Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20061102

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

2006 October 26 FESCo Meeting

Members

Present

Absent

Summary

Enhance AWOL

EPEL

Packaging Committee Report

Misc

Maintainer Announce

Core + Extras Merge

comps.xml

Static Libraries

Maintainer Responsibilities

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

Log 

(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
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20061102"