Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060921

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2006 September 21 FESCo Meeting

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

Attending

Summary

Comps.xml

Approve KMods

FESCo Decisions

Mass Rebuild

EPEL/Enterprise Extras

or Red Hat space: http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/beta/RHEL5-Beta1/client/i386/

Packaging Committee Report

Misc: Remove inactive members

Free Discussion: Competition Packaging

Free Discussion: current-branches File

Log 

(10:00:03) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- init
(10:00:09) thl: hi everyone
(10:00:13) thl: who's around?
(10:00:14) ***bpepple is here.
(10:00:18) ***awjb is here.
(10:00:21) warren: here, but I need to get my car real soon
(10:00:26) warren: (across the street at the shop)
(10:00:27) ***c4chris is here
(10:00:48) ***mmcgrath =true
(10:01:00) che left the room (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
(10:01:03) ***nirik is in the rabble seats with his cup of coffee.
(10:01:17) ***thl has some tea
(10:01:26) ***spot is here
(10:01:32) spot: but the packaging meeting is running a bit long
(10:01:33) ***c4chris just had a bear :-)
(10:01:40) c4chris: beer
(10:01:43) c4chris: oops
(10:02:07) scop [n=scop]  entered the room.
(10:02:11) ***rdieter is 1/2 here
(10:02:18) ***thl wonders if starting here is wise until the pc meeting finished
(10:02:22) ***scop ditto
(10:02:51) abadger1999: \me arrives
(10:03:08) thl: well, let's start with some easy stuff
(10:03:19) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --  Use comps.xml properly
(10:03:22) warren: I better get my car now...
(10:03:30) thl: dgilmore: automate comps file during push or via cron; see also [WWW]  this mail on f-e-l
(10:03:58) thl: c4chris in parallel -- is there anything else regarding comps.xml that needs to be done/discussed?
(10:04:19) spot: thl: maybe someone (not me) could check comps.xml against FE and send out emails to maintainers?
(10:04:41) thl: spot, c4chris did that already (at least once)
(10:04:56) ***cweyl is here, post coffee-run (rabble)
(10:04:58) c4chris: should be ok
(10:05:05) ***spot is pretty sure most of his stuff isn't in comps, but doesn't remember getting nagged about it
(10:05:11) c4chris: just planning to go through the list once again before FC6
(10:05:37) c4chris: talked to jeremy about putting the non .in files in a subdirectory
(10:05:58) c4chris: need to talk to mschwendt and dgilmore now...
(10:06:04) nirik: can you acl them off so people can't edit them?
(10:06:39) c4chris: spot, I need to check
(10:07:26) thl: okay, so let's move on then
(10:07:38) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --   Activate legacy in buildroots
(10:07:57) thl: dgilmore did some stuff -- I at least saw some commits with new config files
(10:07:58) c4chris: spot, nagged you on Aug 16
(10:08:12) thl: anyway, he seems not be around, so I just skip this
(10:08:15) spot: c4chris: i'll have to go back and look at that
(10:08:20) ***scop 4/5 here
(10:08:25) pygi left the room.
(10:08:32) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- Sponsorship nominations
(10:08:33) c4chris: spot, np
(10:08:39) thl: any new nominations?
(10:09:12) c4chris: pfj is still a candidate afaik
(10:09:16) ***mmcgrath ?
(10:10:09) thl: c4chris, I have problems with all the pauls...
(10:10:23) bpepple: Has mmcgrath done any reviews?
(10:10:28) thl: c4chris, pfj = nodoid?
(10:10:35) c4chris: thl, yes
(10:10:50) thl: c4chris, I told him some days ago to ask his sponsor for his opinion
(10:11:09) c4chris: thl, ah, ok.  let's wait then
(10:11:45) thl: mmcgrath, reviews?
(10:12:45) mmcgrath: Just MySQL-query-browser in the last month.  I've laxed quite a bit.  Save my nomination for another time when I have more reviews :D
(10:12:54) bpepple: ok.
(10:12:58) thl: mmcgrath, k, thx
(10:13:17) thl: mmcgrath, if you need sponsorship status for EPEL stuff just yell
(10:13:27) mmcgrath: will do.
(10:13:28) thl: k, moving on
(10:13:29) ***mmcgrath brb.
(10:13:39) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --  approve kmod's
(10:13:42) thl: just to note:
(10:13:55) thl: FPB chose to allow kmods in general
(10:14:25) thl: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-September/msg00045.html
(10:14:25) scop: hmm
(10:14:30) jima: with or without fesco approval individually?
(10:14:36) thl: so I think we just go ahed with the old plans?
(10:14:48) thl: jima, they didn't want to get involved into the details
(10:14:49) abadger1999: jima: That's up to fesco (us)
(10:14:50) spot: jima: they said kmods are ok, we say which kmods are ok.
(10:14:56) scop: thl, are you sure that message is an indication of a decision?
(10:14:58) cweyl: thl: from my read of the email it was "ok to kmods, you figure out the implementation details"
(10:15:03) jima: 'k.
(10:15:11) thl: scop, well, rdieter told so on fesco-list
(10:15:21) thl: cweyl, exactly
(10:15:30) rdieter: yay.
(10:15:35) spot: which kmods are pending approval?
(10:15:38) cweyl: very yay :)
(10:15:52) thl: spot, well, there are a lot (ten?) up for review
(10:16:05) spot: again, "which". :)
(10:16:13) awjb: ^^
(10:16:24) thl: spot, non are pending approval
(10:16:32) spot: so, we dont have to approve any from us?
(10:16:36) thl: but some modules up for review were not approved
(10:16:54) thl: spot, ?
(10:17:03) spot: sorry, i know that made absolutely no sense. :)
(10:17:09) cweyl: just for sanity purposes, this approval is the preliminary "go ahead and package", not "approved to be imported", right?
(10:17:10) spot: Does FESCO need to approve any kmods?
(10:17:22) tibbs: There have been some new submissions, but so far they don't have the required information and need to be pinged.
(10:17:27) thl: spot, well, I think we should proceed as planed in the past
(10:17:32) nirik: perhaps a KMOD blocker would be nice?
(10:17:34) thl: spot, so yes, we should approve them
(10:17:37) rdieter: how does it work, approve first, then review, or vice-versa (or it doesn't matter)?
(10:17:52) thl: rdieter, ask first, then review normally
(10:17:56) rdieter: +1 to kmod blocker (it would help finding them at least)
(10:18:04) thl: +1 to kmod blocker
(10:18:07) scop: +1
(10:18:08) awjb: +1
(10:18:11) c4chris: +1
(10:18:12) bpepple: +1
(10:18:12) tibbs: +1
(10:18:21) abadger1999: +1
(10:18:26) thl: just to be sure:
(10:18:28) rdieter: blocker for "kmod needs approval" or just "kmod" in general?
(10:18:29) nirik: so whats the status on zaptel kmod then? is it approved? or rejected because they don't want to submit upstream?
(10:18:43) thl: rdieter, maybe both?
(10:18:57) bpepple: nirik: I'd lean toward reject.
(10:19:02) scop: I don't think we've actually voted on that
(10:19:06) cweyl: nirik: it is GPL.
(10:19:16) thl: nirik, I'd also still lean toward reject
(10:19:22) scop: (nor am I sure if we have defined what determines the outcome of a vote)
(10:19:23) rdieter: submission to upstream is required, so if that's not in the plans, then no/reject.
(10:19:28) Rathann: which reminds me, I'll withdraw my acx100 kmod because I'm told there's some effort to get it upstream
(10:19:34) cweyl: just because it has a commercial fork shouldn't be a blocker IMHO, mysql does the same thing and it's in fedora
(10:19:45) tibbs: Rathann: that's backwards.
(10:19:47) awjb: rdieter: but why I do not see and never saw the point in it...
(10:19:50) spot: if they have no plan to put code upstream, i'll vote against it.
(10:19:55) thl: Rathann, see the  annoucment of the last mm-kernel -- might get dropped
(10:19:59) tibbs: If there's effort to get it upstream then it's definitely wanted.
(10:20:12) thl: tibbs, +1
(10:20:22) Rathann: tibbs: I just saw a mail in acx100-users saying something to the contrary
(10:20:23) bpepple: tibbs: agreed.
(10:20:24) rdieter: awjb: if you haven't figured it out by now...
(10:20:33) thl: but saying "we don't want it upstream" is IMHO a no-go
(10:20:38) thl: I don#t want such modules
(10:20:49) cweyl: thl: from a support issue?
(10:20:53) tibbs: Of course, other issues could keep it out of upstream...
(10:20:54) thl: it might happen that someone tells us that they want it upstream but it never happens
(10:20:57) thl: but that's life
(10:21:37) thl: cweyl, more a "be a nice open-source citizen"
(10:21:48) ***jwb is here now
(10:21:55) nirik: ok, so is zaptel-kmod ready for a formal +/- vote? or do the criteria need more discussion on list or the like?
(10:22:07) thl: nirik, did the zaptel guys ever get back in the bugreport
(10:22:17) thl: we should tell them why we don#t want there module
(10:22:21) spot: i -1 zaptel if they're not even trying to take the code upstream.
(10:22:22) thl: maybe they change there ming
(10:22:23) nirik: They just posted the one thing on the bug...
(10:22:31) scop: if the consensus is that "we don't want it upstream" is a blocker, then it needs to be documented
(10:22:32) nirik: I can ping them/the bug again
(10:22:36) Rathann: tibbs: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=36862141
(10:22:39) awjb: rdieter: maybe I am to stupid... but for me this is a strange view on kmods ... only thing I can think of is gpl issues but thats about it... nothing from the technical point that I could find against it
(10:22:40) thl: nirik, please do so
(10:23:04) thl: and let's get back to zaptel later
(10:23:08) nirik: ok, let me do that... and bring up results next week?
(10:23:10) thl: that okay for everybody?
(10:23:13) spot: sure
(10:23:18) thl: nirik, if possible: yes
(10:23:20) bpepple: works for me.
(10:23:25) c4chris: thl, yup
(10:23:31) nirik: who is going to make the FE_KMOD / FE_KMOD_NEEDS_FESCO blockers?
(10:23:38) thl: spot, and yes, we should document it
(10:23:43) thl: s/spot/scop/
(10:23:50) scop: but I don't agree with that
(10:24:09) thl: spot, then let's discuss it on the list during the next week
(10:24:18) thl: that's probably better
(10:24:21) thl: s/spot/scop/
(10:24:23) thl: :-/
(10:24:25) c4chris: scop, "that" = ?
(10:24:27) ***spot scratches his head
(10:24:36) thl: sorry spot
(10:24:44) scop: "that" == "we don't want it upstream is a blocker"
(10:24:44) rdieter: maybe we clarify the policy on kmods in the wiki, to help out folks understand the "why" (like awjb)?
(10:24:56) c4chris: scop, ah, ok
(10:25:00) thl: rdieter, exactly
(10:25:05) abadger1999: awjb: The argument is that it's very hard to maintain kmods outside of the kernel due to the fast moving nature of the kernel-module ABI.
(10:25:07) c4chris: scop, and how about the blocker bugs ?
(10:25:15) awjb: scop: i don't agree with this either ...
(10:25:36) warren: back
(10:25:39) ***scop is confused ;)
(10:25:47) thl: we all are a bit confused now
(10:25:48) scop: blocker bugs are definitely good
(10:25:53) thl: let's discuss it on the list
(10:26:03) awjb: abadger1999: thought someone would bring this up... but that the nice thing about os even people who don't work on the kernel can read changelogs and read lkml
(10:26:03) c4chris: thl, yes
(10:26:10) scop: before moving on:
(10:26:13) thl: warren, can you create two new tracker bug assiged to nobody@fp.org?
(10:26:27) thl: FE_KMOD and FE_KMOD_NEEDS_APPROVAL ?
(10:26:35) nirik: I can go thru and add them to all the pending kmod reviews after they are created.
(10:26:49) scop: when something comes up for a vote, how many votes / what percentage do we need for something to pass?
(10:26:54) nirik: unless someone else wants to. ;)
(10:26:57) thl: warren, or can you tell me the pw for nobody@fp.org ?
(10:27:03) warren: oh
(10:27:03) warren: ok
(10:27:12) cweyl: scop: I think it's the "if no screams..." rule :)
(10:27:13) ***warren finds it...
(10:27:32) scop: 100%?
(10:27:34) scop: eek
(10:27:35) thl: cweyl, normally yes
(10:27:53) jwb: scop, i think it's majority vote
(10:27:58) thl: but sooner or later we have to make decisions where somebody yells
(10:28:09) thl: then at least 51% of the members should attend
(10:28:09) c4chris: scop, I'd think 51% of the quorum...
(10:28:12) scop: yes, and we need to define the rules *beforehand*
(10:28:22) thl: and at least 51% of those have to vote +1
(10:28:23) warren: thl, sent you mail
(10:28:26) thl: warren, thx
(10:28:26) rdieter: thl: voice vote first (ie, no one screams), else majority (of those present).
(10:28:27) abadger1999: awjb: A second argument is that the kernel maintainers don't want to wade through kernel bug reports where external kernel modules are involved.
(10:28:34) thl: rdieter, exactly
(10:28:39) jwb: abadger1999, that's a weak argument
(10:28:40) abadger1999: awjb: There may be other arguments as well.
(10:28:41) bpepple: rdieter: +1
(10:28:47) jwb: abadger1999, they should already be screening for that
(10:28:54) abadger1999: awjb: I've lost track :-)
(10:28:56) cweyl: abadger1999: didn't FPB settle that with "kmods are ok"?
(10:29:03) jwb: cweyl, yes
(10:29:05) awjb: abadger1999: ^^ lets take it to the list
(10:29:09) warren: Don't they already have "tainted" messages?
(10:29:18) jwb: warren, not sure
(10:29:23) spot: warren: yeah, but nothing we approve should taint.
(10:29:24) cweyl: I think we're past the do we or don't we decision, we have that.  we're at the implementation details stage, no?
(10:29:34) jwb: cweyl, yes
(10:29:34) rdieter: kernel maintainers are likely to insist bugs be reproduced without extra kmods.
(10:29:42) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --  M{ae}ss-Rebuild
(10:29:45) jwb: rdieter, that is fine
(10:29:49) thl: I'd like to move on now
(10:30:01) thl: let's stop talking about kmods for today ;-)
(10:30:06) jwb: but they
(10:30:09) jwb: 're so fun
(10:30:10) jwb: ;)
(10:30:18) thl: :)
(10:30:19) rdieter: kmod, kmod, kmod, kmod!  OK, out of my system.
(10:30:22) spot: jwb: don't make me get Axel. ;)
(10:30:24) warren: spot, yes they should
(10:30:30) thl: scop, status update for M{ae}ss-Rebuild?
(10:30:37) thl: anything we need to discuss<code>
(10:30:39) jwb: warren, no they shouldn't.  and off to the list with that
(10:30:41) warren: spot, our modules aren't gpg signed
(10:30:42) scop: see wiki
(10:30:47) spot: warren: ah.
(10:30:47) scop: another push coming up tonight
(10:30:57) scop: and status update after it
(10:31:14) rdieter: fyi, saved libpqxx/koffice from being dropped yesterday. (:
(10:31:33) cweyl: scop: if you've flagged something as "orphaned due to no rebuild", all it takes to get it back in the repos is to claim & rebuild, right?
(10:31:41) ***nirik is trying to get fontforge happy, but it's not building right in devel. ;(
(10:31:54) jwb: cweyl, yes
(10:31:54) c4chris: scop, good job, I'd liek to say
(10:32:01) awjb: rdieter: yes thanks again for it... wonder why libpqxx was bitching around so much...
(10:32:02) jwb: yes, good job scop
(10:32:12) thl: scop, yeah, thx for all your work
(10:32:15) scop: thanks
(10:32:33) thl: anything else regarding the mass-build?
(10:32:40) scop: but IMHO grabbing something from the orphaned page should go through the normal unorphan process
(10:32:43) rdieter: awjb: a combination of -fvisibility generating warnings, and -Werror
(10:32:45) Rathann: do I have to wait for a reply from former maintainers if I want to take something over?
(10:33:06) scop: except perhaps if the old maintainer of a package grabs it due to having missed the deadline by a few days
(10:33:11) thl: scop, well, I think we don't have time to wait a whole week
(10:33:12) awjb: rdieter: I will look at it later... still have 3 packages to go \o/
(10:33:17) cweyl: Rathann: they've had several nags, and weeks to rebuild their packages
(10:33:22) Rathann: ok
(10:33:31) cweyl: if they were going to reply, I think they would have done so by now :)
(10:33:32) thl: scop, well, people also should check if the maintainer is still around
(10:33:32) scop: thl, no problem, my opinion is a humble one  ;)
(10:33:36) Rathann: I'll rebuild the two I want tonight
(10:33:42) thl: if he is -> talk to him
(10:33:48) cweyl: thl: of course
(10:33:56) Rathann: I Cc'd them in my mail to -extras
(10:34:03) cweyl: and then berate them soundly for not rebuilding ;)
(10:34:06) thl: that's why I send out the "maitainers that didn#t rebuild a single package report"
(10:34:32) cweyl: thl: I liked that.  helped differentiate packages that just "slipped" from people who may well have vanished
(10:34:41) scop: I plan to list packages that are broken due to some of their deps being dropped tonight/tomorrow
(10:35:06) scop: then maybe drop them early next week?
(10:35:22) thl: scop, yeah, might be okay
(10:35:26) thl: send that to the list
(10:35:26) cweyl: is there a way to take packages and assign them to sigs?  (after talking to that sig, of course)
(10:35:35) thl: if to many people yell wait a bit longer
(10:35:47) scop: ok
(10:35:51) Rathann: should I leave the former maintainer's email in the last field in owners.list?
(10:35:54) scop: also, comps.xml needs to be cleaned up from dropped packages, planning to do that in the weekend
(10:36:06) rdieter: Rathann: imo, yeah.
(10:36:10) cweyl: e.g. there are a number of perl modules orphaned up there...  that sig may want to take them over en-mass.
(10:36:12) Rathann: will do
(10:36:12) scop: Rathann, I think that makes sense if there was no response
(10:36:25) thl: c4chris, might be a good idea to check for that (comps.xml needs to be cleaned up from dropped packages) in your scripts as well
(10:36:25) xover left the room (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
(10:36:39) c4chris: thl, it does in principle
(10:36:47) thl: ohh? nice :-))
(10:37:04) c4chris: there's a list near the bottom
(10:37:09) ***thl will jump to the next item on the schedule soon
(10:37:19) c4chris: (I think I like your plitting idea more and more...)
(10:37:34) c4chris: splitting
(10:37:40) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --  Enterprise Extras
(10:37:48) thl: c4chris, no need to hurry with that
(10:37:53) thl: so, EPEL now
(10:38:00) thl: create a public mailinglist -- what name?
(10:38:06) thl: fedora-extras-el-list ?
(10:38:19) quaid [n=quaid]  entered the room.
(10:38:29) jwb: that sounds fine with me
(10:38:36) scop: no fedora in "epel", no fedora in list name?
(10:38:37) thl: or can we/do we want to live without a special mailinglist for now
(10:38:37) cweyl: do we need a separate list yet?
(10:38:38) errr: is it possible for me to package for fedora 4,5,6 all from one system (running fc5) its getting kind of old to fire off vmware to build for fc4 and 6
(10:38:43) ***nirik groans at yet another list.
(10:38:51) cweyl: thl: I'd say hash it out on extras-list first
(10:39:02) c4chris: extras for now I'd say
(10:39:15) ***mmcgrath doesn't care what the list is called.
(10:39:24) jwb: errr, yes use mock
(10:39:26) thl: cweyl, maybe; other requested a sepecial mailing list already "because the traffic on f-e-l is so high"
(10:39:31) errr: thanks jwb
(10:39:45) c4chris: thl, ah, right
(10:39:55) cweyl: thl: yah...  but I'd think something like this you'd want a lot of eyeballs on it to start with :)
(10:40:05) rdieter: cweyl: +1
(10:40:14) thl: well, then let's use f-e-l until people complain :)
(10:40:27) mmcgrath: thats fine.
(10:40:35) c4chris: thl, yup.  20 msg a day is not so high in my book...
(10:40:35) thl: mmcgrath, spot , what about RHEL4 + updates for the builders?
(10:40:47) thl: any process?
(10:40:53) RTLM [n=RTLM]  entered the room.
(10:40:55) mmcgrath: To my knowledge no progress has been made in that area as of yet.
(10:41:01) spot: no one ever told me where to put the files.
(10:41:06) ***spot coughs
(10:41:13) mmcgrath: spot: one sec.
(10:41:45) mmcgrath: spot: somewhere on ntap-fedora1.fedora.phx.redhat.com?
(10:41:57) spot: mmcgrath: email me and tell me exactly where.
(10:42:08) thl: mmcgrath, spot, thx
(10:42:15) mmcgrath: K, I might have to check with Stacy about some of it...
(10:42:17) thl: mmcgrath, can you prepare the builder after that?
(10:42:29) mmcgrath: Yeah, myself or dgilmore.
(10:43:05) thl: mmcgrath, just go ahead then when you have everything together;
(10:43:23) thl: did anybody read https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00672.html ?
(10:43:36) thl: Am I just stupid? is that much to complicated?
(10:43:54) rdieter: +1 too complicated (and I said as much on the list too)
(10:44:11) abadger1999: smooge definitely went overboard there.
(10:44:21) jwb: i ignored it for now
(10:44:26) c4chris: I'd like to start real simple
(10:44:38) rdieter: c4chris: +1
(10:44:39) abadger1999: At least for a first (or second) iteration.
(10:44:44) thl: abadger1999, that's not smooge's mail
(10:44:46) ***spot is unsure why we're not just doing el4, el5, devel
(10:44:51) c4chris: evolution has good sides...
(10:45:08) jwb: spot, i thought it was just el5, devel?
(10:45:18) ***cweyl likes simple
(10:45:22) thl: el4 also
(10:45:25) thl: just start now
(10:45:29) spot: if so, why am i populating a RHEL 4 builder? :)
(10:45:31) mmcgrath: We can always make it more complicated later :D
(10:45:32) jwb: oh, yes makes sense
(10:45:34) thl: or "soon"
(10:45:37) jwb: el5 isn't out :)
(10:45:39) abadger1999: thl: Oh sorry.
(10:45:59) nirik: since el5 isn't out, wouldn't it be just el4, devel?
(10:46:01) thl: abadger1999, np :)
(10:46:12) c4chris: nirik, yes
(10:46:19) thl: spot, what would devel be in your scheme?
(10:46:32) thl: there is normally now rawhide rhel to build for
(10:46:38) thl: s/now/no/
(10:47:01) spot: devel would be el5 betas
(10:47:11) jwb: are those public?
(10:47:14) spot: yep.
(10:47:29) thl: spot, well, there are noemally no "betas"
(10:47:37) jwb: erm
(10:47:45) thl: only in those two or three months were in now
(10:47:55) spot: thl: devel is composed of the fc6 test releases on the fedora side
(10:48:10) spot: devel is composed of the el5 beta releases on the el side
(10:48:15) nirik: I would think the latest publicly released beta...
(10:48:16) thl: why not just crate a el5 branch now
(10:48:20) thl: and build for the betas?
(10:48:28) ***spot is fine with either
(10:48:33) jwb: i like that better
(10:48:34) thl: s/build/& there/
(10:48:54) c4chris: thl, fine too
(10:49:08) thl: k
(10:49:27) thl: another thing: where shall we upload the stuff to?
(10:49:27) c4chris: avoids branching later...
(10:49:34) thl: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/{el4,el5} ?
(10:49:44) thl: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/el/{45} ?
(10:50:11) mmcgrath: jbw: http://mirrors.kernel.org/redhat/redhat/linux/beta/RHEL5-Beta1/client/i386/
(10:50:41) nirik: oh yeah, should extras just be one tree, or a client/server branches?
(10:50:48) c4chris: extras/{el4,el5}
(10:51:07) mmcgrath: Is it the opinion of most people here that this is a branch or a fork?
(10:51:10) spot: one tree seems reasonable.
(10:51:21) thl: one tree +1
(10:51:28) ***jwb regrettably has to go
(10:51:31) thl: mmcgrath, well, it's a branch afaics
(10:51:32) c4chris: one tree +1
(10:51:40) c4chris: branch
(10:51:47) jwb: there can be only one
(10:51:52) jwb: +1
(10:52:03) mmcgrath: my concern is that people will think its a fedora branch.
(10:52:07) rdieter: branch/one_tree: +1
(10:52:19) cweyl: this rabble likes branch/one_tree...
(10:52:42) mmcgrath: IE they go to the fedora site, click on fedora mirrors, click on extras and start downloading.
(10:52:49) rdieter: mmcgrath: who cares?  Or are you just concerned about perception?
(10:53:20) thl: mmcgrath, we can move it somewhere else later if we really want to
(10:53:20) tibbs: I would hope that they could go to a fedora site, click around and start downloading.
(10:54:10) thl: we're slowing down... shall we stop on this topic for today?
(10:54:15) mmcgrath: I still believe this is a fork.   After all, none of this software will end up on any fedora machines, ever.
(10:54:25) mmcgrath: Yeah.  we can go on.  This discussion would probably be better on the list.
(10:54:31) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:54:37) c4chris: thl, +1
(10:54:42) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- Packaging Committee Report
(10:54:54) thl: scop, spot, rdieter, tibbs, abadger1999, ... ?
(10:54:59) tibbs: Again, not much to report.
(10:55:09) spot: we didn't decide anything other than that we will be taking open nominations for new seats on the committee
(10:55:29) tibbs: Not that there are currently any open seats...
(10:55:30) spot: those nominations will be voted on by the existing members to determine new membership
(10:55:49) spot: Yep. Right now, there are no open seats.
(10:56:27) thl: k, anything else?
(10:56:29) spot: nope.
(10:56:56) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- MISC -- remove inactive extras contributors from cvsextras
(10:57:06) thl: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00612.html
(10:57:09) thl: remove them?
(10:57:28) bpepple: thl: +1
(10:57:29) c4chris: sure
(10:57:43) cweyl: should we keep a list of people removed for inactivity on the wiki somewhere?
(10:57:44) thl: sopwith or other that might need access can be readded later easily
(10:57:52) thl: cweyl, yes
(10:57:55) cweyl: might come in handy for those who later decide they want back in :)
(10:58:02) awjb: cweyl, +1
(10:58:16) thl: I'll probably also will remove all those taht have the status "declined"
(10:58:25) scop: I suppose such a page should have an ACL on it
(10:58:31) thl: (most of them applied for cvsextras accidentally)
(10:58:38) xover [n=link]  entered the room.
(10:58:39) thl: scop, well, maybe
(10:58:48) thl: scop, but we can always look into the history
(10:58:54) thl: isn't that enough?
(10:59:03) nirik: could you just add a 'inactive' status? then they could be readded and you could see that they were once there?
(10:59:04) c4chris: thl, watch it like the schedule...
(10:59:07) ***thl is not sure himselfs
(10:59:18) ***scop loathes wiki's history interface
(10:59:30) thl: well, I'll look at it
(10:59:31) abadger1999: One or two of the inactivity people are active.
(10:59:39) c4chris: easier to search in the ml archive
(10:59:40) thl: maybe ACls are the best for this job
(10:59:51) thl: abadger1999, I'll recreate the list
(10:59:55) abadger1999: jspaleta, for instance has been having someone else do commits for him because of his internet situation.
(11:00:01) thl: abadger1999, and check it before i actually remove those poeple
(11:00:10) thl: abadger1999, k, noted
(11:00:17) green_ left the room (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).
(11:00:26) scop: thl, did you take owners.list into account when looking for inactive people?
(11:00:42) thl: scop, no
(11:00:59) scop: ok
(11:01:02) Tjikkun left the room (quit: Read error: 113 (No route to host)).
(11:01:03) thl: scop, I did only that rough check that's described in the mail
(11:01:14) thl: I'll take a closer look
(11:01:30) scop: actually, I think your method should be ok
(11:01:31) thl: and as I said: people that got removed accidentally can be readded later easily
(11:01:50) scop: those folks' bugzilla account won't go anywhere anyway
(11:01:55) ***thl considers this settled
(11:01:59) warren left the room ("Leaving").
(11:02:00) abadger1999: Would htey have to resign cla and so on?
(11:02:01) cweyl: so long as there's a record to establish "yes, you were removed accidentally", I like it
(11:02:06) Tjikkun [n=tjikkun]  entered the room.
(11:02:08) thl: abadger1999, no
(11:02:22) abadger1999: Sounds easily reversible then.
(11:02:24) thl: another group in the ac handles the cla status
(11:02:37) thl: that "cladone" iirc
(11:02:39) nirik: they would likely just have to re-request cvsextras...
(11:02:48) thl: nirik, yes, I think so
(11:02:59) thl: getting late -- moving on
(11:03:12) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- MISC -- enhance AWOL
(11:03:19) thl: did anybody look into it
(11:03:24) ***thl did not :-/
(11:03:38) ***c4chris neither
(11:04:15) thl: k, then let's skip this and look at it in  the next meeting
(11:04:26) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- free discussion around extrs
(11:04:34) thl: anything else we should discuss?
(11:04:48) cweyl: thl: I'd like to add a "current-branches" file to common
(11:04:49) c4chris: you wanted the competition packaging...
(11:05:02) warren [n=warren]  entered the room.
(11:05:04) warren: oops
(11:05:17) cweyl: so scripties/people can automagically determine what's a current fedora release...
(11:05:23) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- competition packaging (aka tor)
(11:05:34) thl: well, what do we want to do about it
(11:05:47) thl: wait another week and hope that it all works out somehow?
(11:05:51) abadger1999: I don't really like it.
(11:06:12) thl: abadger1999, "it" = competition packaging | wait another week" ?
(11:06:19) abadger1999: competition packaging.
(11:06:22) c4chris: thl, yea maybe work out a proposal first...
(11:06:25) ***scop is off to take care of today's push+massrebuild things
(11:06:34) thl: abadger1999, well, I agree in general
(11:06:38) rdieter: I think I like competition packaging, but I'm not sure how best to actually do it.
(11:06:45) scop: btw, there's a precedent in the smart package
(11:06:46) tibbs: In this case, though, someone just needs to submit another package and get it over with.
(11:06:47) c4chris: scop, may the force be with you :-)
(11:06:58) thl: abadger1999, but now and then "competition packaging" might be the best
(11:07:08) rdieter: to ensure the "best" package wins, that is.
(11:07:22) abadger1999: tibbs: But I think Enrico's packaging choices may be valid in this case....
(11:07:34) rdieter: best doesn't necessarily equate to fastest review.
(11:07:44) c4chris: abadger1999, so why doesn't his package get approved ?
(11:07:44) abadger1999: tibbs: it's a poor situation where both choices are less than ideal.
(11:07:49) ***Rathann looks at ctorrent package he's just taken over
(11:07:58) abadger1999: rdieter: I agree.
(11:08:03) tibbs: Tor isn't really a complicated package, though.
(11:08:07) rdieter: The reviewer disagrees with Enrico's choice(s).  And neither will back down.
(11:08:23) ***Rathann wonders how on earth did this pass review
(11:08:29) ***nirik also doesn't agree with the tor packageing.... so I dropped the review and let someone else try.
(11:08:43) thl: well then let's just note something like this: "normally packagers should work together in one bug getting a certain software packaged; but htere is no rule yet that disallows opening another bug with and alternative package of the same software"
(11:08:50) awjb: bugnumber plz
(11:09:06) rdieter: IMO, if the submitter/reviewer reach an impasse, the reviewer should step away.
(11:09:08) thl: awjb, 175433
(11:09:11) nirik: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175433
(11:09:11) awjb: ty
(11:09:24) c4chris: rdieter, yes
(11:09:30) nirik: rdieter: thats what I did many months ago... extras still has no tor.
(11:09:50) c4chris: thl, I find it ok.
(11:09:52) rdieter: nirik: good, imo, you did the right thing.
(11:10:03) abadger1999: nirik: You were close to approving it a couple times.  Was the split of packages the only remaining issue?
(11:10:16) c4chris: the caveat is that such review requests tend to get closed/duplicate
(11:10:20) abadger1999: or were there other things that combined to give you a general bad feeling?
(11:10:29) c4chris: so a clear marking should be used in cases like this...
(11:10:38) nirik: yes. It's complicated and confusing, and only to make things nicer for a non fedora env...
(11:11:02) rdieter: nirik: like el4? (:
(11:11:20) bakers [n=bakers]  entered the room.
(11:11:21) nirik: no, like ensc's minimal/embeded boxes with no SysVinit.
(11:11:55) tibbs: Some of the subpackages depend on things not in Fedora.
(11:12:12) nirik: tibbs: yeah, he had those commented.
(11:12:18) poolshark: rdieter: i don't mind stepping down as reviewer, but then still no tor in fedora...
(11:12:24) c4chris: I think the idea is: do not encourage competition, but allow it in some cases
(11:12:35) thl: c4chris, +1
(11:12:44) bpepple: c4chris: +1
(11:12:47) nirik: I also had email from the upstream tor that they didn't like that they would get support emails about the complexity of the package
(11:13:09) nirik: I think they posted in the bug too.
(11:13:09) rdieter: poolshark: so either someone else submit a better one, or someone else reviews the current submission.  it's the only way.
(11:13:22) tibbs: The "tons of subpackages" approach hasn't really worked well with clamav.
(11:13:43) ***nirik really dislikes the extras clamav package as well. ;(
(11:13:45) rdieter: tibbs: mostly because it (the packagine) was buggy (apparently).
(11:13:46) poolshark: rdieter: one was already submitted, but closed as duplicate. can it be reopened ?
(11:13:57) thl: poolshark, sure
(11:14:02) rdieter: poolshark: imo, yes, that's what we're saying here.
(11:14:09) poolshark: ty
(11:14:14) c4chris: poolshark, yup and add a small explanation
(11:14:18) nirik: poolshark: does the submitter still want to submit it? might ping them?
(11:14:31) tibbs: I think the submitter is here.
(11:14:39) abadger1999: ugh.  But what happens if someone starts reviewing ensc's version again?
(11:14:39) poolshark: nirik: will do (Paul Wouters)
(11:14:45) abadger1999: And seems to agree with him?
(11:14:56) abadger1999: First through the post wins does not seem very ideal...
(11:15:07) tibbs: No-rules cage match.
(11:15:14) c4chris: abadger1999, ah well... in this case we'll have to vote here
(11:15:16) nirik: poolshark: might also cc the tor upstream? their rpm guy wanted to submit, but didn't because it was already there?
(11:15:18) poolshark: after 10 monts, what are the odds ?
(11:15:26) poolshark: nirik: sure
(11:15:47) nirik: poolshark: thanks.
(11:15:50) rdieter: imo, if upstream wants to maintain it, that would be ideal.
(11:16:00) abadger1999: Hell, if we just want tor in Extras, I'll review tor tonight.
(11:16:11) thl: abadger1999, then do that
(11:16:19) thl: poolshark, can you wait one more week?
(11:16:28) abadger1999: I don't mind ensc's split package aproach -- don't know if there's other things I'd dislike though...
(11:16:32) thl: give abadger1999 and ensc some time for it
(11:16:33) poolshark: thl: sure
(11:16:38) nirik: poolshark: Paul Wouters is the upstream rpm maintainer.
(11:16:56) thl: poolshark, tia
(11:17:01) thl: k, so let's move on
(11:17:13) abadger1999: For the future, I think we need to figure out how to evaluate something that's better, technically, though...
(11:17:24) warren: ensc is being unreasonable
(11:17:27) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress --  "current-branches"
(11:17:40) c4chris: just add the file
(11:17:42) abadger1999: poolshark: Which person are you?  I'll send you an email if I think the review's going to hang up on something else.
(11:17:49) ensc: warren: I hate such metadiscussions which does not provide a single argument
(11:18:08) warren: ensc your arguments are based on inconveniencing you vs. everyone else.
(11:18:31) thl: c4chris, --verbose ?
(11:18:39) warren: That is my only thought.  I don't care about this package personally.
(11:18:40) ensc: there is no policy regarding it and I do not accept "everybody else it doing it so"
(11:18:48) ensc: I have good reason not to do it so
(11:18:52) c4chris: thl, just create the current-branches file
(11:19:12) thl: c4chris, for what purpose?
(11:19:16) c4chris: (I thought that was the topic)
(11:19:33) c4chris: <cweyl> thl: I'd like to add a "current-branches" file to common
(11:19:59) ***thl confused cweyl and c4chris -- sorry
(11:20:03) c4chris: to list which of the branches are current
(11:20:16) c4chris: thl, np
(11:20:38) thl: I still fail to see the purpose for it -- sorry
(11:20:48) ***thl seems to lack context
(11:20:49) warren: "current" meaning what?
(11:20:51) c4chris: cweyl, ?
(11:21:08) thl: cweyl seems to be afk
(11:21:15) c4chris: I think he wanted an automatic way to get the currently maintained FC branches
(11:21:27) c4chris: currently FC5 and devel
(11:21:28) thl: I think we can wait another week with this
(11:21:36) c4chris: thl, right
(11:21:44) thl has changed the topic to: FESCO Meeting in progress -- anything else?
(11:21:47) bakers: Does anyone here use xchat?
(11:22:08) nirik: bakers: yes, but you might wait to ask questions until the meeting is over. ;)
(11:22:08) c4chris: thl, nope
(11:22:09) bakers: I'm trying to script it to auto send my password when I connect
(11:22:13) ***thl will close the meeting in 45
(11:22:44) thl: bakers, see nirik's comment (or just look into the freenode faq)
(11:22:52) ***thl will close the meeting in 15
(11:22:58) nirik: bakers: yeah, see the freenode faq. It has instructions.
(11:23:09) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting over
(11:23:27) thl: thx everyone
(11:23:31) c4chris: thl, thx
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060921"