2006 October 26 FESCo Meeting
- Approved the proposal: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EnhanceAWOL?action=diff&rev2=7&rev1=4
- Will discuss on fedora-extras-list whether to add a note about (non-mandatory) trying to track people down through other channels.
- warren to help create the new EL4 and EL5 branch so dgilmore can start branching packages.
Packaging Committee Report
- This is the first week that the packaging committee was able to meet on Tuesday and discuss things before the FESCo meeting.
- Future minutes of the meetings will be sent to the fedora-maintainers[AT] redhat.com list.
- FESCo had no objections to the proposals at this time.
- FESCo agrees to approve requests to include static libraries for packages in Extras.
- Steven Pritchard (silug) and Paul F. Johnson (pfj aka nodoid) to be discussed on the sponsors list. bpepple will send out proposals.
- Need to document what the criteria is.
- This week we'd like to have sponsors add their ideas for criteria to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorCriteria
- Discussion about the list that gets compiled on that page can take place on fedora-extras-list.
- Ralf Corsepius's point about some sponsors not being qualified when accepted should be discussed on the list.
- Warren is still working on the proposal for alternative paths to membership (besides package submission/review).
- Adminstratively, the list has been approved for creation.
- jkeating has expressed concerns that having another list won't help. Core maintainers are disregarding fedora-maintainers for reasons that can't be solved by having another list.
- ATM, Core maintainers would not be subscribed to (or required to subscribe to) a maintainers-announce list.
- Concern expressed that having maintainer-announce-list without having Core maintainers subscribed will only lead to crossposting to maintainer-announce and maintainers; defeating part of the purpose.
- Problem with maintainers-list is that currently not all Extras Maintainers are on maintainer-list. If we want that to be successful we need to automate adding maintainers to the list from the account system.
- Some people feel maintainers is starting to have "too much" discussion.
- There seems to be agreement that a moderated announce list with all maintainers from Core and Extras subscribed would have real value. Many people feel there is value even if Core maintainers do not subscribe.
- Decided to talk to jkeating about this and get back to this next week.
Core + Extras Merge
- Internal face-to-face Red Hat meeting on Nov 12th-15th will hopefully resolve most of the non-technical hurdles to this.
- Helping to build and test the next generation VCS (of which, f13's Mercurial repo is the most promising) is looking like the best way to help out on the technical end.
- We didn't push comps for FC-6 yet because of problems in the scripts to generate it.
- mschwendt sent email about fixing things so "make comps" works again.
- svr-core is a package necessary for Fedora Directory Server. It only builds static libraries.
- We are upstream.
- warren talked the Fedora Directory Server team into making it build shared libraries as well.
- Some arguments have been added to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MaintainerResponsibilityPolicy from the email threads.
- It was brought up that some of this may be in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/EOL
- Some of Policy/EOL was contentious at that time as well and some people think that certain clauses there were written to allow maintaining for older releases by primary packagers to be optional.
- Proposal to get options from Extras Maintainers and then run a vote for which option to go with. Since the packagers are doing the work, it makes sense to let them decide.
- Current options:
1. Maintain FE as long as Legacy maintains FC. 2. Maintain FE as long as Active Core releases. Drop thereafter (currently, <= FC4). 3. Primary packagers maintain as long as Active Core releases, an Extras Legacy Team maintains thereafter.
Changes to the Meeting Summary
- mschwendt has some ideas for improving post-meeting summaries:
- The main goal seems to be to make it easier to understand what each FESCo member is trying to accomplish.
- This is important as FESCo is a representative elected body. Knowing what FESCo members will vote for allows us to decide who we will vote for in future FESCo elections.
- Concern was expressed that more formal voting might hinder getting things done.
- Most people like the enhancements to the FESCo meeting summary he proposes but no one feels they have the time to implement them.
(09:59:57) ***warren here. (10:00:04) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- init (10:00:07) ***bpepple__ is here. (10:00:10) ***jima (rabble) here (10:00:13) sankarshan [n=sankarsh] entered the room. (10:00:17) thl: hi everyone! (10:00:22) jima: hi thl! (10:00:23) tibbs: Howdy. (10:00:31) thl: seems freenode has some problems today (10:00:37) jima: thl: quite. (10:00:45) thl: well, hopefully we can run our meeting nevertheless (10:00:53) thl: who's around? (10:00:54) jima: everyone put on your water wings! (10:01:24) warren: cool... looks like fedora directory server is close to being packagable (10:01:31) jima: oooOOOooo (10:01:33) c4chris: hey gang (10:01:36) warren: I'm trying to direct them to go through an Extras package review (10:01:47) rdieter: warren: +1 (: (10:01:48) ***thl counts warren, tibbs, c4chris , scop, bpepple (10:01:50) rdieter: here. (10:01:52) ***thl counts warren, tibbs, c4chris , scop, bpepple, rdieter (10:01:58) ***abadger1999 here (10:01:58) jima: warren: that seems like a good approach. (10:02:02) ***thl counts warren, tibbs, c4chris , scop, bpepple, rdieter, abadger1999 (10:02:03) ***spot is here, but "supposed" to be training (10:02:12) ***scop wakes up (10:02:22) thl: well, then let's start slowly (10:02:33) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Enterprise Extras (10:02:37) thl: ping mmcgrath, dgilmore (10:02:39) ***spot can multitask. :) (10:02:40) thl: any news? (10:02:52) ***cweyl is here, in his rabble seat (10:03:17) ***thl will move on for now and get back to EPEL later (10:03:28) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Enhance AWOL (10:03:59) thl: that's the diff afaics http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EnhanceAWOL?action=diff&rev2=7&rev1=4 (10:04:19) thl: bpepple, do we need to wait for further discussion on the list? (10:04:28) nman64 [n=n-man] entered the room. (10:04:29) bpepple__: I don't think so. (10:04:47) thl: well, we get further enhance it at any time if we want to (10:04:55) rdieter: worksforme. (10:05:02) thl: so everything fine with http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EnhanceAWOL?action=diff&rev2=7&rev1=4 ? (10:05:08) tibbs: Fine with me. (10:05:09) spot: looks good to me. (10:05:10) rdieter: fine: +1 (10:05:11) c4chris: yup (10:05:15) bpepple__: +1 (10:05:24) tibbs: The only issue that was brought up is whether we should try to track folks down. (10:05:26) bpepple left the room (quit: Connection timed out). (10:05:37) tibbs: I don't think that anyone should assume that we will, (10:05:43) tibbs: although it never hurts us to try. (10:05:47) bpepple__ is now known as bpepple (10:06:11) thl: well, do we want to add a quick note that "try to track folks down on other ways can't hurt"? (10:06:25) jima: maybe a SHOULD, but not a MUST? (10:06:33) abadger1999: track down as in find phone numbers, ask if anyone knows them personally, google the web, etc? (10:06:37) thl: jima, I'd consider that a "should" (10:06:42) tibbs: Not even a SHOULD. (10:06:47) tibbs: IMHO, of course. (10:06:48) thl: tibbs, agreed (10:06:56) thl: abadger1999, "google the web" (10:06:59) c4chris: NOTE +1 (10:07:13) tibbs: People should not assume that we will try to track them down. (10:07:15) dgilmore: thl: waiting on cvs branches (10:07:29) rdieter: COULD, MAYBE, SORTA-KINDA? (: (note++) (10:07:40) thl: dgilmore, are you around for some minutes? then well get back to it soon thl thomasvs (10:07:42) c4chris: tibbs, agreed (10:07:43) spot: IFBORED (10:07:53) dgilmore: thl: i should be (10:07:58) bpepple: Personally, I don't think it's really worth even adding to the page. (10:08:01) thl: I'd say we aceeppt the policy as it is (10:08:11) thl: and work out a small add on note during the week (10:08:16) thl: and add it next week (10:08:18) thl: okay? (10:08:19) tibbs: +1 (10:08:21) rdieter: ok (10:08:21) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:08:23) c4chris: +1 (10:08:24) spot: +1 (10:08:24) scop: ok (10:08:24) abadger1999: +1 (10:08:30) thl: bpepple, tibbs, can you work out that small note? (10:08:34) bpepple: Sure. (10:08:37) tibbs: OK. (10:08:38) thl: bpepple, can you move the new policy in place? (10:08:45) bpepple: Yup. (10:08:48) thl: k, thx (10:08:56) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Enterprise Extras (10:09:02) thl: dgilmore, what are we waiting for? (10:09:17) thl: dgilmore, I thought jeremy allowed the branches now (10:09:25) thl: so why can you or mmcgrath just create them? (10:09:26) dgilmore: thl: we are waiting on jeremy to do cvs branches so we can test builds (10:09:43) dgilmore: thl: we dont have the acl's to do that (10:10:13) warren: cvs branches on cvs.fedora? (10:10:16) warren: I can do it. (10:10:32) warren: branch what dist to what dist? (10:10:32) bpepple_ left the room (quit: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). (10:10:42) c4chris: warren, tag, you'te the wolf now :-) (10:10:47) thl: dgilmore, can you sort that out with jeremy and warren please? (10:10:53) warren: are these branches in /cvs/extras ? (10:10:54) thl: dgilmore, poke them once a day please (10:10:56) dgilmore: warren: we need a new dist of EL4 and EL5 (10:11:04) dgilmore: warren: yeah (10:11:05) thl: until we got the early steps done (10:11:13) dgilmore: thl: will do (10:11:14) ***thl is getting impatient (10:11:19) thl: dgilmore, thx (10:11:20) warren: FC-3 -> RHEL-4 FC-6 -> RHEL-5? (10:11:35) thl: warren, yes (10:11:36) dgilmore: warren: not really (10:11:41) thl: but only for package we request it for (10:11:48) dgilmore: warren: its not a wholesale branching (10:11:53) warren: give me a list then? (10:12:01) thl: warren, dgilmore will (10:12:05) warren: k (10:12:23) warren: but... dgilmore being one of the top infrastructure people should theoretically have access to this already... (10:12:26) thl: k, anything else regarding epel that needs to be discussed? (10:12:53) craigt left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (10:13:06) thl: dgilmore ? (10:13:13) dgilmore: warren: mmcgrath and I could do it as we have root on the box but did not want to as our users dont have the rights to do it (10:13:24) dgilmore: thl: i have nothing further to add (10:13:33) thl: k (10:13:56) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report (10:14:06) warren: dgilmore, we'll fix that problem too then. (10:14:08) thl: anythin we need to discuss from the report? (10:14:21) thl: I can#t see anything (10:14:26) c4chris: sounded all sane to me (10:14:32) ***thl will move on soon (10:14:38) tibbs: One point. (10:15:03) tibbs: Does FESCo want to decide on the acceptability of -static packages? (10:15:27) thl: well, someone should decide afaics (10:15:31) tibbs: Our idea was that when a package came up for review, the committee would consider it as they (we) do with kmods now. (10:15:46) dgilmore: tibbs: fesco or packaging committee should decide (10:15:54) tibbs: It's pretty rare to see packages where folks want static libs, but it does happen. (10:15:55) thl: tibbs, I think that's okay; but why can't the packaging committee handle that, too? (10:16:12) tibbs: Because it's really an extras issue, not a PC issue. (10:16:21) tibbs: Otherwise the PC could decide on kmods. (10:16:33) thl: point (10:16:38) thl: k, the FESCo decides (10:16:43) thl: okay for everybody? (10:16:51) c4chris: yup (10:16:51) thl: s/the/then/ (10:16:55) ***bpepple is fine with it. (10:17:04) dgilmore: sure (10:17:21) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Sponsorship nominations (10:17:24) tibbs: OK, we'll write that into the guideline. (10:17:25) warren: BTW, do we have any example compat-db packages? (10:17:43) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- compat (10:17:55) thl: warren, I don't think so (10:18:11) thl: warren, but please bring that up to the PC (10:18:20) thl: warren, that okay? (10:18:23) warren: k (10:18:28) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Sponsorship nominations (10:18:39) thl: k, listed in the wiki are nominations for (10:18:42) thl: * (10:18:42) thl: Paul F. Johnson (pfj/nodoid) (10:18:42) thl: * (10:18:42) thl: Steven Pritchard (steve aka silug) (10:18:54) thl: but they didn't get forwareded to the list iirc (10:19:06) ***c4chris didn't see any discussion on the sponsors list (10:19:18) thl: I don't think we should discuss tnem here without a discussion on the sponsors list (10:19:25) bpepple: thl: Agreed. (10:19:27) rdieter: thl: +1 (10:19:29) c4chris: right (10:19:38) thl: does anyone want to propose them on the list? (10:19:45) thl: or better: (10:19:54) thl: can anybody please propose them on the list? (10:19:59) bpepple: I can. (10:20:03) thl: bpepple, thx (10:20:09) thl: any other nominations? (10:20:49) thl: tibbs, btw, last week you said something like "I'm not certain what our criterias for sponsors are" (10:20:52) thl: tibbs, I agree (10:20:57) thl: that needs to be documented (10:21:06) thl: but nobody did that yet (10:21:10) spot: must pay spot $500 US. (10:21:19) thl: and that a typical issue where someone just needs to start it (10:21:59) thl: red hat pays spot probably more the $500 (but not for work on Extras) (10:22:28) abadger1999: I take it you think "Must understand packaging for Fedora" is too vague? (10:22:45) thl: abadger1999, well, I prefer easy rules (10:22:46) tibbs: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorCriteria ? (10:22:50) dgilmore: spot: i think they should pay me that $500 (10:22:53) ***spot wishes rhat would pay me $500 per package. ;) (10:22:55) tibbs: Kind of slim at the moment, though... (10:22:57) thl: but we probably need a extended version, too (10:24:08) thl: well, maybe everynbody can add some thougs to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorCriteria until next week (10:24:22) tibbs: The only criteria I have ever looked at is the number of quality reviews done. (10:24:30) thl: abadger1999, please mention in the summarie that sponsors are invided to post some ideas on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorCriteria, too (10:24:43) thl: tibbs, summary (10:24:45) abadger1999: thl: k. (10:24:46) c4chris: one bullet point each :-) (10:24:47) thl: bah (10:24:50) thl: tibbs, sorry (10:25:02) thl: abadger1999, thx (10:25:03) tibbs: I don't know what the other criteria should be, so folks with different opinions should add them to that page. (10:25:25) thl: tibbs, having a "good feeling" is important, too IMHO (10:26:01) thl: k, anything else regarding sponsoring? (10:26:08) thl: no other nominations? (10:26:13) sankarshan left the room (quit: "/me goes off to take a break"). (10:26:24) tibbs: Should we discuss Ralf's comment on extras-list? (10:26:51) thl: tibbs, well, here and now: probably no (10:26:58) thl: tibbs, on the list: if you want to, sure (10:27:46) thl: discussing them here and now without preparation will take a lot of time (10:27:51) tibbs: Well, I surely don't want to. But it is a valid topic for discussion. (10:28:00) thl: tibbs, but if there is a special point from hist mail now: shoot (10:28:01) tibbs: I'm happy to do that elsewhere so we can move on. (10:28:04) warren: Sorry folks, I meant to write proposals to define alternative paths of membership advancement... (10:28:39) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- MISC (10:28:50) thl: warren, np, as long as you don#t forget about it (10:29:03) thl: warren, I'll add it somewhere to the schedule to make sure it does not get forgotten (10:29:09) warren: I'm working on the fedora directory server guys currently... (10:29:14) warren: thl, thanks (10:29:17) warren: keep pressure on me on this. (10:29:18) thl: warren, but I'd be more interested in: what's the status of maintainer-announce-list ? (10:29:30) warren: I don't remember this at all (10:29:33) warren: what is this? (10:29:46) thl: ohhh boy... (10:29:49) warren: oh wait (10:29:53) thl: warren, let's talk after the meeting (10:29:55) ***thl waits (10:30:00) warren: we created it, but it was rejected for Core (10:30:05) warren: I remember now (10:30:12) warren: I have to figure out where I got stuck (10:30:22) thl: rejected? why that? (10:30:25) ***rdieter remembers too. jkeating squashed it. (: (10:30:41) thl: why? (10:30:45) warren: I don't exactly agree with jkeating on this (10:30:58) thl: well, maintainer-list doesn't work anymore (10:31:02) warren: jkeating thinks that core maintainers need to be paying better attention in general, and yet another list wont help. (10:31:04) thl: so we need something better (10:31:09) warren: I agree. (10:31:17) ***spot has a board with a rusty nail in it (10:31:18) warren: I think maintainer-announce-list is fine for Extras (10:31:37) warren: I'll move forward on this, thanks for the reminder. (10:31:47) thl: warren, k (10:31:59) abadger1999: If maintainer-announce is only for Extras, does it help? (10:32:08) rdieter: imo, not really. (10:32:13) thl: abadger1999, a bit (10:32:16) abadger1999: Because then we have to crosspost to maintainers and maintainers-announce (10:32:24) abadger1999: if we realy want to hit all maintainers. (10:32:30) dgilmore: there is way too much cross posting now (10:32:32) thl: abadger1999, but not all extras maintainers are on maintainers-list (10:32:32) spot: abadger1999: +1 thl thomasvs (10:32:41) thl: and I can understand that (10:32:42) spot: thl: thats the problem we need to fix. :) (10:32:50) rdieter: spot++ (10:32:55) thl: there is to much discussion these days (10:32:56) abadger1999: spot: +1 (10:33:20) thl: well, how to fix it? (10:33:24) rdieter: part of the problem is that there's too much discusion on maintainers that *should* be done elsewhere more appropriate. (10:33:28) tibbs: Someone should define what is on-topic for maintainers-list. (10:33:40) c4chris: maintainers is pretty low traffic IMHO (10:33:42) thl: tibbs, that won't help as long as it's unmoderated (10:34:11) thl: c4chris, still to much for some poeple afaics (10:34:12) ***spot can easily keep up with maintainers, fedora-list, not so much. :) (10:34:13) tibbs: I believe it would help. Some people actually do pay attention to things like that. (10:34:37) c4chris: thl, :-( (10:34:46) ***thl still would like a moderated annouce list (10:35:00) thl: were everyone get's subscribed by a script (10:35:04) rdieter: why not moderate maintainers-list then? (10:35:06) thl: directly from the accounts system (10:35:11) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:35:17) abadger1999: thl: I agree where everyone includes Core people. (10:35:31) warren: Would this be a good time to ask about allowing a static library for directory server? (10:35:33) jima: and split off a maintainers-discussion list or something? (10:35:40) thl: let talk to mr jkeating and get back to it next week (10:35:43) spot: warren: *thwap* (10:35:44) thl: that okay for now? thl thomasvs (10:36:00) c4chris: thl, yes (10:36:03) abadger1999: thl: +1 (10:36:13) bpepple: thl: +1 (10:36:22) spot: +1 (10:36:24) thl: k (10:36:35) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Merge Core and Extras (10:36:46) thl: warren, jeremy, f13 , any news from the core cabal? (10:37:07) warren: thl, we have a meeting scheduled Oct 12th-15th with max, notting and greg coming to Westford. (10:37:16) thl: Oct? (10:37:16) lutter [i=dlutter] entered the room. (10:37:25) warren: There are a number of political considerations we have to beat in order to move forward, we can't discuss this in public. (10:37:30) warren: Oops (10:37:32) warren: November (10:37:45) thl: warren, k, then let's get back to them after that (10:37:47) spot: /msg warren be careful! they'll figure out we have the Red Hat Time Machine working again (10:37:55) warren: Meanwhile I think testing f13's mercurial based repo is a good step forward. (10:37:55) thl: e.g. in two week (10:38:03) thl: s (10:38:06) warren: spot, no, that was on hammer3 along with the orbital laser control panel. (10:38:20) jima: well, oct 12-15 is dec 10-13 (10:38:37) warren: May I ask this group's feelings about this? (10:38:39) warren: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 (10:38:40) thl: dec? quite late.... (10:38:43) warren: I don't know how to proceed. (10:39:08) warren: Final Word on Core + Extras merge: please help f13 on the mercurial based repo + plague tests. (10:39:15) thl: warren, can you post stuff like http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196393 to the list before the meeting? (10:39:25) thl: such stuff slows down the meeting a lot :-/ (10:39:35) Belegdol left the room (quit: "Leaving"). (10:39:40) warren: right... ok (10:39:54) thl: warren, thx (10:40:26) thl: so, let's move on (10:40:38) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion around extras (10:40:46) thl: Package Database ? (10:40:54) thl: ohh, wait (10:40:59) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- comps.xml (10:41:00) ***spot will believe it when i see it (10:41:08) thl: that stucks (10:41:23) thl: dgilmore, did we push a new comps.xml for FC6? (10:41:38) thl: c4chris and the contributors had a lot of work getting it up to date (10:41:49) dgilmore: thl: no i havent had a chance to work out why make comps is not working (10:41:49) f13: spot: believe what? (10:41:53) thl: and it seems we failed to push it from CVS to the repo (10:42:12) c4chris: dgilmore, I think the Makefile is fixed now (10:42:13) thl: dgilmore, did you see mschwendts comment? (10:42:15) spot: f13: in fairies, santa claus, or the Fedora Package Database. (10:42:23) f13: spot: ah. (10:42:25) dgilmore: c4chris:ok (10:42:33) dgilmore: thl: i missed them (10:42:57) thl: dgilmore, I also asked mschwendt if he could look into integrating pushing of comps.xml into the push scripts (10:43:05) thl: he did not respond yet (10:43:10) c4chris: dgilmore, we can have a little chat later about comps if you wish (10:43:13) thl: dgilmore, please take a look (10:43:18) dgilmore: thl: ok (10:43:23) dgilmore: c4chris: lets do that (10:43:35) thl: dgilmore, otherwies support for installing Extrsa directly from anaconda is a bit useless (10:43:49) dgilmore: thl: yup i fully agree. (10:43:59) thl: dgilmore, thx (10:44:10) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion around extras (10:44:18) thl: well, remaining things on the schedule: (10:44:22) thl: Package Database (10:44:30) thl: Comaintainership (10:44:38) thl: Maintainer Responsibility Policy (10:44:45) thl: Feature support in Extras (10:44:54) tibbs: Some new stuff in the responsibility policy page today. (10:44:56) warren: My static question? I need opinions. (10:45:02) warren: tibbs, URL? (10:45:04) abadger1999: I added to the Maintainer Responsibility Policy just before the meeting. (10:45:04) spot: warren: i say no. (10:45:20) tibbs: I think after a bit more stweing it should be ready to discuss. (10:45:20) spot: their reason for static libs is essentially "because we're lazy" (10:45:25) abadger1999: warren: Are we upstream? (10:45:27) bpepple: abadger1999: Yeah, I saw that. (10:45:37) bpepple: abadger1999: Isn (10:45:44) rdieter: spot: +1, can they at least make an attempt at non static libs? (10:45:53) warren: spot, I think so. (10:45:57) bpepple: abadger1999: Isn't that bit already decided in the EOL policy? (10:46:03) spot: not a valid reason, IMHO. (10:46:04) tibbs: warren: I like the last comment on that review ticket. (10:46:11) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Maintainer Responsibility Policy (10:46:42) thl: bpepple, it is in the EOL policy iirc (10:46:53) spot: warren: "we hope to have other apps use it in the future" should be a motivator to do it right (shared) (10:46:58) thl: bpepple, but it seem people didn't like the current scheme (10:47:27) abadger1999: What's in EOL where? (10:47:34) abadger1999: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/PackageEndOfLife (10:47:38) bpepple: abadger1999: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/EOL (10:47:45) warren: Could you please post your comments in that report? (10:47:52) abadger1999: bpepple: Let me check there :-) (10:48:47) thl: quiet quiet.... (10:48:58) thl: it it worth discussing here and now? (10:48:59) abadger1999: yeah -- 1) Not everyone agrees with it. (10:49:09) ***thl waits for abadger1999 (10:49:21) bpepple: Probably we should discuss it on the FESCO list. (10:49:32) abadger1999: 2) ISTR when it was drafted, the "security response team" portion was meant to catch when packagers didn't want to do this. (10:49:40) thl: bpepple, or directly on f-e-l (10:49:48) abadger1999: So it's more optional, rather than a "You must maintain for legacy releases" (10:49:51) bpepple: that's fine. (10:50:04) abadger1999: thl: +1 f-e-l (10:50:23) thl: abadger1999, someone just nees to start a discussion there (10:50:42) ***thl is to busy with other stuff (10:50:49) thl: I also somehow like the curret status (10:50:55) abadger1999: k. Last time I threw it out on f-e-l people wanted it in the wiki instead... (10:51:05) thl: Currently it's not that easy to get rid of packages for older dists (10:51:08) abadger1999: I'll throw it onto the list again, though. (10:51:26) thl: if it would be easy then a lot of packages would dump FC3 and FC4 now (10:51:42) thl: so in other words we wouldn't have anything for FC3 and FC4 (10:51:42) abadger1999: then maybe we should. (10:51:58) tibbs: I think the point is that they already have dumped those releases. (10:52:18) tibbs: Sometimes it takes a bit of coersion to get folks to push a fix to FC4 or FC3. (10:52:23) thl: tibbs, well, that's okay for me as long as there are no security problem (10:52:39) tibbs: scop has been doing some coersion lately. (10:52:58) tibbs: Actually it's mostly scop keeping up with Extras security issues these days. (10:53:20) thl: well, the alternative is to officially EOL FE3 and FE4 (10:53:48) thl: or give a small number of contributors free hand in FE3 and FE4 if they are intersted to maintain it (10:53:53) abadger1999: thl: Perhaps we should ask f-e-l for options that maintainers can vote on. (10:54:03) bpepple: abadger1999: +1 (10:54:10) thl: abadger1999, vote? (10:54:29) thl: but yeah, why not (10:55:05) abadger1999: We've expressed three options so far: 1) Maintain as long as Legacy, 2) maintain as long as Active Core w/ EOL for previous 3) maintain as long as active core with an Extras Legacy team (10:55:26) abadger1999: For 2 or 3 there have to be packagers who are willing to do the work. (10:55:40) thl: and that will be problematic (10:55:40) xris [n=xris] entered the room. (10:55:43) abadger1999: So it makes sense to let the packagers decide which they want to do. (10:55:50) thl: sure (10:56:00) thl: well, let's stop with this topic today (10:56:06) thl: and bring it to f-e-l (10:56:22) abadger1999: k (10:56:25) thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- free discussion around Extras (10:56:30) thl: what elaes is left? (10:56:32) thl: else (10:56:39) Rathann [n=rathann] entered the room. (10:57:03) c4chris: nothing much here (10:57:04) thl: the proposal from mschwendt for the style of the meeting summaries/the vote parts? (10:57:06) abadger1999: warren, spot: the only thing about the static question I see is that we already let packages in with static libs (10:57:21) abadger1999: If upstream doesn't build dynamic libs. (10:57:31) c4chris: thl, let's see what jwb comes up with (10:57:42) thl: c4chris, k (10:57:47) c4chris: for the voting: not sure (10:57:48) spot: abadger1999: given that this is upstream, i think it is not unreasonable for us to be harder on them (10:57:53) abadger1999: If we're upstream then it complicates matters a little bit as we have the power to make the change at the correct level. (10:58:05) spot: also, making shared libs for most items is not terribly difficult (10:58:13) ***spot has done it for several of his packages (10:58:51) thl: well, we're slowing down (10:58:55) spot: and... if upstream doesn't want to do shared libs, they presumably have a good reason (10:59:00) thl: seems we discussed all the important things for today (10:59:06) ***thl will close the meeting in 60 (10:59:06) c4chris: I'm not sure having +1 and -1 votes is really that much different from having +1 and 0 (10:59:10) dgilmore: spot: as its a Fedora/Red Hat product is all the more reason to push the issue and force shared libs c4chris c4chris|w (10:59:30) abadger1999: c4chris: I think he wants to just have summaries. (10:59:39) abadger1999: So you can tell what someone's "voting record" is. (10:59:44) thl: c4chris, I think abadger1999 is withgt with that (10:59:50) thl: abadger1999, I'm okay with that (10:59:51) spot: yeah, how else can we make negative campaign ads? (10:59:59) thl: abadger1999, but it should not make the meeting more complicated (11:00:02) c4chris: abadger1999, oh right, that part (11:00:03) abadger1999: I like mschwendt's ideas but don't have the time to really implement them :-( (11:00:14) thl: abadger1999, that's the problem with the idea (11:00:16) spot: "spot voted against static libs. is this a man you want deciding your children's edutainment?" (11:00:21) thl: someone has to do the work (11:00:29) jima: spot: oh god, not more of those (11:00:30) thl: and writing summaries is quite hard already (11:00:31) c4chris: thl, exactly (11:00:41) ***jima tried watching tv last night. what a mistake! (11:00:46) thl: abadger1999, thx for writing them normally (11:00:47) warren: abadger1999, I'm winning them over to make this into a dynamic lib, because they are upstream. (11:00:51) dgilmore: spot: you have paid way to much attention at the upcoming Illinois election (11:00:57) ***rdieter likes my tivo more and more everyday. (11:00:59) thl: abadger1999, many thanks acutally (11:01:07) bpepple: abadger1999: +1 (11:01:08) abadger1999: warren: Cool. (11:01:15) jima: rdieter: sadly, we were watching something live. an activity i hate more and more every day. (11:01:19) ***abadger1999 remembers the times before libtool and shudders. (11:01:28) ***jima applauds abadger1999 on his reports. :) (11:01:47) dgilmore: spot: "dgilmore voted against static libs. Whats he thinking?" (11:01:49) abadger1999: heh sorry I've been so late in getting them out lately (night before the next meeting) (11:01:50) ***thl will close the meeting in 60 (second try) (11:02:15) ***spot goes back to paying attention to his training course (11:02:24) ***thl will close the meeting in 30 (second (11:02:29) ***thl will close the meeting in 30 (11:02:56) ***thl will close the meeting in 10 (11:03:06) thl: -- MARK -- Meeting End