Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060209

Summary
Present from Fesco: thl, jpo, skvidal, Sopwith, jeremy, mschwendt, scop, thomasvs, f13

Tasks:


 * Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager

Sopwith and skvidal will make sure that the following will be be added to the buildsystems: Vendor:	Fedora Extras Packager: Fedora Extras 


 * Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5

A separate mail will follow. This is the rough version: Can probably start on Sunday (February 12). Method: All packagers will take care of their to rebuild their own packages. Means: Increase release, put a comment like "Rebuild for FC5" in the changelog and request build. We're ignoring dep-order this way, but that works fine in core, too. It's to late for a better solution, but if anybody has problem with that please prepare a proposal how to do mass builds in the future. Orphaned packages will be removed before the rebuild starts. Rebuilds only for FE5 of course -- rebuilding packages in FE4 also just to keep the spec files in all branches in sync is stupid because it would mean unneeded updates/downloads for Extras users. Please only rebuild the packages you own! Branching for FE6 will probably happen at the same time as in rawhide.

Still unsure (Comments please!):
 * what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two weeks?
 * Packages not rebuild before the 12th of February will be removed before FC5 is shipped to start with a clean tree with old cruft removed.


 * Encourage Extras reviews

Some SIG's were created and already started to work -- see http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs

The whole thing is a bit unorganized ATM. We don't need to many rules to organize a SIG, but we probably need *some*. Some parts of the discussions: 19:27 <        jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl 19:28 <  mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least. 19:31 <  mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games 19:31 <  mschwendt> | There's some content. 19:31 <  mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work. 19:32 <        thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff 19:32 <        thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html 19:32 <      nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages. 19:32 <  mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page 19:33 <  mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points 19:33 <      nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;) 19:33 <        thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-| 19:34 <   mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page 19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general 19:35 <         thl> | anyone interested in that job? 19:35 <   mschwendt> | not necessarily 19:35 <   mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already 19:35 <   mschwendt> | it just needs more time 19:35 <   mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps 19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed 19:36 <         thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho

nirik suggested 'package review days'. We'll try this out and see how it works: 19:30 <      nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)? 19:30 <      nirik> | perhaps sometime next week? 19:32 <      nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling.


 * EOL Policy for FE

Still under discussion. See the full log for all details. Highlights: 19:40 <  mschwendt> | we cannot offer an old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially 19:43 <        jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE 19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about. do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes? 19:44 <  mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on 19:44 <   mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5 19:47 <        thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list 19:52 <   dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras 19:52 <        jwb> | the entire thing? 19:53 <   dgilmore> | jwb: yes  i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux 19:53 <  mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team. 19:53 <        thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list? 19:54 <   dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do


 * Broken deps report

Waiting for further discussion on the list.


 * Weekly sponsorship nomination

Andreas Bierfert (awjb) was nominated and accepted.

BTW, It seems some people hesitate to nominate people in a public IRC channel. Therefore I'll modify the process slightly: FESCo-Members will discuss nominations directly on the FESCo-mailinglist in the future. If other sponsors or Extras packagers want to nominate someone just drop me a mail and I'll forward it. Okay for everybody?


 * Kernel module standardization

What remains to be done? buildsys :( thl will try to get this moving again.

Full Log
18:55           --> | Sopwith (Elliot Lee)  has joined #fedora-extras 18:58           --> | jpo (Unknown)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:00             * | thl looks around 19:00 <        thl> | anyone around? 19:00 <  dgilmore> | thl: im here 19:00 <   Sopwith> | thl :) 19:01              * | skvidal is here 19:01 <         thl> | welcome back skvidal ;-) 19:01 <       jpo> | thl: also here 19:01 <        thl> | well, then lets start slowly 19:01 <   skvidal> | thl: thanks 19:02 <        thl> | skvidal, have you seen the mail from caillon "Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager?" 19:02             * | jeremy is here 19:02           --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:02 <   skvidal> | thl: umm, yes 19:02 <   skvidal> | thl: why? 19:03 <        thl> | is there any reason why we don't set those fields? 19:03 <        thl> | can we set them? 19:03 <   Sopwith> | thl: The build system should probably set them in its rpmrc... 19:03 <    Sopwith> | or macros or whatever 19:03 <   skvidal> | thl: there's a field in the mock config that lets you set that sort of stuff 19:04 <        thl> | then we should do that imho 19:04 <    skvidal> | in the .rpmmacros file of the mockbuild user in the chroot 19:04 <        thl> | or does anyone don't like the idea? 19:04 <   skvidal> | thl: okay - it's a setting that needs to be handled on the builder nodes 19:04 <        thl> | what do we put in those? 19:05 <        thl> | Vendor=Fedora Extras 19:05 <    skvidal> | no, just one sec 19:05 <    skvidal> | in the mock config file 19:05 <    skvidal> | there are a bunch of things like 19:06 <    skvidal> | config_opts = """ some stuff here""" 19:06 <    skvidal> | there's one named config_opts 19:06 <    skvidal> | it's default is: 19:06 <    skvidal> |     config_opts = """ 19:06 <     skvidal> | %_topdir %s/build 19:06 <     skvidal> | %_rpmfilename   %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm 19:06 <     skvidal> | """ % config_opts 19:07 <    skvidal> | so all we need to do is define it in the mock config file and add %vendor and %packager, I think. 19:07           --> | thomasvs (Thomas Vander Stichele)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:07 <    skvidal> | and then those fields will be set 19:07 <        thl> | skvidal, sounds great 19:07 <        thl> | how about: 19:07 <        thl> | Vendor:	Fedora Extras 19:07 <        thl> | Packager: Fedora Extras  19:08 <    skvidal> | no problem here - I just don't know how to set that in the mock configs on the builders 19:08 <    skvidal> | like I do not know how to get to the machines. 19:08 <        thl> | Sopwith? 19:09 <    Sopwith> | skvidal: Info on logging into the machines was posted to fedora-sysadmin-list - check archives 19:09 <    skvidal> | Sopwith: it's not on the wiki? 19:09 <    Sopwith> | no 19:10 <     skvidal> | and that doesn't seem silly to you? 19:10 <    Sopwith> | No 19:10 <     skvidal> | so instead of it being searchable and in an obvious place it's in an obscure place in the archives from 2005 19:10 <    skvidal> | oooooooookie doke 19:11 <        thl> | well, let's proceed -- Sopwith, skvidal can you take care of this stuff ? 19:11 <        thl> | I take that as yes ;-) 19:11 <     skvidal> | yah 19:11 <    Sopwith> | thl: I can help out, yea. 19:12 <         thl> | jeremy, Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5 19:12 <     Sopwith> | I try to let other people cover the build system :) 19:12 <    jeremy> | thl: I think core is done/almost done at this point... so it's probably worth having people start say the beginning of next week? 19:13             * | jeremy hasn't talked to f13 yet today for a status on the core rebuild, but sees beehive being less cluttered 19:13 <        thl> | sounds like a plan 19:13 <        thl> | so we'll simply use the "guys, please rebuild your packages now" solution? 19:13 <     jeremy> | yeah -- I think that's the better approach 19:13 <  mschwendt> | Yes, good opportunity for Extras maintainers to take a look at their dependencies on Core+Extras. 19:13 <     jeremy> | and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed 19:14 <        thl> | okay 19:14 <        thl> | next one: 19:14 <   dgilmore> | so the load doesnt get huge  should the request be  only build for fc5  not fc3 and 4  as well 19:14 <    ignacio> | When will the FE5 branch be created and devel be pushed to 6? 19:14 <  mschwendt> | dgilmore: why rebuild for fc3/fc4? 19:15 <        thl> | ignacio, will probably happen when core is branched. Or am I wrong with that? jeremy, Sopwith ? 19:15 <   dgilmore> | mschwendt: alot of people  might build on all to keep spec files the same across all releases 19:15 <     jeremy> | ignacio: when we branch core. so basically right at release time 19:16 <  mschwendt> | dgilmore: I consider that weird. 19:16 <     jeremy> | dgilmore: I'd say it's worthwhile to suggest just building on devel to make it clear 19:16 <    ignacio> | Should we start with an empty FE5 repo and rebuild the packages for it, or will we clone from devel again? 19:16           --- | nman64_away is now known as nman64 19:16 <     jeremy> | ignacio: clone from devel is the only sane way to go 19:16 <   mschwendt> | ignacio: the latter 19:16 <        f13> | jeremy: I have a list of failures to sort through, but it looks like a good chunk went through last night. 19:16 <    Sopwith> | ignacio: I think the branching decision is best made by FESCO to meet the needs of the extras packagers :) 19:16 <    dgilmore> | mschwendt: theres no need to rebuild fc3/fc4  but id make it clear  in requesting  that its devel only 19:16 <         f13> | jeremy: I'd say give it another day. 19:16 <      jeremy> | f13: I noticed.  :) 19:17 <        f13> | he 19:17 <         f13> | h 19:17 <         thl> | jeremy, f13, is sunday okay? 19:17 <  mschwendt> | Sopwith: who can create the FC-5 branch when we need it? 19:17 <    jeremy> | thl: seems like a reasonable thing to shoot for 19:17 <     jeremy> | if something changes, I'll send mail 19:17 <      nirik> | what about removing orphan packages from the repos? it seems we have some in there in devel currently... 19:17 <       f13> | thl: 8-ball says "Outlook good" 19:18 <    Sopwith> | mschwendt: Anyone with root on the cvs box (admin@fedoraproject.org will get the request through if nothing else...) 19:18           --> | scop (Ville Skytta)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:18 <        thl> | removing the orphan packages before the rebuild sounds like a good idea 19:18 <  mschwendt> | Sopwith: So somebody within FESCO can jump it when we discuss it on the list, right? 19:18 <  mschwendt> | nirik, thl: +1 19:19 <        thl> | who can take care of it? 19:19 <        thl> | should happen soon, e.g. before sunday ;-) 19:19 <  mschwendt> | thl: I'm going to take a look 19:19 <         thl> | mschwendt, do you have access to the right box to remove the packages yourself? 19:19 <   mschwendt> | yes 19:19 <         thl> | great 19:19 <        scop> | sorry for being late and not quite up to date on things, but what "the rebuild"? 19:19 <       nirik> | getting rid of orphans should clean up the broken depends some too. 19:20 <         thl> | scop ? 19:21 <       scop> | thl, "removing the orphan packages before the rebuild ..." 19:21 <      nman64> | scop: FE5 19:21 <       nirik> | scop: rebuild of packages in extras for fc5. 19:21 <        scop> | I thought that was left to package maintainers 19:21 <   mschwendt> | scop: orphans are without a maintainer 19:22 <   mschwendt> | and when they are broken, they don't work anyway 19:22 <        scop> | mschwendt, yes, but if they're being removed, what's going to be rebuilt? 19:22 <        thl> | scop, the whole stuff 19:22 <     nman64> | The orphaned packages will no longer be present. 19:22 <  mschwendt> | scop: nearly everything else for the new GCC 19:23 <        thl> | we're at "Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5" 19:23 <        thl> | we plan to start on sunday 19:23 <       scop> | ok, so it's no longer left to the maintainers...? 19:23 <        thl> | with the maintainers build their own packages when they want 19:23 <       scop> | ok 19:23 <         thl> | solution 19:23 <        thl> | ok, anything left to discuss on this topic? 19:24           --- | thl has changed the topic to: Encourage Extras reviews 19:24 <        thl> | some SIG's were created 19:25 <        thl> | but how are they doing to work? 19:25 <        thl> | any ideas? 19:25 <        jwb> | erm, did we skip EOL? 19:25 <        thl> | jwb, ohh, sorry 19:25 <        jwb> | no problem, just wondering 19:25 <        thl> | let's talk about this one now 19:25 <        thl> | got the wrong line while cut and pasting ;-) 19:26 <         thl> | or are there other ideas how to encourage reviews? 19:26              * | skvidal has to go do some work - ping me by name if you need me 19:26            --> | mdomsch (Matt Domsch)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:26 <   mschwendt> | SIGs have been created? Where can I learn about it prior to a meeting? 19:27 <         jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl 19:27 <         jwb> | mschwendt, there was some discussion on the list about it 19:27            --- | edhill_ is now known as edhill 19:28 <      nirik> | thl: perhaps we could setup a 'review exchange' ? ie, you put in that you would like someone to review your package X, and you will review their package Y? might be too complicated I though... 19:28 <         jwb> | nirik, hard to account for ones that need sponsors 19:28 <  mschwendt> | jwb: I think SIGs need more on-list discussion before discussing this here. I see empty pages in the Wiki or pages listing two people, but nothing else. 19:28 <        thl> | nirik, do you mean a general wiki page for that? 19:28 <  mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least. 19:29 <        thl> | Or a section in the wiki pages of the SIGs? 19:29 <        jwb> | mschwendt, sure i agree 19:29 <      nirik> | mdomsch: +1 19:29 <     nirik> | thl: not sure, just tossing out an idea. I suspect it would be too hard to manage... 19:29 <     nirik> | thl: there is also possibly a 'package review day' idea. 19:30 <        thl> | nirik, the idea imho is worth a try 19:30 <        thl> | both actually 19:30 <        jwb> | i like the package review day 19:30 <      nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)? 19:30 <      nirik> | perhaps sometime next week? 19:31 <  mschwendt> | SIG - Let's take this as an example: 19:31 <        thl> | nirik, +1 19:31 <  mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games 19:31 <  mschwendt> | There's some content. 19:31 <  mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work. 19:31 <  mschwendt> | i.e. do they collect review requests for their field of interest? 19:32 <     nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling. 19:32 <        thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff 19:32 <        thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html 19:32 <      nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages. 19:32 <        thl> | nirik, thx 19:32 < mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page 19:33 < mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points 19:33 <      nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;) 19:33 <        thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-| 19:34 <  mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page 19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general 19:35 <         thl> | anyone interested in that job? 19:35 <   mschwendt> | no necessarily 19:35 <   mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already 19:35 <   mschwendt> | it just needs more time 19:35 <   mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps 19:35 <   mschwendt> | s/no/not/ 19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed 19:36 <         thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho 19:36 <       nirik> | as an additional unrelated idea, how about suggesting to people that they publish a link to their new/review package review upstream and ask for reviwers from the upstream pool. They might not know rpm/fedora, but they could at least test the package... 19:36 <        thl> | ignacio, could you take care of that? 19:36 <        thl> | ignacio, shouldn't be to much work 19:36 <  mschwendt> | nirik: not worth the effort as many upstream people think very different than we do. 19:37           <-- | finalzone  has left #fedora-extras 19:37 <  mschwendt> | nirik: they would consider the entire reviewing process an unnecessary "burden" 19:37 <      nirik> | yeah, it would depend on the upstream I guess. 19:37 <        jwb> | it does. i've done that in the past and gotten good and bad results 19:37 <        thl> | well, we're running out of time 19:37 <        thl> | let's stop here for today 19:38           --- | thl has changed the topic to:  EOL Policy for FE 19:38 <         thl> | any modifications needed to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy 19:38 < mschwendt> | thl: followup to your SIG message on extras-list will happen... 19:39 <        thl> | mschwendt, thx :-) 19:39              * | thl will take that as "no" soon 19:40 <   mschwendt> | w8 a sec 19:40 <   mschwendt> | that is the old proposal, but it's not covering an 19:40 <   mschwendt> | announcement that a version of FE has reached end-of-life 19:40 <         thl> | I thought f13 updated it 19:40 <   mschwendt> | we cannot offer and old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially 19:40 <   mschwendt> | s/and/an/ 19:41 <         thl> | well, it's not EOL (yet) 19:41 <         thl> | Maintenance state 19:41 <         thl> | was the definition iirc 19:41 <   mschwendt> | that's not helpful, when some packagers still maintain it while others don't 19:42 <   mschwendt> | either the full show or none at all 19:42 <         thl> | do you suggest to remove FE3 soon? 19:42 <   mschwendt> | no, we need to declare end-of-life 19:42 <         thl> | when? 19:43 <        jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE 19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about. do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes? 19:44 <  mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on 19:44 <   mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5 19:44 <        thl> | mschwendt, well, I suspect some people ignored FE3 already 19:45 <        thl> | so it might be insecure already... 19:45 < mschwendt> | thl: that's why we need to declare EOL 19:45 <        jwb> | mschwendt, which means no updates? 19:45             * | jwb doesn't like this 19:45             * | scop neither 19:45 <  mschwendt> | I don't mean "no updates". 19:46 <     nman64> | More like "no promises". 19:46 <  mschwendt> | I just don't like the proposal of "some packagers may update it, others won't update it and won't do security fixes either" 19:46 <        jwb> | oh, i see 19:46 <  mschwendt> | nman64: more like "even less promises" 19:46 <        jwb> | that i can agree to i suppose 19:46 <        thl> | mschwendt, well, that a general problem with extras 19:47 < mschwendt> | thl: sure, but it is bigger problem for legacy dists 19:47 <        jwb> | mschwendt, i have no problem with EOL as long as the maintainers that _do_ care are still able to put updates out for fixes/etc. 19:47 <        thl> | it get more complicated when releases get older 19:47 <     nman64> | It is difficult to assure anything with a volunteer project. 19:47 <  mschwendt> | jwb: sure 19:47 <        thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list 19:48 <        jwb> | cool 19:48 <  mschwendt> | with the example of fedora.us 19:48 <   mschwendt> | Extras for FC-2 and older have been open for updates, but hardly anybody had interest in the old dists 19:48 < mschwendt> | thl: yeah, move on 19:49 <         thl> | mschwendt, that might be a bit different with the official extras now 19:49 <        thl> | because it's easier 19:49 <        thl> | anyway, let's move on 19:49            --- | thl has changed the topic to:  Broken deps report 19:49 <        thl> | I think we should skip this for this week 19:49 <        thl> | and wait for the results of mschwendt posting to extras-list 19:49 <        thl> | okay? 19:50 <  mschwendt> | fine with me 19:50 <         jwb> | i'd like to point out that mschwendt's current posts rock 19:50           --- | thl has changed the topic to: Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:50 <        thl> | I suggest Andreas Bierfert / awjb 19:51 <  mschwendt> | +1 19:51 <     edhill> | +1 19:51 <        thl> | anyone that does not like the idea? 19:52 <        thl> | okay, I'll upgrade him to a sponsor 19:52 <        thl> | any other nominations? 19:52 <   dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras 19:52 <        jwb> | the entire thing? 19:53 <   dgilmore> | jwb: yes  i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux 19:53 <   dgilmore> | and as aurora 2.0 is based on fc3  i based on that 19:53 <  mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team. 19:53 <        thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list 19:53 <        thl> | ? 19:54 <  dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do 19:54 <         thl> | dgilmore, thx 19:54 <        thl> | okay 19:55 <        thl> | does anybody want to discuss anything else from the schedule? 19:55 <        thl> | "Extras to handle multilib" for example? 19:55 <       jwb> | thl, i have a sponsor-ish question 19:55 <        thl> | jwb, shoot 19:56 <        jwb> | at one point any RH engineer had automagical sponsor auth (was a while ago). does that still hold, or have we moved away from that? 19:56 <        thl> | jwb, good question... I don't know... 19:57 <        thl> | anyone else? 19:57 <        jwb> | question comes from the seamonkey review where someone nominated chris allion as their sponsor but he isn't listed in the sponsor page 19:57 <        jpo> | I believe they need to be sponsored 19:57 <     jeremy> | I thought we moved away from that 19:57 <        jwb> | ok, that's what i thought as well 19:58 <        thl> | jwb, ping spot or send him a mail 19:58 <        thl> | he'll know the details 19:58 <        jwb> | will do 19:58 <         thl> | scop, now that your are here: 19:58           --- | thl has changed the topic to: Kernel module standardization 19:58 <        thl> | what remains to be done? 19:58 <       scop> | buildsys :( 19:58 <         thl> | patch for rpm-macros? 19:59 <        scop> | not essential 19:59 <         thl> | scop, did you talk with dcbw 19:59 <        scop> | nope 19:59 <         thl> | someone should... 19:59 <        scop> | I just had a brief look at things, tweaked the extras Makefile.common and friends so that eg "make i686" does the right thing, but that's about it 20:00 <         thl> | jeremy, Sopwith, can you poke dcbw? 20:00 <        scop> | finding out that mock doesn't apparently support passing in arbitrary arguments (or even --defines) to builds was an unpleasant surprise 20:01 <         jwb> | that can be changed, yes? 20:01 <         thl> | scop, I mad a patch for this ages ago 20:01 <         thl> | that at least allowed some sepcial arbitrary arguments 20:01 <        scop> | well, yes, and mach did support it, but nevertheless the current mock doesn't 20:02 <         thl> | scop, I'll try to get things moving 20:02           --- | thl has changed the topic to: free discussion 20:02 <        thl> | okay, anything left? 20:02           --> | finalzone (gaim)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:03 <       scop> | the "rebuild everything" stuff is still fuzzy to me 20:03 <         thl> | scop, what precisely ? 20:03 <        thl> | we chose to ignore the deps 20:04 <        thl> | and just to it similar to core 20:04 <       scop> | if I take care of rebuilding my packages, will someone do an automated rebuild of them after next sunday again anyway? 20:04 <        thl> | simply rebuild everything 20:04 <        thl> | scop, no, that should now happen 20:04 <   dgilmore> | scop: maintainers will be asked on sunday to start rebuilding there packages  at there convenience 20:04 <       scop> | okay 20:04 <       scop> | is there a reason one should hold on until sunday? 20:04 <        thl> | scop, anything else unclear? 20:05 <   dgilmore> | scop: it was to wait till core was done building 20:05 <  mschwendt> | scop: unless we have a very good tool which can to bottom-up rebuilding of everything, we need maintainers to get a good understanding of their dependencies on Core/Extras, so they coordinate rebuilds if necessary 20:05 <  mschwendt> | scop: s/can to/can do/ 20:05 <        thl> | I don't think coordinating works 20:06 <        thl> | a simply uncoordinated rebuild works in core, too 20:06 <        thl> | I thinks it'S okay if we do it that way now, too 20:06 <  mschwendt> | if you depend on other packages which are broken, we need solutions for that. Like "bump and rebuild yourself"? Or like "file bug report"? 20:06 <        thl> | but we should find a better solution for FE6 20:06           --> | hlieberman (http://rate.affero.net/hlieberman)  has joined #fedora-extras 20:06 < hlieberman> | I'm having some scrollkeeper and rpath problems.... If anyone can help me, that'd be great. 20:07 < mschwendt> | thl: multilib proposal needs work on various fronts (buildsys, packaging policies, reviewing policies) a bit much for IRC 20:07 <        thl> | mschwendt, file a bug report, wait one week, and then bump and rebuild yourself 20:07 <        thl> | mschwendt, agreed 20:07             * | nirik needs to find time to file bugs on the packages from the mock-rebuild. A number are fixed now. 20:07 <     |Jef|> | thl: its appropriate for me to bump and rebuild another maintainers package? 20:07 <  mschwendt> | |Jef|: that could result in big chaos 20:08 <   dgilmore> | |Jef|: i would say if they havent responded to a bugzilla request yes 20:08 <        thl> | |Jef|, not now 20:08 <     |Jef|> | thl: im in that situation right now waiting for thomasvs to fix a blocker 20:08 <        thl> | |Jef|, but that might be neccessay if we get closer to release of FC5 20:08 <        jwb> | |Jef|, is a fix involved or is it just a bump and rebuild? 20:08 <  mschwendt> | |Jef|: we need just another RE SIG for that ;) 20:09 <       |Jef|> | jwb: its looks like a minor packaging fix 20:09 <       |Jef|> | mschwendt: shurg 20:09 <       |Jef|> | jwb: and thl knows exactly what im talking about.. since he figured out the underlying problem 20:09 <       nirik> | |Jef|: is there a bug filed? perhaps you could file one and add a patch? 20:10 <       |Jef|> | jwb: so i bring it up as a concrete example that thl should understand.. 20:10 <         thl> | |Jef|, I'll think a bit about this whole situation/problem and will post something to the list 20:10 <         thl> | |Jef|, that okay? 20:10 <      |Jef|> | thl: shrug 20:10 <      |Jef|> | thl: im just pointing out a current example that relates to this discussion 20:10 <         thl> | yeah, I know 20:10 <   mschwendt> | Well, escalate the issue, and FESCO needs to deal with it. ;) 20:11 <      |Jef|> | mschwendt: that assumes that i actually want it fixed 20:11 <        thl> | where is thomasvs btw -- he joined soon after the meeting started... 20:11 <      nirik> | I think where possible you shouldn't modify/rebuild other peoples packages. If it gets bad perhaps there should be a way to change maintainers on a package for someone who's unresponsive? 20:11 <      |Jef|> | mschwendt: if istanbul doesnt rebuild.. less work for me :-> 20:12 <        thl> | guys, let's call it a day 20:12 <      |Jef|> | mschwendt: not a horrible problem since its not in fc4.. no upgrade path to worry about for this one 20:12             * | thl will end the meeting in 30 if no new topics hit the floor 20:12             * | thl will close in 15 20:13             * | thl will close in 7 20:13             * | thl will close in 3 20:13             * | thl will close in 2 20:13             * | thl will close in 1 20:13 <        thl> | MARK meeting end 20:13 <        thl> | thx guys