Packaging:Minutes/20090602

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-06-02

Present

  • Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
  • Rex Dieter (rdieter)
  • Tom Callaway (spot)
  • Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
  • Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)

Regrets

  • Denis Leroy (delero)
  • Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
  • Hans de Goede (hansg)
  • Ralf Corsepius (racor)

Votes

The following proposal was considered:

Other Discussions

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

  • https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering
    • Similarly, FPC would like to see this written up as a guidelines change. FPC is also concerned that there are two separate changes involved there; one provides a filtering mechanism, the other changes the behavior of the perl dependency finder and does not seem to be mentioned in the draft.

IRC Logs

* spot looks to see what is pending 12:22
tibbs Same as last week, although Chris Weyl had something he was going to send to fesco that is probably more appropriate for us. 12:23
spot the phase out buildroot thing? I kindof want to do that and the redhat-rpm-macro changes i proposed on -devel at the same time 12:23
tibbs Also, didn't fesco kick something else down to us? I recall seeing a message about it but I wasn't able to find it. 12:23
abadger1999 spot: Have a new version of that? Fro mthe discussion I think I'm +1 on it. 12:25
abadger1999 tibbs: Yeah... trying to find that too. 12:25
spot abadger1999: no, its the same version, just without the %clean changes 12:25
abadger1999 tibbs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OSGiAutoDeps 12:25
spot because Panu wants to fix it upstream as I'd suggested 12:26
tibbs abadger1999: Not really sure why that would be a "feature", anyway. 12:26
abadger1999 tibbs: Right. That's why FESCo kicked it to us :-) 12:26
tibbs We did the same thing as part of the Ocaml guidelines, but this isn't accompanied by guidelines. 12:26
abadger1999 Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any guidelines changes yet. 12:27
abadger1999 Yeah. 12:27
spot yeah, so they need to draft how the guidelines changes would be. 12:27
* abadger1999 is slow on the keyboard today 12:27
tibbs Are there any guidelines at all for OSGi stuff currently? Does it just fall under the eclipse plugin stuff or is it something different? 12:28
tibbs I don't really know what OSGi is or does. 12:28
spot tibbs: me neither 12:28
tibbs I mean, conceptually we want to do as much of this as makes sense. 12:28
spot yeah, i'm not against the idea at all, just want to see how it will be implemented && how it affects the guidelines 12:29
tibbs The feature page strongly implies that "OSGi package" === "eclipse plugin package". 12:29
tibbs In which case we're just talking about dropping manual deps from any eclipse plugin package. 12:29
abadger1999 <nod> 12:30
tibbs See the bottom of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/EclipsePlugins 12:31
tibbs Otherwise those guidelines don't really mention dependencies. 12:33
abadger1999 Okay, so for OSGI -- respond to Feature submitter to with 1) please submit the modified Packaging Guideline for Eclipse Plugins. 2) Clarify whether Eclipse plugins are the only thing that useOSGI Dependencies. 12:33
rdieter and perhaps a spec template 12:33
rdieter part of 1) I guess 12:34
tibbs I don't think the spec template would change, honestly. 12:34
tibbs Maybe the "eclipse-platform" dependency would be automatic, I'm not sure. 12:34
rdieter ok, things would "just work"? if so, nice 12:34
spot abadger1999: sounds right. 12:34
tibbs abadger1999: +1. 12:34
spot So, lets talk about the other agenda item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Phase_out_buildroot_tag_%28draft%29 12:35
tibbs Not much to that draft. 12:35
spot yep. pretty much common sense. The only concern i had was if people took a F10+ spec and backed it to EPEL, it might do system damage 12:36
tibbs Right, but that was only conjecture. 12:36
spot but i tested on EL4 and EL5 and neither had any problem there. 12:36
spot So, I 12:36
spot I'm +1 12:36
abadger1999 +1 12:37
rdieter +1 12:37
SmootherFrOgZ +1 12:37
tibbs I'm all for removing crap. +1. 12:37
spot okay, thats +5 12:37
tibbs But didn't you want to do this in conjunction with some other changes? 12:37
spot yeah, but the other changes don't need FPC signoff 12:37
tibbs True. 12:38
spot i will just do them at the same time 12:38
tibbs But don't we need to change a bunch of templates and such? 12:38
spot i have acl access to that package (and i think i may be the last one to own) 12:38
spot tibbs: well, i'll go through and do cleanups 12:38
tibbs We should definitely announce all of the changes clearly, because I think this may be confusing to many folks. 12:39
* spot nods 12:39
spot so, i think thats it... unless anyone has something else. :) 12:39
tibbs Chris Weyl's thing. 12:39
tibbs https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterRpmAutoReqProvFiltering 12:39
tibbs This is another thing that really isn't a feature. 12:40
tibbs As a meta-topic, I'm curious as to why folks are sending this kind of thing to fesco instead of us. 12:40
spot he basically wants to add those macros to redhat-rpm-config, right? 12:40
tibbs Yes, plus they would get packaging guidelines on their use. 12:40
tibbs I agree that we really need something like this but I haven't looked at the implementation. 12:41
spot so, lets see the packaging guidelines on their use first 12:41
spot i'm not opposed to this standardization 12:41
tibbs You can basically get that from the "detailed description" section, but it's all formatted as a feature proposal, not a guidelines proposal. 12:42
tibbs I'll reply on-list to ask that this be formatted as a guidelines proposal if he wants to do it that way. 12:45
tibbs I think fesco would just kick it over to us anyway. 12:45
tibbs But it would be good if someone who understands this stuff could evaluate the actual macros in use. 12:46
tibbs The interface looks nice, at least. 12:46
tibbs Note also that there's a behavioral change for everything perl-related buried/hidden down in the macros, which also needs to be discussed, I think. 12:47
abadger1999 What's the change? 12:50
tibbs It filters the auto-deps for .so files in the perl-specific directories. 12:52
tibbs It's a good change, but it does mean that there are two different things wrapped up in the single feature document. 12:53
tibbs One is the infrastructure for filtering deps, which is good. 12:53
tibbs The other is the filter of perl internal .so files. 12:53
tibbs I think they should be discussed separately. 12:53
abadger1999 <nod> 12:56
spot okay, so we need Chris to draft them up as separate items 13:04
spot anything else? 13:04
spot okay. i'll take silence as a no and close out this meeting. thanks everyone. 13:05