Meeting:Packaging IRC log 20061205

[[Dec 05 11:02:46]   i'm here, just finishing up this conflicts draft [[Dec 05 11:02:56]   *       rdieter is here. [[Dec 05 11:03:35]         +1 to whatever spot has in his Conflicts draft. (: [[Dec 05 11:04:04]          haha .. package texas hold'em [[Dec 05 11:05:25]   *       abadger1999 (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net) has joined #fedora-packaging [[Dec 05 11:05:28]         sounds fun, I'll match your +1, and raise +2. [[Dec 05 11:05:56]     Hello [[Dec 05 11:07:07]         attendance will iikely be lite today, no Ralf or Ville. [[Dec 05 11:07:17]    do we have quorum [[Dec 05 11:07:49]          I count 4 with me [[Dec 05 11:07:59]          though tibbs was here earlier [[Dec 05 11:08:03]    abadger1999, lutter, rdieter, spot, tibbs (assuming tibbs is still around) [[Dec 05 11:08:08]    f13: alive? [[Dec 05 11:08:27]         tibbs was here ~20 minutes go. [[Dec 05 11:08:31]         s/go/ago/ [[Dec 05 11:10:19]     Hmm... not looking so hopeful. [[Dec 05 11:11:02]         spot, do have the Conflicts draft ready for us to read yet? [[Dec 05 11:11:56]    just clicking save on it now [[Dec 05 11:12:06]    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts [[Dec 05 11:12:37]   *       spot fixes a grammar mistake [[Dec 05 11:13:06]         looks sane to me. [[Dec 05 11:14:03]    unless tibbs or f13 awakens, we don't have quorum [[Dec 05 11:14:27]          let's give them a couple of minutes [[Dec 05 11:14:45]         could email to fedora-packagers, and ask for e-mail vote (for anything we'd like to vote on anyway today). [[Dec 05 11:15:56]    well, does everyone alive think the proposal is sane? [[Dec 05 11:16:08]    thl: this includes you. :) [[Dec 05 11:16:23]         I consider the Conflicts draft close to a no-brainer and just common sense. [[Dec 05 11:16:41]    rdieter: me too, which is why i was able to crank it out in 15 minutes [[Dec 05 11:16:51]     spot, well, I don't like the example you made with the kernel [[Dec 05 11:16:54]     I don#t care much [[Dec 05 11:17:01]     But I know alot of people will [[Dec 05 11:17:19]         maybe use a different example? [[Dec 05 11:17:25]     otherwise I'd like it [[Dec 05 11:17:27]     rdieter, +1 [[Dec 05 11:17:29]     spot: Did notting have some post that had a reason to use conflicts? [[Dec 05 11:17:37]    i can change the example [[Dec 05 11:17:46]    abadger1999: if so, i didn't see it [[Dec 05 11:17:47]         kernels are one place where Conflicts may actually make sense. [[Dec 05 11:17:56]     rdieter, +1 (again) [[Dec 05 11:18:00]    but i haven't exactly been diving deep into email lately [[Dec 05 11:18:09]   *       spot is trying to get aurora done (already) [[Dec 05 11:18:50]         regardless, if nottings' example is legit, it'll pass muster wrt this proposal. [[Dec 05 11:19:10]          spot: just use a package that is only ever instaled once in the example (e.g. glibc) that should avoid most of hte heckling [[Dec 05 11:19:27]         Or just use example of package 'foo' [[Dec 05 11:19:27]    lutter: i just made it generic [[Dec 05 11:19:31]          spot: minor nit: the 'man page name conflicts' should say 'prefix' instead of suffix [[Dec 05 11:19:53]    lutter: fixed, thanks [[Dec 05 11:20:42]    well, in absense of quorum, i'll send this proposal out for email vote. [[Dec 05 11:21:01]         worksforme. [[Dec 05 11:21:02]     I think nottings example was kernel and userspace mismatches. [[Dec 05 11:21:11]          spot: you really want to force Conflicts to go through FESCo ? [[Dec 05 11:21:32]    lutter: this committee is not tasked to do anything besides draft packaging guidelines [[Dec 05 11:21:52]     https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-November/msg00043.html [[Dec 05 11:21:58]    FESCO has to give thumbs up/down on case-by-case [[Dec 05 11:22:06]     I think that's okay for now to go through FESCo; but I think the PC should handle such stuff after the merge (when it happens) [[Dec 05 11:22:09]    if FESCO asks for the PC's opinion, we can give it [[Dec 05 11:22:14]     It as Nicolas Mailhot's example -- Notting just agreed ith it. [[Dec 05 11:22:18]     s/as/was/ [[Dec 05 11:23:12]     I'm wondering if we should have a genereal exception for the kernel. But maybe let people yell on the list first; it can still be added later [[Dec 05 11:23:15]    I think the kernel is a rather special case [[Dec 05 11:23:26]    and that most of its conflicts will be approved by FESCO [[Dec 05 11:26:35]    ok, thats it for today then. see you next week. [[Dec 05 11:26:45]   *       spot has changed the topic to: Channel for Fedora packaging related discussion | Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 17:00 UTC