Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060817

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2006 August 17 FESCo

Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings

Attending

  • warren
  • thl
  • bpepple
  • c4chris
  • rdieter
  • tibbs
  • abadger1999
  • dgilmore

Summary

Mass Rebuild

  • http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/FC6MassRebuild
  • Packagers get 3 weeks to rebuild just like AWOL policy.
  • Packages that haven't been rebuilt get orphaned and the packages won't ship in the FC6 repository.
  • AWOL package process started for ignacio as he has a bunch of packages that others might have to pick up as dependencies.

comps.xml

  • c4chris sent out nagmails. Many people have updated their packaged in comps.xml.in.
  • There are preliminary plans by the Packaging Committee to remove the group tag in the spec file and only have the information in comps.xml.
  • c4chris thinks the only way to make 100% accurate nagmails is to record a group for all packages, which could be an invisible group for some packages. This information might be appropriate for the Package Database.
  • c4chris and bpepple will start a comps SIG.
  • Even command-line tools should be in comps.

Legacy in buildroots

  • Waiting on legacy being able to access the buildsystem so they can build ppc updates.

Ctrl-C Problem

  • Infrastructure says figuring out a solution before the new VCS is probably too much work.
  • New VCS prototyping is waiting on two new servers to be installed at the end of August. Hoping to have something ready for Extras people to test by FC7t1.

Packaging Committee Report

  • Started discussing deprecating and removing Group tag. No timeline yet but definitely a post-FC6 change.
  • ldconfig wording change to clarify the meaning.
  • Talked about changing the meeting day/time so there's time to send the committee report to FESCo via email.

Sponsorship Nominations

  • dgilmore and c4chris accepted as sponsors.
  • New rule, nominate new FESCo members for sponsorship if they are not already; debate about upgrading them will be per normal.
  • Qualifications to be a sponsor needs to be discussed.

Misc

  • New Package Review template approved:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00361.html

  • wiki user setup to send changes to FESCo list when /Extras/Schedule* is changed.
  • kmod discussion
  • Packaging Committee will discuss the technical aspects, whether to allow them in Fedora Extras/Core at all is being passed up to FAB.

Free discussion

Log

(09:55:23) ***warren here.
(09:55:32) warren: mdomsch, you there?
(09:55:48) mdomsch: warren, yes
(09:57:40) ***jima pops some popcorn for the show
(09:59:05) ***cweyl settles in to lurk...  silly people at work who presume to schedule their meetings during FESCo!
(10:00:16) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress
(10:00:22) thl: hy everyone
(10:00:26) thl: who's around?
(10:00:36) ***bpepple is here.
(10:00:36) ***c4chris_ is here
(10:00:55) c4chris_ is now known as c4chris
(10:01:28) rdieter: here
(10:01:35) tibbs: I'm here.
(10:01:38) ***cweyl is lurking (rabble)
(10:01:41) thl: okay, so let's start slowly
(10:01:56) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --  M{ae}ss-Rebuild
(10:01:57) ***abadger1999 here
(10:02:16) thl: scop not around
(10:02:26) thl: do we want to discuss this further
(10:02:37) thl: open issues: How much time need people to rebuild their stuff? What happens with packages that haven't been rebuilt or marked as not needing a rebuild by deadline X?
(10:03:04) c4chris: what's the delay in the AWOL policy?
(10:03:15) ***dgilmore is here
(10:03:29) c4chris: I think we should use the same delay
(10:03:35) dgilmore: thl: no need for discussion  Lets just do it
(10:03:59) tibbs: The delay is three weeks and three days, BTW.
(10:04:00) thl: c4chris, I don#t know the exact delay from AWOL
(10:04:27) c4chris: tibbs, sounds about right
(10:04:32) thl: let's say: give people three weeks to rebuild their stuff?
(10:04:39) c4chris: thl, +1
(10:04:40) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:04:46) thl: that leaves some time to fix the remaining stuff before FC6 ships
(10:04:47) tibbs: +1
(10:04:50) warren: +1
(10:05:02) dgilmore: +1
(10:05:05) rdieter: +1
(10:05:11) thl: okay, three weeks
(10:05:27) thl:  What happens with packages that haven't been rebuilt or marked as not needing a rebuild by deadline X?
(10:05:39) tibbs: Orphaned?
(10:05:47) c4chris: Let's deal with the not rebuilt package when we have an idea how many there are
(10:06:11) tibbs: We should know in advance so that people won't just expect the current package to rull into FC6.
(10:06:23) tibbs: s/rull/roll/
(10:06:27) c4chris: mmh
(10:06:31) c4chris: ok
(10:06:37) dgilmore: im kindof scared if ignacio  doesnt step up  he has alot of packages
(10:06:43) thl: dgilmore, +1
(10:06:43) c4chris: orphaned sounds about right
(10:06:55) thl: jwb, you wanted to contact ignacio iirc
(10:07:07) bpepple: dgilmore: Should other people be brought in to help him?
(10:07:10) jwb: thl, i sent him an email.  no repsonse
(10:07:19) thl: jwb, thx
(10:07:39) tibbs: Packages not rebuilt certainly shouldn't get autobranched to FC6, but I don't think they should be deleted.
(10:07:50) dgilmore: i sent him one about 6-8 weeks ago  asked how things were going  got nothing
(10:07:55) c4chris: we never delete packages
(10:08:00) c4chris: just orphan them
(10:08:10) thl: tibbs, well, that would mean that someone had to maintain them through the entry lifecicle of FC6
(10:08:15) thl: we need to delete them
(10:08:46) dgilmore: delete binaries  but not cvs
(10:08:55) c4chris: dgilmore, oh right
(10:09:35) tibbs: The binaries should not get out to FC6 unless they've been rebuilt.
(10:09:57) thl: okay
(10:10:02) c4chris: so the threat is: they won't ship in FC6 until rebuilt (or a short explanation why they are not rebuilt...)
(10:10:16) jwb: that seems reasonable
(10:10:19) rdieter: yup
(10:10:26) thl: so just to be sure: +1 for "delete all packages that are not rebuild in time" please
(10:10:27) tibbs: +1
(10:10:34) jwb: +1
(10:10:34) c4chris: +1
(10:10:36) abadger1999: +1
(10:10:38) rdieter: +1
(10:10:42) dgilmore: +1
(10:10:51) tibbs: +1
(10:10:58) abadger1999: For ignacio specifically, has the AWOL packagers process been started?
(10:11:26) dgilmore: abadger1999: no  but it really needs to
(10:11:32) jwb: agreed
(10:11:41) bpepple: dgilmore: +1
(10:11:48) warren: Want me to attempt to use non-email to contact him?
(10:11:52) BobJensen: dgilmore: +1
(10:11:57) warren: Ask him what he wants us to do with his packages.
(10:12:00) abadger1999: warren: +1
(10:12:05) thl: warren, maybe that would be a good idea
(10:12:08) c4chris: warren, +1
(10:12:09) Daveman: :o
(10:12:15) tibbs: If someone has his phone number, it would certainly be a good idea to try it.
(10:12:21) BobJensen: I tried calling all I got was VM
(10:12:36) Daveman: FC6?
(10:12:36) dgilmore: warren: +1
(10:12:42) warren: I'll give it a try.
(10:12:58) thl: k -- lets ignore the question "remove pacakges from cvs or only orphan them later"
(10:13:09) thl: maybe we could use a scheme like this:
(10:13:25) thl: remove all packages that were not rebuild three weeks before FC6
(10:13:53) thl: and remove all those from cvs when the branch for FC6 happens, that don#t have a new maintainer yet
(10:14:37) thl: so let's move on
(10:14:47) dgilmore: thl: they stay in cvs  but get flagged so they wont build
(10:15:08) thl: dgilmore, could work, too
(10:15:24) thl: how hard it restoring of deleted things?
(10:15:43) thl: (in cvs)
(10:15:48) c4chris: easy
(10:15:50) dgilmore: harder  than fixing a spec file set to not build
(10:16:04) thl: let's stop here
(10:16:13) thl: we can discuss this later
(10:16:16) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --   Use comps.xml properly
(10:16:22) thl: c4chris, the nag mails worked great
(10:16:29) c4chris: thl, yup
(10:16:33) jwb: yes, they do
(10:16:45) thl: dgilmore: automate comps file during push or via cron
(10:16:49) c4chris: Now I have a few questions...
(10:16:51) thl: dgilmore, did you look into this?
(10:16:53) abadger1999: c4chris: I don't think I received any though (and I should have)
(10:17:07) thl: ohh, shoot (dgilmore, we'll discuss this later)
(10:17:08) c4chris: abadger1999, I'll check
(10:17:12) dgilmore: thl: i was going to help who was  but i cant rember who that was.
(10:17:36) thl: dgilmore, probably scop -- he knows a lot of the push-script details
(10:17:39) c4chris: Is there a plan to remove the group tag in spec files?
(10:17:56) dgilmore: c4chris: not that i know of
(10:18:02) abadger1999: c4chris: Packaging Committee talked about it today.
(10:18:03) tibbs: Yes.
(10:18:05) bpepple: c4chris: I think it's only be discussed so far.
(10:18:29) c4chris: So it's on the PC agenda?
(10:18:46) abadger1999: Won't happen for FC6 but we're coming up with a timeline to make it optional and then dropped.
(10:19:03) c4chris: abadger1999, ok.  Great.
(10:19:35) c4chris: Another one is: can we have a hidden group in comps?
(10:20:01) c4chris: I think it'd be way easier to tell people: add all your packages in comps
(10:20:19) thl: that was my stupid idea -- I think there were hidden groups possible in the past
(10:20:22) c4chris: (until the day we have a shiny package database, that is... :-) )
(10:21:00) abadger1999: Would be even better to have a hidden attribute.
(10:21:15) c4chris: I'm afraid there's no automated way to decide which packages should appear in comps, no matter how hard we try
(10:21:54) abadger1999: So if Fedora policy is not to have commandline tools generally, you can still put your application in and properly categorized but flagged to be hidden.
(10:21:56) jima: all my packages are non-gui; only one (dnsmasq) seemed common enough for me to bother putting it in comps.
(10:22:41) thl: jima, maybe a "command line tools" group would be a good idea
(10:22:44) c4chris: IMHO, comps is a way to make some publicity for your package
(10:22:56) rdieter: just put 'em all in there then (at least for now until a better solution magically appears)
(10:23:02) jima: c4chris: if there's a category your package fits in.
(10:23:03) c4chris: you went to the trouble of packaging it: why not advertise it somehow
(10:23:17) thl: c4chris, +1
(10:23:35) thl: c4chris, we IMHO really need a real comps SIG
(10:23:37) jima: (admittedly i only have one package that didn't fit perfectly into a category)
(10:23:46) thl: or at least some people that really take care of it
(10:23:57) thl: there were so many questions on f-e-l in the past days
(10:24:02) c4chris: thl, yea probably
(10:24:02) abadger1999: c4chris: Is there a plan to have groups in the package database?  (Or a desire?)
(10:24:09) thl: or should the PC handle comps?
(10:24:28) c4chris: thl, it affects core too...
(10:24:50) thl: yes and no
(10:24:53) c4chris: abadger1999, not completely sure
(10:25:11) thl: we IMHO need agroup that handles the comps stuff for extras and watches it over
(10:25:11) abadger1999: It's not listed on the pages yet -- os if it's a desire, it needs to get listed.
(10:25:22) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:25:22) abadger1999: s/os/so/
(10:25:22) c4chris: but the package database would be a nice place to put such attributes I think
(10:25:39) rdieter: SIG++, it needs/deserves extra tlc
(10:25:51) rdieter: it = comps
(10:25:58) c4chris: tlc?
(10:26:07) rdieter: tender loving care.
(10:26:14) c4chris: Oh :-)
(10:26:22) c4chris: yes!
(10:26:25) thl: c4chris, well, seems you have a new job
(10:26:39) thl: c4chris, can you find one or two more poeple for the sig?
(10:26:46) c4chris: thl, k
(10:26:49) ***bpepple would be willing to help/
(10:26:53) c4chris: Yup, I'll need help
(10:26:59) c4chris: bpepple, thanks
(10:27:17) bpepple: no prob.
(10:27:17) thl: c4chris, anything else regarding comps we should discuss?
(10:27:31) c4chris: thl, no I'm fine
(10:27:40) c4chris: I'll start a wiki page soon(ish)
(10:28:11) thl: k, so let's move on
(10:28:23) thl: c4chris, can you update the status page on the schedule please?
(10:28:33) thl: to reflect the recent discusssions?
(10:28:35) c4chris: thl, will do
(10:29:00) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --  Activate legacy in buildroots
(10:29:12) thl: dgilmore told me that it's not activated yet
(10:29:20) thl: so I think we can skip this today
(10:29:22) dgilmore: not yet
(10:30:01) dgilmore: hopefully this week we can get everything in place.  i need to setup legacy to use the buildsys first  or they wont have fc4 ppc updates
(10:30:13) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- CTRL-C problem
(10:30:17) thl: skipping as well
(10:30:20) thl: ohh
(10:30:25) thl: or, no
(10:30:38) thl: warren, did you bring it up in the last infrasctructure meeting?
(10:30:51) warren: bad news
(10:31:13) warren: It is the judgement of the infrastructure team that this simply is not a priority.
(10:31:26) warren: If someone has ideas they're willing to try it.
(10:31:35) warren: that is all.
(10:31:52) thl: warren, not nice, but life sucks sometimes
(10:32:02) thl: warren, related to this
(10:32:14) thl: how is the schedule for the new VCS?
(10:32:25) thl: are there detailsed plans yet?
(10:32:30) warren: Infrastructure rather focus efforts on making VCS happen sooner than to improve the existing one.
(10:32:43) thl: otherwise it'll be FC( until it's in place...
(10:32:50) warren: late August two new servers will be installed, and we will simultaneously test mercurial and bazaar-ng
(10:33:35) tibbs: That's great news.
(10:33:59) warren: we're ordering a pretty sweet beefy box today
(10:34:03) thl: warren, yeah, great
(10:34:09) dgilmore: thl: from memory  we hopped to have something ready for testing when FC7 test1 hits the streets
(10:34:11) abadger1999: I've got the backend for a bzr implementation but we also need work done on the packaging database to work on a finished front end.
(10:34:27) warren: 2x2 xeon, 8GB RAM, big SCSI drives.  It should host a few xen guests comfortably for greater infrastructure flexibility.
(10:34:41) jima: nice!
(10:34:53) thl: k, let's stop here now and move on
(10:35:06) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Packaging Committee Report
(10:35:34) abadger1999: We started discussion of removing the Group tag today.
(10:35:54) abadger1999: Approved trying to get a patch into rpm to make the tag optional for FC6.
(10:36:20) abadger1999: We'll look at the timeline for changing the guidelines based on when that makes it into rpm.
(10:36:47) jima: if it's in by the time we're supposed to do the final mass-rebuild, i wouldn't have any qualms with removing the tag from my specs while i'm incrementing.
(10:37:03) abadger1999: ldconfig wording on the Guidelines page was clarified but with the same meaning
(10:37:08) c4chris: sounds cool
(10:37:11) tibbs: jima: We're not targeting FC6 for this.
(10:37:46) abadger1999: That's all for changes.
(10:37:54) thl: abadger1999, thx
(10:38:01) abadger1999: Oh -- we're talking about changing meeting date/time
(10:38:10) abadger1999: But we're continuing that on the mailing list.
(10:38:22) thl: I saw it roughly
(10:38:29) thl: there was the problem with DST
(10:38:50) thl: weco meets at 18:00 UTC during winters IIRC
(10:38:57) thl: and 17:00 during summers
(10:39:10) thl: so the effective meeting time stays the same
(10:39:28) thl: s/weco/FESCo/
(10:39:43) thl: is that scheme fine for all the new FESCo members, too?
(10:39:49) bpepple: Yup.
(10:39:56) abadger1999: Yes.
(10:40:00) c4chris: it's ok
(10:40:03) tibbs: Yes.
(10:40:14) rdieter: ok
(10:40:16) thl: k
(10:40:36) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --  Sponsorship nominations
(10:40:41) thl: any new nominations?
(10:41:02) jwb: are we supposed to send them to FESCo list first?
(10:41:06) thl: btw, someone really should send Nodoid a summary why we didn#t apporve him last time
(10:41:18) c4chris: I don't get mails from the sponsor list
(10:41:21) thl: does anyone still have the mails that were send around when we discussed it?
(10:41:39) tibbs: I probably do.
(10:41:46) thl: I'd like to porpose that we send it to both lists
(10:41:56) thl: e.g. FESCo and sponsors
(10:42:05) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:42:07) c4chris: thl, yup, that's be useful
(10:42:08) thl: or we need to create a special mailinglist
(10:42:16) thl: but that's probaly overkill
(10:42:24) warren: any self-nominations?
(10:42:39) thl: I'm wonering if we should make c4chris a sponsor
(10:42:48) thl: FESCo members IMHO should also be sponsors
(10:42:51) tibbs: I have everything sent to cvsextras-sponsors@fedoraproject.org since the beginning of May, BTW.
(10:43:25) thl: tibbs, can you send me the discussions around upgrading nodoid? then I'l send him a summary why we didn't approve him
(10:43:35) tibbs: Going by the top reviewiers, Patrice Dumas would up for sponsorship.
(10:44:36) dgilmore: thl: honestly  you could make me a sponser.  but i dont know if i would be a good one
(10:44:41) thl: tibbs, can you send a mail to the list to start the discussions
(10:44:51) dgilmore: tibbs: thats bad  not all of fesco get that
(10:45:11) thl: dgilmore, you don't have to use your powers if you don't feel compfortable with it
(10:45:33) thl: who else from FESCo isn't a sponsor? Currently c4chris and dgilmore afaics
(10:46:09) thl: a lot of silence here
(10:46:18) c4chris: I guess we are the only 2...
(10:46:24) thl: seems poeple don't like the iea to make all FESCo members sponsors...
(10:46:28) dgilmore: thl: i guess its just me and c4chris
(10:46:52) thl: s/iea/iea/
(10:46:53) c4chris: the thing is I don't do that many reviews
(10:46:56) thl: s/iea/idea/
(10:46:57) abadger1999: It's overloading the sponsorship role...
(10:47:13) jima: i don't see the justification, personally.
(10:47:27) thl: abadger1999, okay, so let's just drop that idea of mine
(10:47:33) jima: sponsors become sponsors based on merit, don't they?
(10:47:55) c4chris: yup, that's the idea
(10:48:03) thl: jima, yes, but that merit doesn't always mean "reviews"
(10:48:06) rdieter: Hopefully, FESCo implies merit... (:
(10:48:12) c4chris: and a deep knowledge of the packaging rules...
(10:48:13) thl: I didn't do to much reviews
(10:48:15) dgilmore: i guess being in Fesco  means your trusted by the community
(10:48:20) thl: but I'm here and a sponsor, too
(10:48:23) BobJensen is now known as BobJensen-Away
(10:48:25) warren: I'm for giving them sponsorship, I trust that they would do the right thing.
(10:48:34) rdieter: +1
(10:48:38) thl: +1
(10:48:41) bpepple: warren: +1
(10:48:54) abadger1999: I would give them sponsorship too -- but that's separate from making all FESCo members sponsors.
(10:49:21) abadger1999: So c4chris, dgilmore sponsorship +1
(10:49:23) thl: abadger1999, yeah, your right
(10:49:25) thl: abadger1999, +1
(10:49:37) c4chris: So you need to simple rule to always nominate DESCo members to sponsorship, and then simply debate it like usual...
(10:50:02) jima: c4chris: that sounds better to me than just automatically upgrading them.
(10:50:03) c4chris: s/D/F/ doh
(10:50:15) tibbs: But the debate wouldn't necessarily be based on the number and quality of reviews.
(10:50:20) jima: if they have merit, that's fine, imo.
(10:50:38) thl: I'm counting 5 votes to make c4chris and dgilmore sponsors currently (four indirect)
(10:50:49) thl: so I think they are accepted
(10:50:58) thl: please yell now if you disagree
(10:51:02) jima: otherwise sponsorship can be attained by winning a popularity contest (the fesco election) :)
(10:51:03) tibbs: I don't have any problem with having more sponsors, but I am curious that we seem to have changed the qualifications.
(10:51:38) thl: tibbs, as I said -- I also didn't do to much reviews
(10:52:11) tibbs: Perhaps we can consider the qualifications at a future meeting.  Because honestly we do need more active sponsors.
(10:52:27) thl: tibbs, yeah
(10:52:35) c4chris: tibbs, wouldn't be a bad idea
(10:52:47) tibbs: In any case, +1 for both folks.
(10:52:57) c4chris: that reminds me we need to discuss responsibilities at some point...
(10:52:58) thl: I consider them accepted them
(10:53:11) thl: s/them/then/
(10:53:23) thl: there must be something wrong with my keyboard today ;-)
(10:53:23) tibbs: Do remember that you have to review in order to actually sponsor someone.
(10:53:28) thl: so let's move on now
(10:53:50) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress --  approve kmod's
(10:54:01) thl: I didn#t get new request for approvals
(10:54:13) c4chris: no wonder...
(10:54:14) thl: and I didn#t find time to forward the zaptel issue to FAB
(10:54:31) tibbs: Wasn't new kmod approval put on hold?
(10:54:41) thl: let's get the other stuff around kmods sorted out first before we bring that on hte table again
(10:55:03) c4chris: yea, my inbox needs a break...
(10:55:12) bpepple: no doubt.
(10:55:14) thl: :)
(10:55:17) thl: so let's move on
(10:55:30) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule
(10:55:41) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule --  Proposal for (FC and) FE Package Review Request template
(10:55:47) thl: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00361.html
(10:55:50) thl: do we like the idea?
(10:56:04) c4chris: yes
(10:56:15) tibbs: Yes, the summary would be nice to have.
(10:56:22) abadger1999: Makes sense to me.
(10:56:27) tibbs: It would also be nice if people knew to remove the angle brackets.
(10:56:44) c4chris: tibbs, yes
(10:56:45) ***bpepple doesn't have a problem with it.
(10:56:47) tibbs: I've found that it's not nearly as obvious to some folks as you'd think.
(10:57:07) c4chris: maybe remove them from the template?
(10:57:27) thl: c4chris, +1
(10:57:47) thl: so we consider this accepted?
(10:57:49) bpepple: c4chris: +1
(10:57:57) c4chris: thl, +1
(10:58:03) rdieter: +1
(10:58:03) tibbs: +1
(10:58:06) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:58:14) thl: k, moving on
(10:58:21) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule --  create a FESCO user in the wiki that sends mails to the FESCo list and subscribe it to /Extras/Schedul.* in the wiki
(10:58:29) thl: I send this to the fesco list
(10:58:30) c4chris: who can update the template?
(10:58:41) bpepple: thl: +1, this sounds like a good idea.
(10:58:56) tibbs: Yes, this is definitely good.  +1
(10:59:06) thl: c4chris, djb (or what was his nick?); I'll take care of it
(10:59:07) c4chris: why not.  I'm subscribed, but that would give us a log of things
(10:59:17) c4chris: thl, k thx
(10:59:18) abadger1999: +1
(10:59:26) rdieter: sounds good to me, +1
(10:59:34) c4chris: (for the next time the wiki crashes... :-P)
(10:59:40) warren: Just do it
(10:59:47) thl: k
(11:00:06) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- MISC from schedule --  jwb suggested in #fedora-extras that we discuss the current kmod discusions
(11:00:06) warren: would that user's e-mail address be the fesco list ?
(11:00:16) thl: warren, yes
(11:00:32) thl: I'd like to stay mostly quiet on the kmod stuff
(11:00:34) thl: jwb, ?
(11:00:49) jwb: actually
(11:00:55) warren: The kmod issue.... is big and complicated.  For this reason we scheduled tomorrow's meeting.  But even then I don't think we will be successful.
(11:01:16) warren: I am uncertain what to do at this point.
(11:01:20) dgilmore: warren: ? toomorrows meeting
(11:01:32) jwb: warren, yeah... what dgilmore said
(11:01:47) tibbs: There's some sort of telephone conference scheduled.
(11:01:57) warren: thinking to do it on IRC instead
(11:01:57) jwb: with who?
(11:01:59) warren: haven't decided yet
(11:02:06) warren: see fedora-packaging for details
(11:02:18) jwb: kmod is bigger than just packaging
(11:02:25) warren: yes it is
(11:02:50) jwb: we've got davej and dwmw2 saying they should die in Extras and Core all together
(11:03:00) jwb: among others
(11:03:02) dgilmore: I think that kmods are important for testing and proving things. but that perhaps it should have its own repo  fedora-kmods  make the user have a clear decission to make knowing  that core kernel developers wont support them
(11:03:28) jwb: dgilmore, that's what 3rd party repos are for
(11:03:49) jwb: dgilmore, IMHO, an "unsupported" repo by the kernel devs cannot be part of the fedora project officially
(11:03:54) warren: Those kinds of decisions are FPB's to make.
(11:04:13) jwb: warren, that doesn't mean we don't get to make suggestions
(11:04:41) abadger1999: If the guidelines are just for other repos, then the whole landscape of what's a good guideline changes.
(11:04:55) jwb: agreed
(11:05:23) jwb: i think this is a case where we either care enough to allow it in fedora repos, or we get off the pot and let 3rd party repos decide what they want to do
(11:05:28) warren: If you truly care about the kmod issues, then please seriously participate in the fedora-packaging list discussions.
(11:05:32) dgilmore: i think we could have a repo within fedora thats disablled by default  where they can live
(11:05:39) warren: Right now it is a big mess.
(11:06:06) jwb: warren, i care more about having/not having modules in fedora to begin with
(11:06:20) jwb: warren, i think that needs to be settled before any kind of packaging standard comes about
(11:06:50) warren: OK, then that is defnitely something you need to bring to FAB
(11:06:52) warren: are you on FAB?
(11:07:06) jwb: which i realize is confusing because kmods already exist... where were davej and dwmw2 when kmods originated?
(11:07:10) jwb: warren, yes.  i can email FAB
(11:07:30) warren: jwb, package committee and fesco decides mainly on technical details, you are asking about quasi-political policy
(11:07:36) thl: jwb, davej was asked by jeremy for permission of the kmod stuff iirc
(11:07:44) jwb: thl, that's what i thought
(11:07:49) rdieter: gotta run, another meeting (fun).
(11:07:52) jwb: ok, i'd like to take a vote really quick
(11:07:59) rdieter: (ok, I'll wait)
(11:08:02) jwb: who in FESCo thinks we should have kmods?
(11:08:12) rdieter: have, vs. not have?
(11:08:17) dgilmore: jwb: my vote is for a kmod repository
(11:08:18) jwb: rdieter, right
(11:08:22) rdieter: have +1.
(11:08:27) tibbs: I'm undecided, sorry.
(11:08:50) thl: from the political standpoint: not have
(11:08:57) c4chris: I think we can have modules in Extras
(11:08:59) ***rdieter runs...
(11:09:04) rdieter is now known as rdieter_away
(11:09:10) skvidal: rdieter_away: come back here
(11:09:13) thl: but we compete with ubuntu and suse: and they have all the stuff, so we should have it, too
(11:09:25) bpepple: have +1
(11:09:36) rdieter_away: skvidal: huh?
(11:09:41) warren: I think the current kmod standard with its strict restrictions is a generally good thing.
(11:09:53) dgilmore: i think we can  but if its in its own repository  then users will be more aware of what support they can expect
(11:09:56) jwb: so in general, FESCo feels kmods should remain
(11:10:01) warren: It isn't a "free ride" into Fedora with any kmod.  it must satisfy requirements, and pressure is put to push things upstream.
(11:10:02) thl: warren, maybe we shopuld put the "time restiction" back on the table, too
(11:10:16) thl: e.g. allow each kmod in extras only for a certain time
(11:10:20) rdieter_away is now known as rdieter
(11:10:21) ***cweyl scrolls back and reads
(11:10:24) tibbs: I think that from a user's standpoint having access under the Fedora umbrella to every module which does not violate the law is a good thing.
(11:10:24) thl: three releases
(11:10:45) thl: tibbs, we should work towards modules that get merged upstream
(11:10:59) dgilmore: warren: which can only be done in a fedora project  controlled repo.  3rd party repos == "no input from us"
(11:11:00) tibbs: But maintenance is paramount and the argument of the kernel devs atainst having to deal with bug reports arising from external modules is compelling.
(11:11:11) thl: It's really important that they get merged into the vanilla kernel
(11:11:16) tibbs: thl: I disagree; I don't think it's our business to push any code author towards anything they don't want to do.
(11:11:56) thl: tibbs, http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives : To do as much of the development work as possible directly in the upstream packages.
(11:12:12) bpepple: thl: +1
(11:12:16) tibbs: I don't see how that applies.
(11:12:28) tibbs: A kernel module's upstream isn't necessarily the kernel.
(11:12:32) dgilmore: thl: yes  but a kmod upstream is different to kernel upstream
(11:12:40) abadger1999: tibbs: +1
(11:12:48) tibbs: That objective just says we shouldn't carry around fedora-specific patches in fedora packages.
(11:13:06) cweyl: tibbs: +1 on "...is a good thing"
(11:13:08) dgilmore: thl: if we patch a kmod  we should get it upstream  whereever that is
(11:13:16) warren: The way spot describes it, the restrictions set by packaging committee on what qualifies for kmod is strict.
(11:13:34) jwb: thl, i'll email FAB asking for a political decision
(11:13:42) thl: jwb, thx
(11:13:49) ***jwb steps away for a second
(11:13:51) thl: so let's stop here for today
(11:14:02) warren: The time requirement is not exactly important to decide now, it is closer to a political decision.  The bigger problem is the technical issues for the near-term.
(11:14:03) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- free discussion
(11:14:16) tibbs: I started on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JasonTibbitts/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy
(11:14:16) thl: anything else we should discuss?
(11:14:40) tibbs: A nice rat's nest there which will require a good bit of spirited discussion.
(11:14:56) tibbs: I'd like to see anyone interested contribute to that document.
(11:15:34) thl: tibbs, can you move that over to the FESCo namespace please
(11:15:36) tibbs: Unfortunately my wiki-fu is still crap and I can't get the list indentation right.
(11:15:44) thl: then I'll create a entry on the schedule
(11:15:50) rdieter is now known as rdieter_away
(11:16:00) tibbs: Where would you like it to live?
(11:16:08) tibbs: Under Schedule?
(11:16:45) thl: tibbs, let me handle the moving
(11:16:55) thl: I can also look at the list indentation
(11:17:16) cweyl: tibbs: I assume rabble contributions are good as well?
(11:17:24) tibbs: I was trying to get too fancy with boxed bits within a list.
(11:17:36) tibbs: cweyl: I want to see as much input on this kind of thing as is possible.
(11:17:42) cweyl: cool.
(11:17:42) c4chris: cweyl, sure
(11:18:13) cweyl: not that I've ever asked before.... ;)
(11:18:29) c4chris: FYI I won't be here next week (vacations, yay! :-) )
(11:18:37) jima: err, can rabble edit things under FESCo namespace?
(11:18:47) thl: jima, yes
(11:19:02) jima: ok, wasn't sure if it was locked down like Packaging
(11:19:09) cweyl: yah.  same here
(11:19:20) tibbs: Packaging is an anomaly, I think.
(11:19:32) jima: ok
(11:19:40) tibbs: You just need to be in EditGroup.
(11:20:25) thl: k, anything else?
(11:20:31) ***thl needs to leave soon
(11:20:41) thl: abadger1999, btw, many thx for writing the summaries
(11:20:48) tibbs: Nothing else from me.
(11:20:53) ***thl will close the meeting in 60
(11:21:17) abadger1999: jima: BTW: PackagingDrafts shouldn't be locked down, just the actual Packaging hierarchy.
(11:21:21) ***thl will close the meeting in 30
(11:21:28) abadger1999: thl: np.
(11:21:41) ***thl will close the meeting in 10
(11:21:53) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting end
(11:21:57) thl: thx everyone!
(11:22:03) c4chris: thl, thx.