Packaging:Minutes/20090317

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-03-17

Present

  • Hans de Goede (hansg)
  • Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
  • Ralf Corsepius (racor)
  • Rex Dieter (rdieter)
  • Tom Callaway (spot)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)

Regrets

  • Denis Leroy (delero)
  • Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
  • Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)

Votes

No votes this week.

Other Discussions

The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.

IRC Logs

spot abadger1999, hansg, racor, rdieter, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs: ping 12:06
hansg pogn 12:06
tibbs Yep. 12:06
rdieter hola 12:06
abadger1999 pong 12:07
spot well, with me, thats +5 12:07
spot Rathann isn't able to make it today 12:08
spot and I don't see delero online 12:08
racor pong 12:08
spot okay, good, thats 6 12:08
spot lets go ahead and get started 12:08
spot first item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_package_names_packaging_guideline_draft 12:09
spot the only change here from last time is that it is structured to fit into Packaging:Conflicts now, correct? 12:10
abadger1999 Just made a one-sentence addition. 12:10
hansg First thing, this is about filenames not package names, that is rather confusing in the draft title and needs to be fixed 12:10
abadger1999 Yeah, goes in Packaging:conflicts and added this line: 12:10
abadger1999 "When a package name is changed for being likely to conflict you often have to change filenames as well. Follow the Packaging:Conflicts section to fix these. " 12:10
* spot doesn't see that sentence 12:11
abadger1999 hansg: Well... this is about package names. 12:12
spot wait, now i do. :) 12:12
spot Does the standard commands belong in this section? 12:12
spot since that is about filenames 12:12
hansg abadger1999, erm and about filenames, why else give the bindir/trash example ? 12:12
* hansg thinks the filename conflict actually is the one occuring the most 12:13
abadger1999 it's about both, I suppose. 12:13
spot could it be drafted to be generic enough to apply to both? 12:13
spot (or specific enough) 12:14
abadger1999 Yeah, filenames happen more often. But is it not covered by the Conflicting_Files section? 12:14
abadger1999 spot: Good point, should move standard commands out a level. 12:14
spot fwiw, with the standard commands moved out a level, it seems okay to me. 12:16
spot assuming that this is about package names only. 12:16
hansg ack 12:17
spot does anyone else have any other comments here? 12:17
* spot drops a pin 12:18
tibbs I suppose I'm OK with this, but It's a bit confusing as to whether this is about package names or files or both. 12:18
abadger1999 I can see how we could break this apart better. 12:18
racor errm, but I don't understand what this proposal is aim at, which isn't already covered elsewhere rsp. is "obvious" ... 12:19
abadger1999 "Change most of this to -- how to bring conflicts upstream" and then a few sentences about "This can happen to package names too" in a separate section 12:20
tibbs I guess the problem is that someone submitted a package named "email" and everyone sort of asks whether that's a good idea or not. 12:20
abadger1999 If it's covered elsewhere, we can get rid of it/link to it/etc. But obvious is the problem. 12:20
abadger1999 Everyone disagrees on what obvious is. 12:20
spot abadger1999: i don't think it can hurt to rework the draft in the way that you've suggested. 12:22
abadger1999 spot: Okay, I'll take this back and do a more extensive rewrite. 12:22
spot alright, so that was the only thing that I had on today's agenda 12:23
spot the floor is open to any additional topics 12:23
tibbs Which of the writeups remain to be written up? 12:23
tibbs And what did FPC approve last time? 12:23
spot it looks like we approved "Explicit Requires" and "Source URL Update" last time 12:24
tibbs Sorry, not FPC, FESCo. 12:24
spot there are currently quite a few things pending writeup 12:24
spot FESCo ratified both items, i was actually at that meeting 12:24
spot i'll work on the writeups this afternoon 12:25
tibbs I take it we'll stay at 17:00UTC. 12:26
spot for the time being, yes. 12:26
spot okay, i think we're done. thanks everyone. :) 12:27
tibbs What might happen to change the time? It would be good to know in advance what will happen around the various summer time changes. 12:27
hansg wow that was short 12:27
spot let's assume we're on 1700 UTC unless we change the time entirely 12:27
hansg I vote for keeping the meeting at 17:00 UTC, just like we did when we went from winter to summer time 12:28
hansg bye all 12:29