| *** tibbs sets the channel topic to "Packaging Committee Meeting".
| 12:00
|
| * Rathann present
| 12:00
|
| * tibbs here
| 12:00
|
| * spot is here
| 12:01
|
| racor
| i am here, have ca. 15 mins time.
| 12:01
|
| spot
| racor: thanks for coming
| 12:02
|
| tibbs
| rdieter, abadger1999: ping
| 12:02
|
| rdieter
| here
| 12:02
|
| tibbs
| Anyone else I missed?
| 12:02
|
| --> delero has joined this channel (n=denis@AMontsouris-156-1-79-180.w90-24.abo.wanadoo.fr).
| 12:03
|
| abadger1999
| here
| 12:03
|
| delero
| here
| 12:03
|
| tibbs
| That's seven.
| 12:03
|
| spot
| we're missing hans and Xavier
| 12:04
|
| spot
| but hey, quorum. :)
| 12:04
|
| abadger1999
| Woo hoo :-)
| 12:04
|
| spot
| okay, first order of business, the drafts that i sent around via email
| 12:04
|
| spot
| some of you voted over email, thanks.
| 12:04
|
| spot
| however, some of you did not
| 12:04
|
| tibbs
| I saw five sets of votes including my own.
| 12:05
|
| spot
| yep.
| 12:05
|
| * Rathann wonders why the members list link on FPC wikipage points nowhere
| 12:05
|
| abadger1999
| Haskell +1, Lisp: +1, fonts.... I'd like to know if the fonts sig will enforce those if we vote 0.
| 12:05
|
| spot
| delero: would you like to vote?
| 12:06
|
| spot
| we have votes for everyone else
| 12:06
|
| Rathann
| abadger1999: or at least how much work it is to enforce that
| 12:06
|
| * rdieter just sent email minutes ago, in short, I +1'd all of them (including fonts).
| 12:06
|
| tibbs
| Rathann: Probably more damage from the conversion. I keep cleaning things up but there's always something else.
| 12:06
|
| delero
| i went over them, +1 for me for all 3
| 12:06
|
| tibbs
| There were four.
| 12:07
|
| Rathann
| but two were about fonts and related
| 12:07
|
| tibbs
| True. But two separate proposals.
| 12:07
|
| Rathann
| yup
| 12:07
|
| spot
| okay, haskell and lisp clearly pass
| 12:08
|
| Rathann
| which is why I should add my vote for font bundles: 0
| 12:08
|
| spot
| On the Lisp draft, the following comments were made:
| 12:08
|
| abadger1999
| I like both the font proposals. If the fonts-sig is going to enforce them anyways 9as part of a SIG best practice) then I have even more reason to vote +1.
| 12:08
|
| spot
| Needs adding an ASDF system definition file template (or link to syntax).
| 12:08
|
| spot
| needs to add an empty %build to his spec template
| 12:09
|
| tibbs
| I think the link at the bottom should suffice.
| 12:09
|
| delero
| i'm ok with the font bundling proposal as well, +1 from me
| 12:09
|
| spot
| my concern around the font bundling proposal is that they were drafted specifically to prevent texlive
| 12:09
|
| abadger1999
| spot: Err... specifically in response to texlive.
| 12:09
|
| spot
| yes, rather.
| 12:10
|
| spot
| while i think that texlive is a clear exception to that guideline
| 12:10
|
| Rathann
| I wonder how much work it would be for texlive packager to adapt texlive to follow that guidline
| 12:10
|
| tibbs
| Well, texlive does need cleanup.
| 12:10
|
| racor
| my concern is that fonts are being bundled with other sources, whatever the font sig wants doesn't change much about it
| 12:11
|
| tibbs
| But it's going to have to evolve in that direction.
| 12:11
|
| rdieter
| grandfather'd exception for texlive, +1 (that doesn't mean that efforts to fix it shouldn't happen)
| 12:11
|
| Rathann
| if it's doable in reasonable time, then I'd vote +1 on both font proposals
| 12:11
|
| tibbs
| I think the "no bundling of fonts" proposal is simply unworkable.
| 12:11
|
| tibbs
| If I have a game or something that has a simple bitmap font in its own internal format.
| 12:12
|
| Rathann
| hmm
| 12:12
|
| Rathann
| good point
| 12:12
|
| tibbs
| It's a "font" according to the guideline, but I doubt there's going to be any call to split it.
| 12:12
|
| spot
| ok, lets vote on the font bundles proposal first (with an exception for texlive for the time being)
| 12:12
|
| racor
| -1
| 12:13
|
| tibbs
| -1
| 12:13
|
| rdieter
| +1
| 12:13
|
| spot
| this is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles
| 12:13
|
| abadger1999
| +1
| 12:13
|
| tibbs
| I also have to wonder why fonts are special here.
| 12:14
|
| Rathann
| tibbs: because they can be used by other apps?
| 12:14
|
| tibbs
| The arguments work for more than just fonts.
| 12:14
|
| spot
| well, to be fair, we don't generally permit multiple software items from multiple sources to live in the same srpm
| 12:15
|
| abadger1999
| tibbs: That's true. I could go for a more general rule.
| 12:15
|
| racor
| Rathann: Many files can be used by other apps (shared libs, images, sound, movies ...)
| 12:15
|
| rdieter
| tibbs: good point, there's currently a best-practice/unwritten rule already about separate sources => separate pkgs.
| 12:15
|
| abadger1999
| But that doesn't eliminate my +1 for the subset :-)
| 12:15
|
| tibbs
| I don't know if everyone saw my suggested alternative.
| 12:15
|
| rdieter
| tibbs: please refresh our memory.
| 12:15
|
| tibbs
| I would
| 12:16
|
| tibbs
| consider it it were distilled to a simple strong suggestion that separate
| 12:16
|
| tibbs
| upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package. I
| 12:16
|
| tibbs
| believe that's an unwritten rule already.
| 12:16
|
| spot
| tibbs: "a simple strong suggestion that separate upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package."
| 12:16
|
| tibbs
| But I don't want to derail the current vote. I can write a proposal later.
| 12:16
|
| rdieter
| I can totally support that.
| 12:16
|
| spot
| i'm much more in favor of that
| 12:16
|
| Rathann
| 0 unless a list of font formats to which this guideline is applicable is supplied (+1 then)
| 12:16
|
| abadger1999
| tibbs: I'd love to have that written down rather than unwritten.
| 12:16
|
| delero
| strictly enforcing it on existing packages is going to be tough, especially on dormant projects where the fedora packager has become the ad-hoc maintainer
| 12:17
|
| abadger1999
| Although textlive, for instance, has already brought issues up wrt that :-(
| 12:17
|
| Rathann
| tibbs has a good point about bundled fonts that could not be used system-wide
| 12:17
|
| tibbs
| Enforcing anything on existing packages has always proven difficult.
| 12:17
|
| delero
| pstoedit is an example, it ships with an old bitmap font
| 12:17
|
| abadger1999
| as texlive is an upstream but is also a conglomeration of other upstreams, how does the rule apply?
| 12:17
|
| abadger1999
| I don't need that answered now, just saying that question has already been raised.
| 12:18
|
| Rathann
| also, it doesn't always make sense to make some obscure fonts (symbol fonts, incomplete fonts) visible system-wide
| 12:18
|
| spot
| I think that we should say something like "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package."
| 12:18
|
| rdieter
| I'd say let's ask for the current bundles draft to strike paragraph 1, pending a more general soon-to-come guideline.
| 12:19
|
| Rathann
| so while I agree with the guideline in the spirit, it needs to allow for common sense and not be as strict
| 12:19
|
| abadger1999
| I just got a call. I have an electrician coming out to the house and will have to leave when he gets here.
| 12:19
|
| delero
| Rathann: +1
| 12:19
|
| rdieter
| Rathann: I read it that way already, it says SHOULD
| 12:19
|
| Rathann
| ah
| 12:20
|
| Rathann
| right, the last paragraph of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages clears it up a bit
| 12:20
|
| Rathann
| but I'd limit it to what I suggested above
| 12:21
|
| racor
| i think paragraphs 2+3 should be striked. They attempt to special case something which isn't a special case.
| 12:21
|
| Rathann
| i.e. not only general-purpose formats but general usability
| 12:21
|
| tibbs
| rdieter: The Packaging font bundles proposal doesn't seem to say SHOULD. Lots of MUSTs there.
| 12:21
|
| rdieter
| I'm reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles , which includes MUST only in paragraph 1, which I think we've all agreed needs to be stricken anyway
| 12:22
|
| spot
| with two -1, and one 0, there is no way that "Packaging_font_bundles" can pass
| 12:22
|
| rdieter
| the only must remaining is the licensing bit, but maybe that's not required hee
| 12:22
|
| tibbs
| Email from Xavier: he'll be a bit late.
| 12:22
|
| Rathann
| does "packaged separately" mean a totally separate package or can it be a subpackage?
| 12:22
|
| Rathann
| hm looks like the former
| 12:23
|
| rdieter
| Rathann: I read that as either
| 12:23
|
| tibbs
| I read it as "totally separate package".
| 12:23
|
| racor
| source or binary package?
| 12:23
|
| rdieter
| sorry. context matters. ignore me
| 12:23
|
| tibbs
| Otherwise arguments about separate upstream release cycles and such make no sense.
| 12:23
|
| racor
| demanding a separate source package is silly
| 12:23
|
| spot
| can we vote on adding "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." to the main guidelines?
| 12:23
|
| rdieter
| spot: +1 to that
| 12:23
|
| Rathann
| spot: +1
| 12:23
|
| delero
| spot: +1
| 12:23
|
| tibbs
| Will we need to discuss exemptions?
| 12:24
|
| racor
| -1, superflous not of any importance
| 12:24
|
| tibbs
| Circular dependencies was always an interesting one to me.
| 12:24
|
| tibbs
| +1
| 12:24
|
| spot
| +1 from me
| 12:24
|
| tibbs
| racor: What existing guideline does this duplicate?
| 12:24
|
| Rathann
| it may be common sense, but common sense is sometimes most difficult to follow ;)
| 12:25
|
| spot
| with a +5, it passes
| 12:25
|
| spot
| now, it seems like we might be able to reword the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to make it more sensible
| 12:25
|
| abadger1999
| Would it be better to phrase it as a MUST? ie: any package which bundles multiple separate upstream projects MUST justify that decision?
| 12:26
|
| racor
| tibbs: this sentence is a waste of text - whether this sentence is presence or not doesn't change anything
| 12:26
|
| tibbs
| I don't follow your argument.
| 12:26
|
| racor
| upstreams don't care about what we decide
| 12:26
|
| racor
| to new-comer packagers this text is not helpful
| 12:27
|
| racor
| it's just bloat
| 12:27
|
| tibbs
| It answers a question that has been asked of me several times already.
| 12:27
|
| tibbs
| I guess I could simply continue to answer as I wish, but I'd rather have an actual guideline. Which it seems we'll have.
| 12:27
|
| * rdieter is confused now, this guideline only describes downstream packaging, not much to do with upstreams at all
| 12:28
|
| racor
| bring this to attention of major upstream projects - You'll be laughed at.
| 12:28
|
| Rathann
| racor: some upstreams start caring when we explain it to them
| 12:28
|
| spot
| okay, so, if we replace the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to "As noted in the Packaging Guidelines, Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. This applies equally to font packages."
| 12:28
|
| spot
| then, leave the rest as is... i think that makes it more reasonable
| 12:29
|
| racor
| Rathann: Do you care about SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo packaging desires in packages you are upstream? I don't.
| 12:29
|
| rdieter
| I'm still not sure about the "each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package", that seems to be itching for a generalized rule too, no?
| 12:29
|
| Rathann
| racor: nobody laughed at me when I started packaging inchi separately from openbabel and submitted patches to fix building with external inchi
| 12:29
|
| racor
| try glibc, try gcc, ...
| 12:30
|
| spot
| rdieter: i think it makes some sense to do it that way for fonts specifically, especially if other applications want to rely on a single font
| 12:30
|
| racor
| anyway, i've got to quit now, sorry.
| 12:30
|
| spot
| they wouldn't need to Requires: foo-superfonts-dump, they could Requires: foo-superfonts-myfont
| 12:31
|
| rdieter
| umm... do apps really need to care about the fonts used licensing-wise?
| 12:32
|
| rdieter
| if so, doesn't that get very scary, very fast?
| 12:32
|
| spot
| rdieter: generally, no, but it does make for a reasonable divisor
| 12:32
|
| Rathann
| but licensing is a good reason for splitting packages in general
| 12:33
|
| Rathann
| i.e. foo licensed under GPL and foo-libs under LGPL
| 12:33
|
| Rathann
| assuming that's what upstream does
| 12:33
|
| Rathann
| or foo-someplugin under another license (say, BSD)
| 12:34
|
| abadger1999
| You have my +1 to this.
| 12:34
|
| abadger1999
| Electrician is here, gotta run.
| 12:34
|
| Rathann
| I wouldn't put so much stress on packaging fonts separately due to licensing issues, it is a more general thing
| 12:35
|
| spot
| take a look at this:
| 12:35
|
| spot
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2
| 12:35
|
| tibbs
| The first MUST there implies that this guidelines is stronger than the general one.
| 12:36
|
| Rathann
| doesn't say why, though
| 12:36
|
| tibbs
| Is that still the intention, or is this just supposed to be a clarification of the other guideline as it applies to fonts?
| 12:36
|
| delero
| this means ONE font per subpackage ?
| 12:36
|
| Rathann
| delero: one font family
| 12:36
|
| spot
| delero: font family
| 12:37
|
| * rdieter likes that draft more. happy happy
| 12:37
|
| spot
| i think this is a clarfication for fonts
| 12:37
|
| Rathann
| well if it's phrased that way, it becomes redundant
| 12:38
|
| Rathann
| the first paragraph
| 12:38
|
| Rathann
| but +1 too
| 12:38
|
| delero
| I assume this would apply to a package like gnuplot, which ships postscripts fonts
| 12:38
|
| rdieter
| not this draft, afaict, the other one... maybe. :)
| 12:39
|
| Rathann
| delero: but does it make sense to use them outside gnuplot?
| 12:39
|
| spot
| well, should we take a vote on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ?
| 12:40
|
| delero
| Rathann: unlikely
| 12:40
|
| Rathann
| I wouldn't want to force any package to split their fonts if it doesn't make sense to use them outside their apps
| 12:40
|
| spot
| keep in mind that all reasonable exceptions are okay.
| 12:40
|
| spot
| (as always)
| 12:40
|
| rdieter
| spot: +1 P_F_B2 draft
| 12:40
|
| delero
| spot: +1 on v2 draft
| 12:40
|
| spot
| +1 from me
| 12:40
|
| Rathann
| +1 on v2 draft
| 12:40
|
| spot
| abadger1999: gave us a +1 before he left... tibbs?
| 12:41
|
| tibbs
| I guess I don't really understand why it mandates a split by license, but I don't have any real problems with it.
| 12:42
|
| tibbs
| +1
| 12:42
|
| spot
| tibbs: it doesn't mandate that anymore
| 12:42
|
| spot
| i changed it to read "make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. "
| 12:42
|
| Rathann
| rather, splitting by license is a general "should, if makes sense"
| 12:42
|
| tibbs
| I've been reloading but I don't see the change.
| 12:42
|
| Rathann
| not only with fonts
| 12:42
|
| spot
| tibbs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ?
| 12:42
|
| tibbs
| I'm still seeing "but he MUST make sure each bundled font..."
| 12:43
|
| spot
| note that i made a copy with changes for v2
| 12:43
|
| tibbs
| Yeah, I'm looking at v2.
| 12:43
|
| spot
| If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package.
| 12:43
|
| spot
| old version said "If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package."
| 12:44
|
| spot
| anyways, thats +6
| 12:44
|
| spot
| i can't think of a quick way to reword No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages in such a way that it would be acceptable
| 12:45
|
| spot
| well, i take that back
| 12:45
|
| spot
| maybe if we changed item 1 to
| 12:45
|
| spot
| 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package
| 12:46
|
| rdieter
| item 2 isn't really a MUST, just a pointer
| 12:46
|
| Rathann
| spot: I'm fine with a MUST in your modified version even
| 12:47
|
| spot
| yeah, but if it makes people think about font licenses, i'm not opposed to it
| 12:47
|
| rdieter
| spot: your version of 1 is a lot better, likey likey
| 12:48
|
| --> hansg has joined this channel (n=hans@ip32-174-211-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl).
| 12:48
|
| hansg
| Hi all
| 12:48
|
| Rathann
| also if such font has value outside the application, maybe ask upstream to publish font source separately?
| 12:48
|
| hansg
| I just saw spot's invitation
| 12:48
|
| hansg
| any votes needed from me, or did we already have the quorum?
| 12:49
|
| spot
| hansg: you're not too late, we're just going through the last pending draft
| 12:49
|
| Rathann
| hansg: we're discussing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages
| 12:49
|
| hansg
| -1
| 12:49
|
| spot
| hansg: we're trying to fix it. :)
| 12:49
|
| Rathann
| <spot> maybe if we changed item 1 to
| 12:49
|
| Rathann
| <spot> 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package
| 12:49
|
| hansg
| For reasons already mentioned
| 12:49
|
| Rathann
| well? any comments on my suggestion?
| 12:50
|
| spot
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2
| 12:50
|
| spot
| take a look at that
| 12:50
|
| spot
| Rathann: i'm on the fence as to whether it should be a "SHOULD" or a "MUST"
| 12:51
|
| spot
| i can see both sides of that argument
| 12:51
|
| spot
| (i'm leaning towards a must, as a sub-package)
| 12:51
|
| Rathann
| spot: no, I mean the other suggestion ;)
| 12:52
|
| Rathann
| I said I was fine with either should or must here
| 12:52
|
| spot
| oh yes, that is good, i'll add it
| 12:52
|
| hansg
| Hmm, just read Spot's draft I dunno what to think of this
| 12:52
|
| Rathann
| hansg: it's just the 1st point that's different
| 12:52
|
| Rathann
| I think that was the main contention
| 12:53
|
| hansg
| All in all it seems well balanced between making clear that generic fonts must be packaged separately and that specials could be bundled
| 12:53
|
| hansg
| I would like to see some language in here about how this all applies only to fonts in font format.
| 12:53
|
| Rathann
| "fonts in font format"?
| 12:54
|
| tibbs
| Think back to my earlier question.
| 12:54
|
| Rathann
| hansg: the last paragraph is not enough?
| 12:54
|
| hansg
| Games often package fonts as just a bmp which when you lay a 64x64 grid over it you get each letter
| 12:54
|
| Rathann
| ah
| 12:54
|
| Rathann
| then the first solves it
| 12:54
|
| hansg
| or on XxX format for that mayyer
| 12:54
|
| spot
| okay, i added Rathann's suggestion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2
| 12:54
|
| spot
| hansg: if i made it say "bundled font files"
| 12:55
|
| spot
| would that be more appropriate?
| 12:55
|
| spot
| or "bundled fonts (in font format)"
| 12:55
|
| hansg
| I'm not sure about the "any value outside of the package " wording, that is a bit vagu
| 12:55
|
| hansg
| vague I mean
| 12:56
|
| hansg
| Spot, +1 for "bundled font files"
| 12:56
|
| hansg
| That is better IMHO
| 12:56
|
| hansg
| And maybe we should replace the "any value outside of the package " wording by a list of formats and a MUST be in a subpackage if in one of these formats
| 12:56
|
| Rathann
| hansg: it's not just formats
| 12:57
|
| Rathann
| it's also the usability
| 12:57
|
| hansg
| For example if a game has some special font created for it in ttf, it would be good to put it in a sub package so that it can be used more general
| 12:57
|
| hansg
| (assuming the licensing is ok)
| 12:57
|
| hansg
| Rathann, explain
| 12:57
|
| Rathann
| it doesn't make sense if such font contains just a limited subset of characters or symbols which is usable only in that game
| 12:57
|
| rdieter
| hansg: but "good" for who? if no one can/will ever use it?
| 12:58
|
| Rathann
| hence it also needs to be usable outside the original application
| 12:58
|
| hansg
| Rathann, ah yes
| 12:58
|
| hansg
| rdieter, will never use it just a matter of advertising, can never user it is another story
| 12:58
|
| spot
| how about something like "especially if the font is in a standardized format, and contains a set of characters or symbols which are useful for other packages."
| 12:58
|
| hansg
| Ok, lets stick with the "any value outside of the package "
| 12:59
|
| hansg
| spot +1
| 12:59
|
| hansg
| (although that violates the less is more principle)
| 12:59
|
| spot
| it does, and i think the "any value outside of the package" is actually broader.
| 12:59
|
| hansg
| I'm fine with keeping just "any value outside of the package "
| 13:00
|
| * Rathann is fine with either
| 13:00
|
| Rathann
| obviously some people need explaining the spirit of the rule ;)
| 13:00
|
| Rathann
| so more precise language won't hurt IMHO
| 13:01
|
| spot
| how about this
| 13:01
|
| spot
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2
| 13:01
|
| spot
| i added it as a clarifier
| 13:01
|
| tibbs
| Seems OK to me.
| 13:02
|
| Rathann
| yup
| 13:02
|
| delero
| excellent
| 13:02
|
| tibbs
| I wonder whether we're still within the spirit of the original draft which was submitted.
| 13:02
|
| spot
| well, we'll hear back for sure if we're not.
| 13:02
|
| spot
| i think we are
| 13:02
|
| hansg
| spot, good, about font source, its that mandatory, or does it depend on the font license?
| 13:02
|
| Rathann
| I think so too
| 13:02
|
| Rathann
| we just added some common sense ;)
| 13:02
|
| spot
| hansg: not sure i follow
| 13:03
|
| Rathann
| hansg: you mean the point about asking upstream to publish font source separately?
| 13:03
|
| Rathann
| it's not mandatory
| 13:03
|
| hansg
| Well if someone designed a font for project X and gave project X just the .ttf file and a license to do whatever they want with the ttf, there will be no font source
| 13:03
|
| spot
| how about i change that to just "font files"
| 13:04
|
| spot
| not "font source"
| 13:04
|
| spot
| to eliminate confusion
| 13:04
|
| Rathann
| yes
| 13:04
|
| Rathann
| that's what I meant
| 13:04
|
| hansg
| spot, hmm yes and no
| 13:04
|
| hansg
| We do want the preferable format for modification when available
| 13:04
|
| <-- delero has left this channel.
| 13:05
|
| spot
| hansg: yes, but thats a licensing issue
| 13:05
|
| Rathann
| the idea is that generally useful fonts should migrate to separate packages alltogether
| 13:05
|
| Rathann
| hence my suggestion to ask upstream to publish font files
| 13:05
|
| hansg
| spot again yes and no, it can be that we don't need the font "source" from a license pov, that doesn't mean we don't want it if available
| 13:05
|
| spot
| by not specifying, we can safely assume we want source
| 13:06
|
| hansg
| true
| 13:06
|
| spot
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2
| 13:06
|
| spot
| it now says "font files" on that line
| 13:06
|
| spot
| guys, i need to dash off to the board meeting
| 13:06
|
| spot
| can we vote on this quickly?
| 13:06
|
| Rathann
| hansg: but isn't that is already in font packaging guidelines?
| 13:06
|
| rdieter
| spot: +1 to v2
| 13:07
|
| spot
| +1 from me
| 13:07
|
| hansg
| +1
| 13:07
|
| Rathann
| hansg: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format"
| 13:07
|
| tibbs
| +1
| 13:07
|
| Rathann
| +1 from me
| 13:07
|
| spot
| do we have quorum? delero dropped...
| 13:07
|
| hansg
| Rathann, we should add: "if upstream does not provides them in a source format, the packager should contact upstream and ask them to provide source if possible"
| 13:07
|
| spot
| wait, that is +5
| 13:07
|
| spot
| ok, it passes.
| 13:07
|
| hansg
| yes thats enouh, right??
| 13:08
|
| spot
| and with that i have to go to the board call
| 13:08
|
| Rathann
| hansg: that is fine by me
| 13:08
|
| spot
| thanks guys
| 13:08
|
| Rathann
| thanks spot ;)
| 13:08
|
| * hansg wonders why my typing is even lousier then normal
| 13:08
|
| spot
| i'll update the todo page this afternoon
| 13:08
|
| tibbs
| I will try to get minutes out today; with the FESCo move, we have no way to make their 24 hour deadline.
| 13:09
|
| hansg
| well that was short (for me) when is the next meeting?
| 13:12
|
| Rathann
| hansg: we should discuss the possible times and choose one that works well for everyone if possible, current one was difficult for me until recently
| 13:17
|
| hansg
| Didn't we try that by using a wiki page were we all wrote down what worked, and then failed?
| 13:18
|
| Rathann
| and I won't know until next week if it continues to be
| 13:18
|
| tibbs
| The problem seems to be that there's always some kind of conflict.
| 13:18
|
| abadger1999
| tibbs: FTR, I'm +1 to spots revised fonts guideline.
| 13:33
|
