| * spot gets ready for another exciting FPC meeting
| 12:04
|
| tibbs
| Indeed.
| 12:05
|
| spot
| abadger1999, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs, rdieter: ping
| 12:05
|
| rdieter
| here
| 12:05
|
| abadger1999
| spot: here
| 12:05
|
| * SmootherFrOgZ here
| 12:06
|
| --> delero has joined this channel (n=delero@nat/sun/x-cf0eacf74c9de57d).
| 12:07
|
| * delero is here
| 12:07
|
| spot
| i pinged Rathann too, but i think he's idle
| 12:07
|
| spot
| we're not expecting hans, racor
| 12:07
|
| spot
| so, i think everyone that's coming is here
| 12:08
|
| spot
| First item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29
| 12:08
|
| spot
| This is abadger's refined draft of handling the GConf scriptlets
| 12:08
|
| spot
| abadger1999: have you tested the macros?
| 12:09
|
| abadger1999
| spot: I tested them last night. they seemd to work.
| 12:09
|
| spot
| okay.
| 12:09
|
| abadger1999
| spot: I may have left out some corner cases though so anyone else that wants to give them a try is welcome to.
| 12:10
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| np
| 12:10
|
| abadger1999
| Copy the macros into a file in /etc/rpm/
| 12:10
|
| * spot knows < 0 about GConf
| 12:10
|
| delero
| negative knowledge
| 12:10
|
| tibbs
| Me too, but it sure looks nicer.
| 12:10
|
| --> Rathann has joined this channel (n=rathann@fedora/rathann).
| 12:10
|
| spot
| that said
| 12:11
|
| Rathann
| sorry for being late
| 12:11
|
| spot
| the macros look nice, the logic is sound
| 12:11
|
| spot
| and the GNOME folks seem to like it
| 12:11
|
| abadger1999
| Rathann: We're discussing this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29
| 12:11
|
| Rathann
| yup, I gathered as much from what spot said just now
| 12:11
|
| spot
| I'm inclined to +1 on this one.
| 12:11
|
| Rathann
| +1 from me as well
| 12:12
|
| rdieter
| +1
| 12:12
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| +1 from me
| 12:12
|
| delero
| +1
| 12:12
|
| abadger1999
| +1
| 12:12
|
| tibbs
| Did the desktop team get a chance to chime in?
| 12:13
|
| abadger1999
| Ah one thing -- anyone want to weigh in on what package to add this to?
| 12:13
|
| abadger1999
| mclasen commented on the early drafts. He liked it.
| 12:13
|
| spot
| abadger1999: perhaps redhat-rpm-config ?
| 12:13
|
| tibbs
| I recall that they liked the idea of changing things. Just wanted to make sure that we didn't go off in the wrong direction for them.
| 12:14
|
| spot
| that would get it in the buildroot by default
| 12:14
|
| abadger1999
| He's working with upstream to get schemas to move to %{_datadir} and wanted to have that change encoded in macros.
| 12:14
|
| abadger1999
| <nod>
| 12:14
|
| abadger1999
| redhat-rpm-config will work. Do we want the macro and the directory to be owned by the same package?
| 12:15
|
| tibbs
| Is that always present at runtime?
| 12:15
|
| tibbs
| It is not.
| 12:15
|
| abadger1999
| If so, GConf using packages need to Require(pre): Require(post): redhat-rpm-config
| 12:15
|
| spot
| hrm.
| 12:16
|
| abadger1999
| correct, it's not installed by default at runtime.
| 12:16
|
| spot
| it seems like GConf2 should own /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf
| 12:16
|
| abadger1999
| yeah.
| 12:16
|
| tibbs
| Yes, if possible, gconf should own this.
| 12:16
|
| spot
| but i don't want redhat-rpm-config to dep on GConf2
| 12:16
|
| rdieter
| spot: +2
| 12:16
|
| abadger1999
| The macros shouldn't need the directory at build time.
| 12:17
|
| abadger1999
| Just when the scriptlets run.
| 12:17
|
| tibbs
| Do things fail gracefully (or at least understandably) if that gets fouled up?
| 12:17
|
| abadger1999
| tibbs: Not gracefully. But understandably for someone who knows what's in the macros.
| 12:18
|
| spot
| Well, since anything that tries to use these macros is going to need Requires(pre): GConf2
| 12:18
|
| tibbs
| Someone somewhere will miss a dependency eventually.
| 12:18
|
| abadger1999
| A bit obtuse for someone who doesn't know what's in the macros (that's the problem anytime you hide the intricate details of something)
| 12:18
|
| spot
| i think it is safe for GConf2 to own the dir and have redhat-rpm-config own the macros
| 12:19
|
| spot
| without an explicit dep between the two
| 12:19
|
| --> mattiasellert has joined this channel (n=ellert@c213-100-175-41.swipnet.se).
| 12:19
|
| abadger1999
| Do we want to break up /var/lib/rpm-state and /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf (or use a different /var/lib/$DIRECTORY)
| 12:19
|
| * spot doesn't care about that really
| 12:20
|
| * abadger1999 doesn't care either
| 12:20
|
| rdieter
| macros could be in GConf2 as well, since gconf-using apps will have that BR'd anyway.
| 12:20
|
| tibbs
| Anyway, +1 to this; as long as the last couple of details get worked out sanely I don't see any problem.
| 12:20
|
| spot
| rdieter: thats a good point
| 12:20
|
| spot
| so, I see +7
| 12:21
|
| spot
| it passes
| 12:21
|
| spot
| Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus
| 12:21
|
| spot
| the old macro cruft is gone from the examples (and presumably, the tool as well)
| 12:22
|
| tibbs
| I thought that was going to the list after things were changed but I don't recall seeing it.
| 12:22
|
| mattiasellert
| yes
| 12:22
|
| * spot tries to remember what the other concerns were
| 12:22
|
| tibbs
| Anyone else getting no response from fedoraproject.org all of a sudden?
| 12:22
|
| spot
| yep.
| 12:22
|
| rdieter
| tibbs: here too
| 12:22
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| same
| 12:23
|
| spot
| i have cached copies of the pending drafts...
| 12:23
|
| spot
| if push comes to shove. :)
| 12:23
|
| delero
| ye
| 12:25
|
| Rathann
| looks like it's back
| 12:25
|
| tibbs
| Back up for me, at least.
| 12:25
|
| spot
| Okay, so the three items from last meeting were...
| 12:25
|
| spot
| the spec tool (and templates) needs to limit disttag macro use to rhel and fedora >= 9
| 12:25
|
| spot
| (done)
| 12:25
|
| spot
| the spec tool should use pushd/popd to simplify the %install section
| 12:25
|
| spot
| and documenting the versions of doxygen that need to be cleaned up after
| 12:26
|
| rdieter
| dumb/late question perhaps, but any chance to ask globus upstream to distribute stuff a little more sanely?
| 12:26
|
| tibbs
| %install is simplified with a macro and looks much better.
| 12:26
|
| f13
| hrm, package committee meeting?
| 12:27
|
| spot
| tibbs: well, its simplified with a shell variable, which is a little incongruous
| 12:27
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| f13: yep
| 12:27
|
| spot
| but its not wrong
| 12:27
|
| f13
| can somebody ping me when the java stuff comes up?
| 12:27
|
| spot
| f13: yeah
| 12:27
|
| tibbs
| We can't complain as long as we allow $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, of course.
| 12:27
|
| Rathann
| this flavor macro should be moved into rpm macros
| 12:28
|
| spot
| tibbs: yeah, i know.
| 12:28
|
| tibbs
| But I'd personally use something much shorter. Still, it looks better than it did.
| 12:28
|
| Rathann
| it's on top of every specfile in the examples
| 12:28
|
| spot
| mattiasellert: did you figure out which versions of doxygen required the cleanups?
| 12:29
|
| mattiasellert
| Yes.
| 12:29
|
| mattiasellert
| It is needed for RHEL4
| 12:29
|
| spot
| okay.
| 12:30
|
| mattiasellert
| I added a comment about that in the examples.
| 12:30
|
| spot
| I see that now
| 12:30
|
| Rathann
| GLOBUSPACKAGEDIR could be an rpm macro too
| 12:31
|
| spot
| well, i'm okay with it with the changes. it looks like a nasty beast to have to tame (globus), but this seems mostly sane.
| 12:31
|
| spot
| Rathann: thats what I was talking about, but i won't lose sleep over it not being one
| 12:31
|
| tibbs
| Yes, this seems to be making the best of a rather bad situation.
| 12:31
|
| Rathann
| those fedora/rhel conditionals in BRs
| 12:31
|
| Rathann
| could be simplified by requiring the necessary binaries directly
| 12:32
|
| Rathann
| i.e. BR: %{_bindir}/latex
| 12:32
|
| tibbs
| True.
| 12:32
|
| spot
| %if %{?rhel}%{!?rhel:0} >= 6 ... predictive? :)
| 12:32
|
| Rathann
| since %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} are in base metadata, this doesn't mean downloading filelists to resolve them
| 12:33
|
| tibbs
| That's not terribly important for build dependencies anyway.
| 12:33
|
| Rathann
| yup
| 12:33
|
| * Rathann doesn't like distro-specific conditionals
| 12:34
|
| spot
| Either with that change or without it, my vote here is +1.
| 12:34
|
| tibbs
| I don't like them because they make the spec look like line noise.
| 12:34
|
| delero
| don't like them either, but I wouldn't vote this down for it
| 12:34
|
| Rathann
| yeah
| 12:35
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| tibbs: <nod>
| 12:35
|
| Rathann
| +1 from me
| 12:35
|
| abadger1999
| +1
| 12:35
|
| rdieter
| +1
| 12:35
|
| delero
| +1
| 12:35
|
| spot
| thats +5.
| 12:36
|
| tibbs
| I'm torn
| 12:36
|
| tibbs
| I support this, but I think it could be simpler.
| 12:36
|
| tibbs
| So I guess +1.
| 12:36
|
| spot
| mattiasellert: if you decide to move to using the file dependencies rather than the conditionalized ones, please let us know so we can update the templates in the guidelines
| 12:37
|
| mattiasellert
| OK
| 12:37
|
| spot
| Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pre-review_Guidelines_%28draft%29
| 12:37
|
| spot
| Its worth noting that this is something we've been asked to do by FESCo
| 12:38
|
| Rathann
| frankly I don't like the whole idea of prereviews at all
| 12:38
|
| spot
| There is apparently a big pile of java packages that need to come in at once
| 12:38
|
| dbhole
| f13: This is us
| 12:38
|
| Rathann
| why can't they go through regular reviews?
| 12:38
|
| dbhole
| overholt: ^
| 12:38
|
| tibbs
| I dislike this idea as well.
| 12:38
|
| tibbs
| However, that doesn't come from my committee position.
| 12:38
|
| Rathann
| the draft doesn't answer the question why we need them at all
| 12:39
|
| f13
| so FESCo already approved them coming in
| 12:39
|
| f13
| FESCo just asked the PC to come up with the minim required things to check off
| 12:39
|
| f13
| such as build from source and proper licenses
| 12:39
|
| spot
| f13: is this only permitted for a specific set of java packages
| 12:39
|
| tibbs
| If we're going to do this (and admit that we don't care about package quality at that stage) then we just need to verify legal status and that the source is unadulterated.
| 12:39
|
| spot
| or is this for anything that wants to?
| 12:39
|
| f13
| spot: no, this is a one time deal for a specific set of java packages for this time critical maven update
| 12:40
|
| tibbs
| I don't even agree with "build from source".
| 12:40
|
| spot
| tibbs: you don't?
| 12:40
|
| abadger1999
| tibbs: I do since it's toolchain related.
| 12:40
|
| f13
| the people who have the time/capability to work on the maven update have a small window of opportunity to work on it, and they are different folks than the ones that will work on the fine tuning of the packaging layout
| 12:40
|
| tibbs
| If we cared about that we wouldn't be doing this.
| 12:40
|
| abadger1999
| If it wasn't toolchain, then I'd let that be caught at the full review stage.
| 12:41
|
| spot
| Honestly, i'm not sure that this is in the FPC domain.
| 12:41
|
| tibbs
| FESCo seems to have made it FPC domain.
| 12:41
|
| f13
| spot: abadger1999 thought it was and asked it to be
| 12:41
|
| abadger1999
| Well, I asked that the things to review for come here.
| 12:41
|
| tibbs
| So what can we agree on?
| 12:41
|
| spot
| These aren't really guidelines. They're asking us to tell them how to do "prereviews" before permitting cvs commit.
| 12:41
|
| tibbs
| "check the license", obviously.
| 12:42
|
| tibbs
| "check that the upstream source is unadulterated"?
| 12:42
|
| spot
| given that these apply only to Java, i think the key points on the draft are especially valid
| 12:42
|
| abadger1999
| If we don't think it is FPC purview, I can just toss that page back out -- it satisfies notting, nirik, and the other FESCo member's criteria.
| 12:42
|
| f13
| I as a reviewer need to know the minimum things to check before allowing the import and build on the side of these packages.
| 12:42
|
| tibbs
| I don't know how we can verify the other stuff when we can't even build the package.
| 12:42
|
| abadger1999
| Err... toss the page back to FESCo/java people to start using.
| 12:42
|
| spot
| if it prevents java from dragging along prebuilt crufty jar crap, and we can catch it at this "prereview" stage, i think its a good thing
| 12:43
|
| spot
| binaries of something solely for bootstrapping purposes, okay, fine. I understand that.
| 12:43
|
| dbhole
| spot: Certain jars will still be pulled in at this preview stage, but only for bootstrap
| 12:44
|
| tibbs
| You can't properly check that without building the package, which you can't at this stage.
| 12:44
|
| dbhole
| spot: nvm, you already know that then :)
| 12:44
|
| spot
| tibbs: well, you can check that the jars in the package match the package
| 12:44
|
| tibbs
| Sure, you can look to see that it deletes some jars but that doesn't really tell you with any certainty.
| 12:44
|
| spot
| e.g. no "eclipse-1.2.3.jar" in "jboss-super-awesome-snake"
| 12:44
|
| * overholt calls dibs on "super-awesome-snake" project name
| 12:45
|
| spot
| unless its documented clearly as bootstrapping (and jboss-super-awesome-snake has a proper dep on eclipse)
| 12:45
|
| spot
| this falls under the "no system libraries" clause
| 12:45
|
| spot
| which is why i think its important to be covered in the prereview
| 12:46
|
| spot
| the builds from source is necessary to help explain the bootstrapping
| 12:46
|
| * Rathann is looking at the relevant FESCO meeting log
| 12:46
|
| spot
| and that the bootstrapping is TEMPORARY. :)
| 12:46
|
| Rathann
| http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-05-08.html
| 12:46
|
| spot
| so, even with the shortcomings, this draft seems like a good enough plan for "prereviews"
| 12:48
|
| spot
| +1 from me
| 12:48
|
| abadger1999
| +1 from me naturally
| 12:49
|
| spot
| (even if i still don't think this is the FPC domain, i'd be happy to just pass these recommendations back to FESCo for implementation)
| 12:49
|
| tibbs
| I'll go along with it, but I maintain that it's not possible to properly follow these guidelines if you can't build the package.
| 12:49
|
| abadger1999
| k. Build from source is too hard to verify?
| 12:49
|
| spot
| looks like it is attempting to build from source? ;)
| 12:49
|
| tibbs
| Indeed.
| 12:50
|
| tibbs
| But +1 anyway.
| 12:50
|
| rdieter
| +1 too
| 12:50
|
| tibbs
| My primary complaint is that this screws with (and dumps on) the review process even more.
| 12:50
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| +1
| 12:50
|
| spot
| tibbs: its a one-off, thankfully.
| 12:50
|
| tibbs
| I mean, it's dysfunctional enough as it is.
| 12:50
|
| Rathann
| 0 from me, I'm against such exceptions, even one-offs
| 12:50
|
| spot
| if f13 had said it was a new practice, i'd have been much more concerned.
| 12:51
|
| tibbs
| It should have been a zero-off, because there's a better way to do this that was ignored.
| 12:51
|
| Rathann
| spot: this will get used as an argument of "we did this before" later, you'll see
| 12:51
|
| tibbs
| The earlier representation was that this wasn't a one-off.
| 12:51
|
| f13
| representation by whom?
| 12:51
|
| spot
| Rathann: well, its not going in the guidelines, we're just handing this back to FESCo.
| 12:51
|
| spot
| with +5, it passes. f13, here you go. ;)
| 12:52
|
| f13
| thanks.
| 12:52
|
| spot
| Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MAN_pages_which_exists_in_other_places%28draft%29
| 12:52
|
| tibbs
| -1.
| 12:52
|
| <-- overholt has left this channel.
| 12:52
|
| spot
| the English is pretty rough in this one
| 12:52
|
| tibbs
| I simply disagree with the proposal in its entirety.
| 12:52
|
| spot
| there are a lot of SHOULDs in there
| 12:53
|
| spot
| but no MUST
| 12:53
|
| tibbs
| We can document somewhere outside the guidelines that maintainers might want to look for debian-specific manpages.
| 12:53
|
| tibbs
| But this directly contradicts our whole "do the work upstream" ethic.
| 12:53
|
| * Rathann agrees with tibbs
| 12:53
|
| spot
| yeah, i'm inclined to agree with this.
| 12:54
|
| Rathann
| -1
| 12:54
|
| spot
| it sure would be nice if debian could figure out how to submit things upstream.
| 12:54
|
| spot
| -1
| 12:54
|
| tibbs
| That doesn't stop our packagers from taking them and submitting them upsteam, of course.
| 12:54
|
| abadger1999
| 0
| 12:54
|
| tibbs
| But that doesn't need to be in the guidelines.
| 12:55
|
| spot
| tibbs: i was about to make the same point
| 12:55
|
| spot
| tibbs: or even carrying them while waiting for upstream to add them
| 12:55
|
| tibbs
| It would be nice in general to have some documentation about how to find other distro patches and fixes.
| 12:55
|
| spot
| (xpdf is carrying about 15 debian patches that upstream knows about)
| 12:55
|
| tibbs
| I have no idea how to even fathom debian's packaging format.
| 12:56
|
| spot
| tibbs: i could probably document that
| 12:56
|
| * spot adds it to his todo list
| 12:56
|
| tibbs
| I tried, but the patch of patches was just bizarre.
| 12:56
|
| Rathann
| f13: who is on the "Java Maven team"?
| 12:57
|
| spot
| theres a lot of crackrock there.
| 12:57
|
| tibbs
| I have a performance review at 1PM, BTW, so I need to leave very soon.
| 12:57
|
| rdieter
| tibbs: nod, makes me laugh whenever I hear folks tout .deb's being so much better than rpm
| 12:57
|
| --> delero1 has joined this channel (n=delero@nat/sun/x-13744750215f7990).
| 12:57
|
| spot
| okay, the only other item on the agenda is trying to find a better meeting time/day
| 12:57
|
| spot
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/FPC_Availability
| 12:57
|
| delero1
| just had a nice Xorg hang, with no ctrl-alt-del to escape it...
| 12:57
|
| spot
| that has everyone's data except SmootherFrOgZ... *cough*
| 12:58
|
| f13
| Rathann: I don't have a full name list. dbhole might be able to come up with names.
| 12:58
|
| spot
| delero1: then turn it on. silly. ;)
| 12:58
|
| delero1
| indeed
| 12:58
|
| tibbs
| I hate to mention it, but didn't hansg join a committee when he explicitly could not make the meetings?
| 12:58
|
| spot
| tibbs: he's made some of the meetings.
| 12:58
|
| SmootherFrOgZ
| spot: i will
| 12:58
|
| tibbs
| But the meeting time lies outside of the only times when he's available.
| 12:58
|
| tibbs
| I mean, it's possible that his availability changed, sure.
| 12:59
|
| tibbs
| Anyway, I'm logging but I need to go.
| 12:59
|
| spot
| okay, we can talk about this item on the list
| 12:59
|
| spot
| any other items for today's meeting?
| 12:59
|
| Rathann
| my availability times are going to change next month, BTW
| 13:00
|
| Rathann
| no idea to what yet
| 13:00
|
| spot
| i think if we can find a time where 8 of 9 can regularly attend it will have to be good enough
| 13:01
|
| Rathann
| f13: ok, it's fine if someone knows who can be held responsible for the mess ;)
| 13:01
|
| spot
| we'll invite the other individual to vote via email in advance or as a tie breaker later
| 13:01
|
| f13
| Rathann: if all else fails, I will be responsible for it. I brought the request to FESCo in the first place.
| 13:02
|
| Rathann
| I'll keep that in mind
| 13:02
|
| * abadger1999 trusts f13 to clean up and to yell at relevant people if it is a mess ;-)
| 13:03
|
| Rathann
| spot: sounds reasonable, I think that's the best we can do in the circumstances
| 13:03
|
| spot
| okay, i think we're done for today, thanks everyone.
| 13:04
|
| Rathann
| thanks spot
| 13:04
|
