as many
members as you like and those with the most votes get in?"
(10:26:07)  abadger1999:  The  database is designed for reuse, the app
needs to be modified to do that.
(10:26:22) abadger1999: thl: Oops. Misundertood the question.
(10:26:22) thl: I don't know if that would be better
(10:26:41) abadger1999: ... But it has the same answer.
(10:26:47) thl: :)
(10:26:55)  jwb:  we  have  to  decided  how  many  seats  are  up for
re-election too. still 1/2? or all?
(10:27:07) thl: abadger1999, I'll send you a main in private with some
of my thoughts
(10:27:13) thl: let's stop here for today
(10:27:22) abadger1999: thl: Sounds good.
(10:27:28)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
CTRL-C problem
(10:27:31) scop: (all++)
(10:27:42) thl: well, it should be fixed (or a lot harder to trigger)
(10:27:49) warren: Only requires testing
(10:27:53) thl: but no one tested it yet
(10:28:13) c4chris_: did Hans try again
(10:28:18)  thl: any volunteer? or do we trust Sopwith that he did the
right thing
(10:28:28) scop: I'll do some testing
(10:28:47)  thl: hans triggered it only once accidentally -- he didn#t
want to try it again
(10:28:52) thl: scop, thx
(10:28:55) c4chris_: oh
(10:28:56)  tibbs:  Hans  is on vacation; I never could make it happen
myself.
(10:28:58) ***thl will move on
(10:29:14)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Encourage Extras reviews
(10:29:21) thl: standing item...
(10:29:29)  tibbs: We have had a couple of new reviewers lately, which
is good.
(10:29:42)  thl:  I  think  we  can  skip  this  for  today  if no one
disagrees?
(10:29:51)  thl:  or  are  there  any  new  magic ideas how to make it
better?
(10:29:54) scop: ++
(10:29:57) tibbs: No objection from me.
(10:29:58) scop: (skip)
(10:29:59) c4chris_: fine with me
(10:30:00) thl: ohh, well, there is one thing
(10:30:17) ***dgilmore has no new ideas
(10:30:21)  thl:  tibbs, it seems it's not cleanly documented that all
sponsored people can review packages
(10:30:34) thl: tibbs, at least one rh guy didn't know that
(10:30:45) tibbs: Really? Where should that be documented?
(10:30:48)  thl:  tibbs,  could you please check if that in the proper
places in the wiki?
(10:31:06) thl: and if not: could you please add it on a public place?
(10:31:13) thl: tibbs, don't know
(10:31:18)  tibbs:  You need to get fedorabugs before you can actually
do anything, correct?
(10:31:19) c4chris_: where did the rh guy not find it ?
(10:31:27) scop:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines#head-e1a114b2
3499786e13113ebf072d03a8f8d02094
(10:31:36) RTLM [n=RTLM]  entered the room.
(10:31:57)  tibbs:  PackagingGuidelines  and  ReviewGuidelines are all
conflated at the moment.
(10:32:07) nphilipp left the room (quit: "Leaving").
(10:32:12) thl: it happend here:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-music-list/2006-July/msg00012.h
tml
(10:32:13) c4chris_: tibbs, to assign tickets, yes
(10:32:42)  tibbs:  And  fedorabugs  doesn't  come  with cvsextras, so
technically all sponsored folks can't do reviews.
(10:33:07) thl: tibbs, maybe the docs can be improved a bit?
(10:33:16)  tibbs:  They  have to ask for one more thing. I wonder why
fedorabugs  pending members don't generate a daily mail like cvsextras
pending sponsorships?
(10:33:28) tibbs: thl: no kidding.
(10:33:29) thl: tibbs, Sopwith should know
(10:33:35) c4chris_: tibbs, I think you're right... One more thing for
the Grand Unified Access thingy
(10:33:52) _wart_ [n=wart]  entered the room.
(10:34:01)  tibbs:  I'll  try  to  at  least  add  another step to the
9-million step contributor process document.
(10:34:14) thl: tibbs, thx
(10:34:21) ***thl will move on
(10:34:36)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Co-maintainership
(10:34:43) thl: has no owner
(10:35:05)  tibbs:  Isn't everything in place except for the "bugzilla
auto-CC's folks" thing?
(10:35:05)  thl: and is a major task that should be spitted into short
term goals
(10:35:11) thl: and long term goals
(10:35:20) thl: short term: fix "bugzilla auto-CC's folks"
(10:35:24) scop: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/198109
(10:35:37) scop: --> Sopwith
(10:35:50)  thl: long term: the things I mentioned in my "Recapitulate
the current state..." mail
(10:35:50)  nim-nim  [n=nim-nim]   entered the
room.
(10:36:09) tibbs: We do have to decide if co-maintainers are mandatory
or not.
(10:36:27)   dgilmore:   thl:   i   think   its  part  of  the  review
infrustructure is doing of accounts system. and VCS
(10:36:33) rdieter: mandatory--
(10:36:38) abadger1999: I'd say no to mandatory.
(10:36:38) scop: mandatory--
(10:36:44) dgilmore: one VCS goal is stricter permissions on the whole
VCS tree
(10:36:55) thl: I's say 90% of the packages should have co-maintainers
(10:37:06) rdieter: why?
(10:37:06) thl: but mandatory probably won't work
(10:37:11) dgilmore: - to manadatory
(10:37:20) dgilmore: + to would be nice to have
(10:37:22) c4chris_: encourage, but not mandatory
(10:37:25)  abadger1999:  It might be nice if reviewers were something
like comaintainers.
(10:37:29) thl: rdieter, people are on vacation, people are offline
(10:37:37) abadger1999: Perhaps for a limited time.
(10:37:45) rdieter: you're right "should" is always nice.
(10:37:56) tibbs: abadger1999: reviewers or sponsors.
(10:38:18) abadger1999: I was thinking reviewers.
(10:38:33)  thl:  abadger1999,  yeah, I thing getting new contributors
via co-maintainership might be a good idea in the longer term
(10:38:35)  tibbs:  But as a reviewer I often know very little about a
package.  I'm just checking the form, whether it installs and maybe if
I can make it do something.
(10:38:59)  thl: I also think people with more then 20 packages should
hand over some of their packages to new contributors
(10:39:01) rdieter: tibbs: right, it won't work for everyone, but it's
a good place to start.
(10:39:09)  abadger1999:  True,  but  you  know more about it than the
packager's sponsor.
(10:39:30) tibbs: abadger1999: That's a reasonable point.
(10:39:33)  ChitleshGoorah  left  the  room  (quit:  Remote closed the
connection).
(10:39:46)  abadger1999:  And  it  could  be  good to automatically be
watching  the  new  package  as it takes its first steps of import and
first few passes through the build system.
(10:39:54) tibbs: Ideally everyone involved would help out anyway.
(10:40:35) abadger1999: tibbs: You're correct there.
(10:40:43)   tibbs:   So  now  we  have  this  big  nebulous  idea  of
cosponsorship.
(10:40:56) c4chris_: maybe a dating wiki page...
(10:41:26)  tibbs:  Everyone  involved  in  getting the package in can
help,  but  really the reviewer and sponsor aren't going to be able to
do much by next year.
(10:41:53)  c4chris_: thl, do you have a list of packages you'd really
like to see co-maintained?
(10:41:58)  tibbs:  SIG members can help for those packages where SIGs
apply.
(10:42:24)  thl: c4chris_, no, I think that co-maintaining packages is
a good idea per se
(10:43:03)  tibbs:  I'd  like  to  see  security-sensitive things have
co-maintainers as soon as is reasonable.
(10:43:04)  thl:  maybe  I  should write up all my thoughs on this and
post them to the list
(10:43:13) tibbs: Internet-facing daemons and web apps and such.
(10:43:53) thl: let's stop here for today
(10:44:07) thl: it remains on the shedule and won't get lost ;-)
(10:44:22)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
AWOL Policy
(10:44:34) thl: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy
to be precise
(10:44:53) thl: so, what do we do with it? do we like it? any proposed
modifications?
(10:44:57) jwb: i liked it
(10:45:33)  jwb:  i  used something quite similar to it for one of the
packagers i sponsored and it worked well
(10:45:52)  tibbs: I like it too, but it needs to mention the Vacation
page  or  have some way for folks to indicate that they're going to be
away.
(10:46:08) jwb: true
(10:46:12)  tibbs:  I  know  I can be out of pocket for three weeks or
more if I go out of the country.
(10:46:30)  thl: what about the "- If you are a not an existing Extras
contributor, you can still take over..." para?
(10:46:32)  scop:  the  only  slight problem I have with it is the new
contributor stuff
(10:46:34) thl: do we want that?
(10:46:51) thl: or do we let that out for now?
(10:46:53) jwb: why not? it has to go through a full review
(10:46:57)  c4chris_:  thl,  yes,  that's  my  main  gripe  about  the
proposition
(10:47:08) scop: but then again, we already must trust our sponsors to
be able to judge who they consider worth sponsoring
(10:47:08) tibbs: But there's the sponsorship angle as well.
(10:47:13)  c4chris_:  jwb,  but  it's  already in good shape from the
start
(10:47:27) jwb: c4chris, so?
(10:47:40)  tibbs:  The problem is that taking over a package is going
to give the sponsors absolutely zero to go on.
(10:47:50)  scop:  just  resubmitting  it  doesn't  show  whether  the
resubmitter possesses "enough" clue
(10:48:02)  jwb:  i  see  it  as  being  no different from a brand new
package that is in good shape
(10:48:03)  c4chris_:  jwb,  how  do  you know the submitter knows the
packaging rules?
(10:48:18) abadger1999: I think we take it out.
(10:48:23)  jwb: c4chris_, and how do you know the submitter knows the
packaging rules for a brand new package?
(10:48:36) c4chris_: jwb, true
(10:48:42)  abadger1999:  jwb:  In  this  case  we _know_ that the new
packager was able to crib from an existing package.
(10:48:46) tibbs: jwb: You see how they react to review comments.
(10:48:57)  jwb: one can take a package from DAG, put it up for review
and have _no_ issues with it
(10:48:58)  c4chris_:  but  then,  I  noticed many sponsors wait for a
couple more packages...
(10:49:10) tibbs: jwb: That's a rather optimistic statement.
(10:49:12) scop: jwb, unlikely ;)
(10:49:22) c4chris_: and it's not too hadr to check whether good specs
are already available or not
(10:49:23) jwb: ok, poor example but you know what i mean :)
(10:49:55) ***thl would not sponsor someone that only took over an old
package from Extras where the maintainer is MIA/AWOL
(10:50:01)  jwb:  i'm  not opposed to ommitting it. i just don't think
it's necessary to
(10:50:07) ***scop already tried it once and won't try again
(10:50:31) thl: we can leave that para in
(10:50:32)   abadger1999:   I  think  we  should  have  a  policy  for
unsponsored packagers to take over packages but it should be a general
part of becoming a new packager rather than the AWOL policy.
(10:50:36) thl: and see if it works
(10:50:42)  tibbs: The sponsorship thing is never going to be perfect,
but  in  this  case I think the takeover request would just sit around
waiting for a sponsor forever, which wouldn't improve the situation at
all.
(10:50:45) thl: and change it later if it doesn't
(10:51:00) c4chris_: thl, k
(10:51:13) rdieter: thl++
(10:51:13)  thl:  abadger1999,  I think co-maintaing is the way to get
that realized
(10:51:16) dgregor left the room (quit: "Leaving").
(10:51:25) c4chris_: we need to trust the sponsors
(10:51:27) abadger1999: thl: I agree.
(10:51:27)  dgilmore: every so often ill be out of the country for 2-3
weeks
(10:51:35) abadger1999: (with comaintainership)
(10:51:36) scop: c4chris_++
(10:51:36) thl: so, okay, just to be sure
(10:51:42) thl: do we agree on
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy
(10:51:48) thl: it get's a +1 from me
(10:51:48) jwb: +1
(10:51:52) rdieter: +1
(10:51:52) c4chris_: +1
(10:51:56)  abadger1999:  I  don't think we should leave the woding of
the AWOL policy the way it is.
(10:52:06) scop: I would like "the process should be swift" removed
(10:52:11) abadger1999: too optimistic for the unsponsored packager.
(10:52:17) abadger1999: scop: Yes.
(10:52:33) thl: scop, agreed
(10:52:38) jwb: sure
(10:52:39) ***thl removes it
(10:53:14) thl: removed
(10:53:16)  abadger1999:  Maybe  mention that normal sponsorship rules
apply?
(10:53:16) wart-cellphone left the room (quit: Connection timed out).
(10:53:51)  thl:  abadger1999,  "This  will  allow  the  normal review
process to happen. " is the last sentence atm
(10:54:00)  thl:  what  means  "that  normal  sponsorship rules apply"
afaics
(10:54:07) thl: or not?
(10:54:34)  abadger1999: "...including finding a sponsor that believes
you understand the packaging rules."
(10:54:36) scop: s|review process|review/sponsorship process|
(10:54:38)   tibbs:  Might  be  nice  to  assume  they  don't  have  a
photographic memory of the process and include some links.
(10:54:40) abadger1999: Append something like that?
(10:54:52) thl: abadger1999, okay for me
(10:54:56) c4chris_: abadger1999, yes
(10:54:59) thl: other opinions?
(10:55:06) jwb: fine with me
(10:55:24) tibbs: Seems good to me after those changes.
(10:55:35) abadger1999: +1 with those changes.
(10:56:34) jwb: btw, who's doing the minutes this week?
(10:56:38) thl: okay, committed
(10:56:45) tibbs: Seems to only be five votes.
(10:56:55) thl: so, once again
(10:57:04) thl: everyone satisfied with
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy now?
(10:57:09)  scop:  "...that  believes  you understand what is expected
from FE package maintainers"
(10:57:09) tibbs: +1
(10:57:10) thl: get's a +1 from me
(10:57:10) c4chris_: +1
(10:57:12) jwb: +1
(10:57:12) rdieter: +1
(10:57:30) jwb: abadger1999, ?
(10:57:37) abadger1999: +1
(10:57:38) ***thl needs to leave in 5 - 10 minutes
(10:57:43) abadger1999: (slow reader)
(10:57:44) scop: +1
(10:57:54) thl: scop, we can add that later if we need to
(10:58:02) jwb: that's 7
(10:58:08) scop: yep, I'm just thinking aloud
(10:58:09) thl: we don#t need to discuss such minor details now IMHO
(10:58:20) thl: scop, and that's a good thing ;-)
(10:58:43) tibbs: Packaging committee summary?
(10:58:46) thl: okay, settled
(10:58:54) jwb: tibbs, yeah. spot?
(10:58:59) thl: hehe
(10:59:05) spot: ok
(10:59:06) thl: I'm doing the meeting here ;-)
(10:59:14) spot: are you ready for me? :)
(10:59:18) thl: IPv6 Support in Extras is on the schedule
(10:59:19) tibbs: Sorry, I'm lagging badly at the moment.
(10:59:28) thl: but I'd like to skip that because we run late
(10:59:30)  jwb:  thl,  i'll take it and ask it to be deferred to next
week
(10:59:31) thl: okay?
(10:59:40)  scop:  thl,  that  was  covered in the packaging committee
meeting too
(10:59:43) abadger1999: [spot enters stage right] 
(10:59:53) jwb: scop, it's more than just packaging IMHO though
(10:59:58)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Packaging Committee Report
(11:00:02) scop: jwb, yes, definitely
(11:00:03) thl: spot, shoot
(11:00:10) spot: from todays FP meeting
(11:00:23)  spot:  -  Honoring  of  $RPM_OPT_FLAGS  (for arch specific
packages) will be explicitly mentioned in packaging/review guidelines
(11:00:34) spot: - PackagingDrafts/Changelog is a MUST
(11:00:48) spot: - all packages in Fedora SHOULD have ipv6 support, if
they  do not, the maintainer SHOULD open a bug in red hat bugzilla and
notify upstream. this bug should block an ipv6 bug.
(11:01:07)  spot:  -  <int>%{?dist}.<int> is permitted for single dist
updates
(11:01:12)  ***thl  likes  to  add  that  kmod's  should  *not*  honor
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS (at least iirc)
(11:01:23) spot: thl: good point
(11:01:27) scop: kmods MUST not honor them
(11:01:29)  spot:  -  No changes to the dist tag rules were made, thus
hardcoding dist in a spec is still not permitted.
(11:01:43)  spot:  -  Jpackage  changes  to  existing  guidelines were
deferred for more discussion before a vote
(11:01:47) jwb: spot, that's somewhat contentious
(11:01:55) jwb: (the dist tag thing)
(11:02:00) thl: I'd like to veto "SHOULD have ipv6 support" for now
(11:02:12)  thl:  I'm  not  sure  that  should  be  in  the  packaging
guidelines
(11:02:22) thl: doesn't that open the door for a lot of other rules?
(11:02:27) jwb: thl, i agree
(11:02:32) _wart_: thl +1
(11:02:33) scop: like UTF-8 support?
(11:02:40) thl: scop, for example
(11:02:42) c4chris_: thl, I don't like it that much either
(11:02:50) thl: I agree that both things are good in general
(11:03:01)  thl:  but  the  guidelines  get longer and longer and move
complicated
(11:03:03)  _wart_: But if the ipv6 rule is adopted, I'd like to see a
detailed  page  describing  how  to  setup and test a package for ipv6
support.
(11:03:03) rdieter: I see nothing wrong with documenting lack of utf-8
support either.
(11:03:05) scop: but you don't think UTF-8 support is a SHOULD???
(11:03:08) thl: I'd like to keep such things out
(11:03:18)  spot:  jwb: the dist tag rules have _always_ said that you
cannot hardcode dist.
(11:03:33)  spot:  jwb: the committee felt that there was no reason to
alter this
(11:03:39)  rdieter:  The  proposed  guideline doesn't say you have to
test for ipv6 support, only to document known non-working.
(11:03:39)  thl: scop, sure it's a should -- but does it to be defined
in the packaging guidelines?
(11:03:40) jwb: spot, i misread that. ignore me
(11:04:05)  scop:  thl,  I don't care which guidelines it's in, but it
should definitely be somewhere
(11:04:07)  _wart_:  rdieter: so if you don't know if it works or not,
you don't have to document anything?
(11:04:08) jwb: rdieter, and how does one know without testing?
(11:04:13) scop: "feature guidelines"?
(11:04:18) rdieter: _wart_: right.
(11:04:23) thl: "package guidelines"
(11:04:29) thl: but not "packaging guidelines"
(11:04:30)  jwb:  scop,  yes that is what i was going to propose. or a
SIG
(11:04:36) rdieter: Jwb: you don't.
(11:04:37) jwb: or both
(11:04:40) scop: okay, I'm fine with that
(11:05:00) dgilmore: id like to +1 ipv6 support
(11:05:07)  jwb:  basically  i think this isn't a _packaging_ issue at
all, but a feature issue
(11:05:21) thl: spot, would "package guidelines" be okay for you?
(11:05:26) spot: thl: sure.
(11:05:30) jwb: thl, sure
(11:05:39) scop: "package" and "packaging" are too close, confusing
(11:05:45) c4chris_: thl, I like that much better
(11:05:45) abadger1999: scop: ++
(11:05:47) thl: scop, yeah...
(11:05:47) tibbs: "Best practices for Fedora Packages"?
(11:06:05) ndim: "Debian Policy" :)
(11:06:06) thl: "Best practices for Software packaged in Fedora"?
(11:06:15) jwb: yeah
(11:06:16) scop: it's not a practice...
(11:06:35) ***scop parrots "feature"
(11:06:35) c4chris_: Recommendations
(11:06:37) nacc_home left the room.
(11:06:54) thl: "Recommendations for Software packaged in Fedora"
(11:07:00) thl: spot, that okay for you?
(11:07:01) scop: works4me
(11:07:05) jwb: i like that
(11:07:09) spot: sure.
(11:07:26)  jwb: spot, so you'll take this back to the PC and ask that
to be removed?
(11:07:27)  tibbs:  Now  the  question  remains:  is this still in the
packaging committee's baliwick?
(11:08:01) ***scop looks up baliwick
(11:08:02)  ***thl  thinks  the packaging comitte should also maintain
the "Recommendations for Software packaged in Fedora"
(11:08:08) rdieter: imo, yes.
(11:08:15) spot: i think the packaging committee can handle it
(11:08:17) jwb: i'm fine with that
(11:08:25) c4chris_: fine
(11:08:28) tibbs: scop: don't bother; I can't even spell it correctly.
(11:08:33) jwb: as long as they're 2 separate docs
(11:08:36) scop: tibbs, I noticed ;)
(11:08:44) spot: jwb: yup.
(11:09:05) thl: k, anything else from the packaging committee?
(11:09:29) thl: seems not...
(11:09:31)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
Weekly sponsorship nomination
(11:09:35) thl: any nominations
(11:09:40) thl: you have 30 seconds
(11:09:41) scop: one more related thing to the previous
(11:10:00) tibbs: No nominations from me....
(11:10:09)  scop:  was  there  an  official  annoucement about the FPC
role/process anywhere as discussed on fab-list?
(11:10:25) jwb: scop, not outside of that list afaics
(11:10:49) scop: okay, it should be posted somewhere more prominent
(11:10:57) jwb: -maintainers?
(11:11:24) scop: that'd be better, yes. can you poke jeremy about it?
(11:11:49) jwb: sure
(11:11:50) thl: k, no nominations
(11:12:01)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
free discussion
(11:12:13) thl: anything else we should discuss today?
(11:12:14) ***c4chris_ needs to run soonish...
(11:12:25) jwb: FYI, i'll be out the next 2 weeks
(11:12:32) jwb: vacation (sister is getting married)
(11:12:36) c4chris_: update Vacations page ?
(11:12:43) jwb: c4chris_, will do
(11:12:55) c4chris_: have a good one!
(11:12:59) jwb: thx :)
(11:13:18)  thl:  btw,  I  maintain  a slightly enhanced variant of my
"Recapitulate   the   current  state  of  Fedora  Extras..."  mail  at
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/RecapitulateStateOf
Extras
(11:13:28) thl: maybe we should go though it somewhen
(11:13:40) thl: and discuss on what points we want to work
(11:13:45) skvidal: thl: do you mean capitulate?
(11:13:48) thl: and which ones we want to ignore
(11:13:58) thl: skvidal, :)
(11:14:05) skvidal: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitulate
(11:14:18) skvidal: b/c to recapitulate means to surrender, again
(11:14:35) skvidal: ah, wait
(11:14:37) scop: and summarize?
(11:14:37) skvidal: it does not
(11:14:40) skvidal: and summarize
(11:14:41) skvidal: weird
(11:14:46) ***skvidal loathes english sometimes
(11:14:56) c4chris_: skvidal, :-)
(11:14:59) skvidal: I'd only ever heard it used as 'surrender'
(11:15:25) thl: maybe my dictionary drove me into the wrong direction
(11:15:27) thl: sorry
(11:15:34) skvidal: thl: no, you're completely correct
(11:15:40) skvidal: just not the usage I'm familiar with
(11:15:44) ***skvidal goes back to being quiet
(11:15:47) thl: the dictionary was correct
(11:16:08) c4chris_: ah well, might come from the french side...
(11:16:29) ***thl afk for two minutes
(11:17:29)   nim-nim:   Recapitulate   comes   from  the  french  word
"capitulations"
(11:17:45)  nim-nim:  the list of conditions two parties agreed before
one surrendered
(11:18:03)  tibbs:  So has anyone seen any package submitters who they
think should be sponsored?
(11:18:07) nim-nim: capitulate has inherited the surrender part
(11:18:20)  abadger1999:  thl: Nice link. I think we need to push some
of those up to Infrastructure.
(11:18:21) nim-nim: recapitulated has inherited the listing part
(11:18:39)  nim-nim:  and  no  one  remembers  what  capitulations are
anymore
(11:18:41) ***thl back
(11:18:46) scop: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/capitulate
(11:18:49) scop: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/recapitulate
(11:19:12)  thl:  abadger1999,  yes,  we  need  a lot of help from the
Infrastructure group
(11:19:31) thl: anyway
(11:19:36) thl: let's stop here for today
(11:19:40) thl: and close the meeting
(11:19:49) ***thl will close the meeting in 30
(11:19:58) thl: btw, who writes the summary?
(11:20:11) abadger1999: I'll write the summary.
(11:20:18) thl: abadger1999, tia
(11:20:20) scop: do I remember abad... never mind ;)
(11:20:34) ***thl will close the meeting in 10
(11:20:44) ***c4chris_ goes for dinner now. See ya all later :)
(11:20:45) thl: MARK -- Meeting end
(11:20:50) thl: thx everyone
(11:20:55) tibbs: Off to lunch....
(11:20:55) c4chris_: thx
(11:21:07) ***scop goes practice some Ctrl+C's
(11:21:22)  thl  has  changed the topic to: "This is the Fedora Extras
channel,  home  of the FESCo meetings and general Extras discussion. |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras  | Next FESCo Meeting: 2006-07-20
1700 UTC"
(11:21:37) thl: scop, have fun :)
(11:21:45) ***thl afk now
(11:22:22) scop left the room ("Leaving").
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060713"