Meeting:Packaging IRC log 20061128

[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:03]  	So.... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:22]  	tibbs: what's up ? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:45]  	Meeting should be about now. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:57]  	Odd, what happened to the topic for this channel? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:02:18]  Join	racor has joined this channel (n=rc040203@Tb0f6.t.pppool.de). [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:03:47]  Join	abadger1999 has joined this channel (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net). [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:03:56]  	doesn't look good for a quorum again [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:11]  	Hey all [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:24]  	hi [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:30]  	I see four. I guess spot doesn't ever set himself as being away. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:57]  	And abadger1999's away even though he's here. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:10]  	i'm here [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:20]  	sorry, distracted by internal RHAT stuff happening [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:24]  	Wow, spot! [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:37]  	I'm here. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:41]  	 * spot has been neck deep in work and Aurora lately [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:06:30]  	so, before i start trolling the depths of the todo list, any business items? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:06:52]  	There was question about thimm's membership. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:07:09]  	Probably best discussed on the list, though, so that he can participate. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:07:24]  	yeah, i think thimm wants to step aside [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:09:06]  	Obviously he'll need to be replaced if he does leave the committee. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:09:52]  	I don't recall that we have an actual policy for how to replace him. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:11:22]  	Does at large nominations followed by package committee vote not cover this instance? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:11:44]  	Probably. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:03]  	But does anyone want to spend time on this today? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:28]  	List is fine. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:34]  	spot? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:13:23]  	sorry. internal stuff keeps getting in my face. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:14:02]  	all of the items on the Todo list which say "Ratify" need to be written up [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:14:06]  	Indeed, that's the case for everyone. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:14:47]  	We should see if thimm wants to write up his approved item or if someone else should do it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:15]  	do we want to reconsider making the Group tag optional for FC7+ ? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:38]  	Will rpm in rawhide deal with it? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:46]  	with a one line patch it will. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:06]  	paul said he'd take the patch in devel if the committee passes the "optional" resolution [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:47]  	I seem to recall this committee agreed that we wanted to move in that dirction. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:55]  	yeah, but we never voted on it [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:17:02]  	thus, its been sitting on the list for a while [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:17:28]  	I don't think it has any downsides besides not currently being supported by rpm. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:17:38]  	Chicken and egg problem, that. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:02]  	It would have to be a unanimous vote today, though. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:10]  Join	Rathann|work has joined this channel (n=rathann@gw.icm.edu.pl). [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:14]  	well, lets see if it passes [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:30]  	Make Group: tag optional: +1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:37]  	+1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:37]  	+1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:17]  	lutter, racor? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:33]  	abadger1999: sorry .. baby started crying .. lemme read back [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:58]  	confused - what are we voting on? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:24]  	Making the Group: tag optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:24]  	oh crap, a meeting :/ [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:28]  	 * f13 was on another call. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:34]  	making the Group tag optional in FC7+ [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:35]  	+1 for making the group tag optional [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:50]  	spot: doesn't that require RPM changes? Didn't we go through this before? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:57]  	f13: a one line patch [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:06]  	 * f13 could have sworn we voted on this already once, and it was blocked by rpm changes that Paul wouldn't apply [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:07]  	paul said he'd take it if the committee approved the optional resolution [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:19]  	he also didnt want to slide it into fc6 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:26]  	which was the original thought [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:43]  	ok, so we're just taking the vote we already approved and moving it to say FC7+ ? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:49]  Join	rdieter has joined this channel (n=rdieter@sting.unl.edu). [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:51]  	why? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:04]  	racor: because Comps is what matters, Group is a throwaway tag [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:26]  	comps is irrelevant to pure rpm [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:44]  	racor: nothing uses Group anymore. anaconda doesnt. yum doesnt. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:51]  	apt does [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:53]  	spot: not nothing. smart does and apt. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:09]  	but they like to duplicate grouping information. because you know, its not confusing or anything [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:14]  	 * rdieter looks in late... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:22]  	f13: they use both comps and group? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:28]  	spot: I do believe so [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:23:32]  	eww. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:36]  	indeed [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:49]  	well, the alternative to making Group optional is to try to standardize on a set of Groups. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:50]  	racor: thats the big problem here, we've got two different ways of expressing what group a package belongs in. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:03]  	i personally feel this is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:10]  	racor: comps gives way more control over this than the rpm itself. and as such the rpm itself is often incorrect or doesn't match comps [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:20]  	but if the committee feels that way, i'll do it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:24]  	f13, so far comps is RH proprietary, rpm is not [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:35]  	spot: don't we already have a standard set of groups? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:41]  	racor: and this is a Fedora packaging committee. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:47]  	racor: how is an xml file any more or less than proprietary than groups? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:48]  	racor: of which, comps exists and is used extensively [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:56]  	especially since Fedora ships with it [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:25:18]  	(and every Fedora cvs user has commit access to it) [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:32]  	spot: So I think there are 3 options here. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:46]  	f13: not really. we have a list of "loose recommendations" [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:46]  	1) Make groups optional, don't really pay attention to it during review [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:26:05]  	2) Make groups required, have a strict set of possible groups [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:18]  	3) Ignore groups all together [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:26:35]  	4) derive comps from rpm's groups etc. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:26:53]  	racor: doesn't work. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:57]  	why [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:05]  	racor: a package could live in multiple groups in comps, plus there are group requirements in comps [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:18]  	comps is more intelligent/comprehensive than Group [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:23]  	racor: like package foo is in language group bar, but only make it a default if group baz is already selected. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:38]  	racor: also, Group: has no way to define 'default', 'manditory', 'optional' [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:51]  	f13: like rpm [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:28:42]  	we can't derive comps from groups, nor can we use the comps values to populate Group [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:28:50]  	which is why none of our package management applications use rpm by itself. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:04]  	f13: bug? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:08]  	the fedora direction is towards comps, as far as i can see. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:08]  	racor: no. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:29:16]  	racor: rpm is a very low level tool. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:18]  	f13: i disagree [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:23]  	racor: thats nice. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:34]  	racor: i'm sure that paul would take a patch to enable a "Comps" field in rpm [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:04]  	I'd have to say, until Groups go away completely (which afaict isn't soon), we're stuck with option 2. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:18]  	rdieter: not really [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:35]  	rdieter: since all the tools we use to express groupings use comps, we can really just ignore what is in the Group: field of a package. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:41]  	rdieter: it becomes useless data [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:50]  	f13: except apt and smart [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:59]  	f13: useless to you maybe... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:04]  	and synaptic [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:09]  	spot: I'd consider it a bug that they use the Group: tag (: [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:31:11]  	I think it's the best compromise is all. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:31:29]  	alright. i'll work on a list of "approved groups" and we can go over it. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:31:37]  	f13: RH living on an island and "cooperating" with the community [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:31:46]  	:( [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:50]  	So what do these nonstandard package managers do when they see a group of "(none)" or whatever RPM stores when Group: is missing? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:52]  	racor: no, hte Fedora project has picked its package management tools. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:04]  	correction: RH has [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:07]  	racor: if people want to write their own and go off in different directions, well, bummer. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:21]  	tibbs: presumably the same thing that they see when they look for "Packager" [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:25]  	racor: no, Fedora has. THe decision to use it in the installer and everywhere else had community input. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:29]  	or any of the other optional fields [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:31]  	FYI: I actively participate in apt-repomd development [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:33]  	So exactly what gets broken? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:47]  	tibbs: presumably it would confuse the grouping it does [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:56]  	People don't sensibly choose Group: as is, so it's currently useless already. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:12]  	racor: the Fedora project isn't going to bend over backwards to support every possible package mangement tool that understands rpm. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:19]  	but as i never used apt/smart for more than a few minutes without being annoyed, i'm not qualified to speak in depth [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:30]  	It's not something that's checked on review. There is no standardization. All of the effort is in cleaning comps up. That should be the way forward. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:14]  	ideally, i'd like to see Group reworked in rpm to enable packagers to store the Comps groups (note plural) in that field [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:34]  	but thats above and beyond the mandate for this committee [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:47]  	That would be semi-reasonable, except that you'd be duplicating that data. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:52]  	indeed. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:56]  	and youd still have to hand edit comps.xml [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:08]  	f13: or that field could be autopopulated by the buildsystem [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:11]  	from comps.xml [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:21]  	Or the other way around, I guess. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:46]  	 * f13 refrains from going further down the rabbit hole [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:57]  	either way, we need to do something around group now [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:16]  	why? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:19]  	as it is, we've got a mixed standard of reviewers insisting on the listed Groups, and some just ignoring group entirely [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:20]  	How about just picking a primary location in comps and stuffing that into Group: [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:26]  	can't it continue to be just as irrelevant as before? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:39]  	f13: because its not clear that it is irrelevant. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:43]  	ah. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:03]  	and if possible, i'd like to avoid making apt/smart convoluted. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:33]  	isn't that too late? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:45]  	yeah, let's just standardize it, enforce it, and be done with it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:45]  	well, if we standardize on a set of valid Group tags... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:07]  	then we _still_ have duplicate info [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:12]  	yeah. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:23]  	fix rpm, then we'll revisit making that duplicate info go away. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:33]  	I don't see what those alternate package managers lose by making Group optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:41]  	and if apt/smart want to use the same things that say anaconda/pirut use for groupings, they're going to have to either ignore group, deal with conflicts, or have lots of duplication [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:14]  	tibbs: apt doesn't use comps at all, but can filter on many other rpm-details [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:20]  	So? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:32]  	I still don't see what is lost by making Group: optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:34]  	tibbs: synaptics uses rpm groups to list packages [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:38]  	So? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:41]  	hurray for a package manager not showing the same options as the isntaller. _thats_ not confusing at all. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:46]  	You're not getting it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:55]  	It already contains useless information. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:18]  	tibbs: but it's not useless... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:27]  	People don't put useful things there. They just make something up. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:40]  	f13: because comps is an isolated, yum/anaconda/pirut proprietary solution [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:52]  	tibbs: that's why we standardize the darn thing, and be done with it. End of discussion. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:58]  	Instead of forcing them to make up something random thing, just allow them to leave the tag off. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:59]  	racor: yum/anaconda/pirut are all opensource, how is this proprietary? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:19]  	tibbs: People do put useful things in there. Some people put non-useful things in there. But getting rid of Groups would get rid of the useful ones as well. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:32]  	f13: OK nitpicking on wordings, again [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:38]  	abadger1999: he didn't say get rid of Group. He said making it optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:44]  	abadger1999: How does "making optional" equal "getting rig of"? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:52]  	yum etc. are not used by anybody else but RH based distros [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:54]  	racor: the only reason apt/smart/whatever doesn't use comps is because they choose to not support it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:57]  	racor: lazy. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:09]  	imo, making it optional is almost as bad as getting rid of it. Either use it, and use it *properly*, or not at all. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:10]  	RH has comps, SuSE has their own config.languages [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:29]  	rdieter: One thing at a time, though. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:35]  	f13: No. because these are using rpm, not comps [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:46]  	rdieter: frankly I'd rather go with the last option, since duplication and non-insync data is more harmful. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:01]  	racor: again, their choice. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:02]  	f13: because they assume a packageing system is complete [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:20]  	racor: if they assumed that, why did they have to write somethign to manage rpm? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:21]  	comps is "band-aid" on top of rpm [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:33]  	if a 'packaging system' is complete, why do we need things like yum and apt to handle it? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:51]  	racor: yeah, but it's a needed bandaid. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:08]  	i've not used comps ever since [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:08]  	racor: you could claim that apt is a bandaid on top of rpm and deb [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:32]  	tibbs: That is partially true. Compared to the current situation, allowing people to just not specify Group doesn't add to the problem. But compared to standardizing on a set of Groups it is a losing proposition (for apt). [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:00]  	Because a non-existent group is as bad as a made up category. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:08]  	f13: Yes, in fact it is, all such tools implement deptracking, etc. because rpm lacks it [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:45:17]  	It doesn't help the end user find a package that can help them do hat they want. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:35]  	racor: rpm lacks it, deb lacks it, slackware tgzs lack it, etc... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:36]  	i see two options. Either we standardize on a set of groups or we make group optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:02]  	 * rdieter nods [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:03]  	racor: so no packaging system is 'complete' until you consider the entire stack needed. Some people build on top of rpm+comps, some people do their own thing. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:27]  	So, we should vote for one of those two options. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:41]  	my feelings are we shouldn't waste effort on data that isn't used by the installer, the default package updater, the default package installer, etc... [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:51]  	Groups optional +1. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:56]  	f13: rpms contain the datasets to populate a database, yum/apt work on it. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:19]  	Groups optional (and unreviewed) +1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:21]  	comps is an additional dataset, outside of the rpmdataba [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:35]  	standardize Groups: +1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:49]  	racor: becuase package grouping is highly dependant on who is grouping the packages. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:58]  	standardize Group: +1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:03]  	racor: I may want to take the build packages and group them in one way for one product, an entirely different way in another product [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:05]  	Groups optional -1 [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:16]  	assuming how the end user would want to group thigns at package build time is forcing their hand. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:21]  	f13: symbolgrounding problem [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:29]  	package grouping belongs OUTSIDE of the rpm itself. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:34]  	racor: you only get 1 vote. (: [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:47]  	lutter/abadger1999 ? [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:48:53]  	spot: I vote +1 to either one with preference to Group optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:48:58]  	rdieter: this is absurd [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:09]  	abadger1999: we could do a hybrid. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:10]  	 * rdieter is won't disagree. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:21]  	-1 [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:21]  	Group is optional, but here is the approved list if you want to use it [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:36]  	useless [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:57]  	spot: thats just saying standardized groups, where one of the groups is blank. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:49:59]  	Frankly I don't want to waste five more meetings coming up with an approved group list.ll [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:50:47]  	tibbs: then stop arguing... (: [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:50:47]  	tibbs: Then come up with a proposal for comps and copy it one to one into rpm groups [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:05]  	So now it's my job? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:08]  	racor: doesn't work, can't have more than one rpm group [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:16]  	lots of things are in multiple comps groups [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:45]  	and really, package grouping depends on the person creating the repodata, not the person building the package. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:53]  	rdieter: You honestly think I'm arguing? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:23]  	what if I want to take all the fedora packages, put them in a different repo, group them differently and build a distro off that? why should I have to rebuild every package and change every package just to get different groupings? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:42]  	i think group is a relic, a piece of the past, and we should make it optional [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:50]  	+1 to group optional [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:55]  	grouping of packages should _not_ be in the package. It belongs in the repodata, which can be expressed differently [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:53:19]  	lutter: need you to vote here. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:54:23]  	 * spot looks at the clouds [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:54:51]  	12:24 +1 for making the group tag optional [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:06]  	yeah, but that was on the old vote. we don't let votes recycle [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:20]  	and i'm not going to assume. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:26]  	'old vote" [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:56:04]  	I haven't seen anything form lutter since then.  Did he wander off? [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:56:06]  	ok. i don't see quorum for either item. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:56:18]  	thus, we'll continue to do nothing on group. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:56:40]  	new topic [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:56:53]  	racor: are you interested in writing guidelines for packaging cross compilers? [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:57:09]  	Recall that I was trying to do so. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:57:10]  	you seem to have a vested interest in this area, as well as experience [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:57:21]  	spot: I would have been, but tibbs wrote something [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:57:41]  	racor: i seem to recall you being rather opposed to his draft [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:57:54]  	spot: well, yes. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [11:58:06]  	so, i'm interested in seeing a draft from you. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:58:17]  	Yes, please do be constructive. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:00]  	I'd have to check details again, but IIRC, his proposal was "beyond reality" (doesn't match with practice esp in GCC) [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:17]  	And you of course suggested improvements. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:17]  	racor: would you take a try at writing a proposal that matches reality? [Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:26]  	Unfortunately I don't recall seeing what those improvements were. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:24]  	f13: sorry (to all) .. had a bit of an emergency with the baby going nuts [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:24]  	tibbs: I had edited some remarks into your wiki, but you preferred to shout at me when I pointed you at them [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:33]  	lutter: completely understandable 9: [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:34]  	(: [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:00:48]  	lutter: you can vote on the group issue if you'd like [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:00:48]  	 * f13 sees this going nowhere. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:03]  	lutter: either standardize groups or make Group optional [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:10]  	racor: can you create a proposal based on your experience/thoughts?  May the best draft win? [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:26]  	spot: I think its important that he reads backlog a bit [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:27]  	racor: i would like to see your proposal [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:50]  	I think we all would. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:01:50]  	spot: +1 for making groups optional (and eventually getting rid of them) [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:02:02]  	My draft was only an attempt to get something done. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:02:11]  	ok. thats +5 for making groups optional. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:02:15]  	the rpm groups tag doesn't really have much value by itself IMHO .. you really need some overarching mechanism like comps [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:32]  	spot: A black day in RH's history :( [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:02:43]  	Finally some progress. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:02:58]  	its the doom and gloom show! [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:03:17]  	it's more a light shade of grey, imo. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:03:19]  	f13: yes, you finally managed to kick out apt [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:03:20]  	ok, thats an hour. anything anyone else wants to throw in before i close this out? [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:03:59]  	ok. thanks for coming. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:04:05]  	We should think of some better way to reach consensus. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:04:06]  	Nothing from me; license tag can wait until next week. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:04:11]  	racor: apt could easily make use of comps files, since it's the _actual_ _way_ that Fedora is defining package groupings. [Tue Nov 28 2006]  [12:04:14]  	Final last words from me: I'll look into the cross-compiler stuff [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:19]  	racor: thanks. [Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:26]  Quit	racor has left this server ("Leaving").