From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search


2006 July, 13 FESCo Meeting

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


  • thl (Chair)
  • scop
  • jwb
  • spot
  • tibbs
  • abadger1999
  • rdieter
  • c4chris
  • dgilmore


  • Josh Bowyer is the new FESCo VP. The VP's first task is being a backup if the chair cannot attend a meeting.
  • Mass rebuilds
  • We should rebuild after FC5t2 when glibc changes have settled in and we've confirmed that the buildsystem is using the reduced package set.
  • Add a file to the CVS tree to each package to mark that it hasn't been rebuilt for FC6 yet. The maintainer removes this when they rebuild the package or tells why it doesn't need rebuilding in the cvs log.
  • Election
  • thl will mail abadger1999 with some questions to look into. abadger1999 will do some research and report back to FECo.
  • One piece is election model. This time we used bloc voting. Should we have range voting, approval voting, or something else instead?
  • Ctrl-C Problem
  • scop will test the fix and see if the issue still exists.
  • Encourage Extras Reviews:
  • tibbs reports there are some new people doing reviews.
  • The wiki was unclear that all people sponsored are eligible to do reviews.
  • Will also mention that fedorabugs is needed to do reviews.
  • tibbs will modify the wiki to fix these.
  • Comaintainers
  • Needs someone to drive the issue and organize it into short term and long term goals.
  • short term: Fix bugzilla auto-CC in owners.list
  • long term: Items listed in thl's email.
  • These may tie into the new VCS, accounts, and package databases.
  • Getting new contributers via comaintainership.
  • Perhaps reviewers could automatically be made temporary comaintainers of the packages they review so they see that the packager is doing the right things to get it to build in the build system for the first time, etc.
  • SIGs can help comaintain where applicable.
  • Should comaintainers be mandatory? General feeling was they should be encouraged but not mandatory.
  • Security sensitive things should all have comaintainers.
  • AWOL Policy
  • http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/MikeKnox/AWOL_Policy
  • Changes:
  • Mention the Vacation Page.
  • Made expectations for an unsponsored packager taking over an existing package more realistic (They still need to prove their knowledge to a sponsor).
  • Add appropriate links to NewSponsorProccess, ReviewGuidelines, etc.
  • Policy approved with those changes.
  • Packaging Committee Report
  • Honoring $RPM_OPT_FLAGS added for arch specific packages.
  • Changed to say never for kmods.
  • New ChangeLog format is a must item.
  • It is permissible to have Release: [INT] %{?dist}.[INT] (period integer after the dist tag.)
  • dist tag harcoding was discussed and voted down (existing rules against continue to apply).
  • jpackage guidelines discussed and not voted on.
  • packages in Fedora SHOULD have ipv6 support and if they do not, the packager SHOULD open a bug in Red Hat Bugzilla that blocks an ipv6 tracker. They should also notify upstream.
  • This was vetoed. Resolution:
  • Clarify that this does not have to be tested. If it is known not to work then the bug is opened.
  • Put into a separate document: Recommendations for Software Packaged in Fedora instead of the Guidelines. The intention is that this document will be for software features rather than packaging.
  • The Packaging Committee is responsible for this document as well.
  • thl's recent email listing projects within FE is being maintained on the wiki:


  • Schedule time to look parel out ideas from there for people to work on.
  • Share some ideas with Infrastructure to keep things moving there.


(10:00:22)  thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --
(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 --
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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:
(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
(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
(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,
(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
(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
(10:20:14)  skvidal: email admin@fedoraproject.org or file a ticket in
(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
(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
(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
(10:29:51)  thl:  or  are  there  any  new  magic ideas how to make it
(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:
(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:
(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 --
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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"
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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").