Packaging:Minutes20071204

Present

 * DavidLutterkort
 * JasonTibbitts
 * JesseKeating
 * RalfCorsepius
 * RexDieter
 * ToshioKuratomi
 * VilleSkyttä

Writeups
The following draft has been accepted by FESCO and is to be written into the guidelines:


 * Policy for font packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy

Votes
No votes this week.

Other Discussions
No real meeting this week; those present discussed some of the issues surrounding the lack of proper Java packaging guidelines.

IRC Logs
[11:14] So, FPC meeting? [11:14] * lutter is here [11:16] --> bhanupatial has joined this channel (n=bhanu@dialpool-210-214-123-127.maa.sify.net). [11:16] i am here [11:16] I set the font proposals to writeup. [11:18] * scop is here, but only for 10 minutes [11:18] The only question I had is regarding the groups portion of the font guidelines which we decided weren't our business. [11:18] Do those get written in as normal? [11:19] --> smooge has joined this channel (n=smooge@canopus.unm.edu). [11:19] imo, yes, it's just something outside of our approval/oversight. :) [11:20] I can't think of where else it would live if not below Packaging. [11:21]  yep [11:23]  The only packaging-related stuff I had to talk about regards java, and that's just random musing. [11:24]  I started getting some useful answers to a couple of the java questions I asked. [11:24]  Most annoying is the fact that some of the jpackage stuff is actively broken and we really shouldn't have it in Fedora. [11:24]  +1 [11:26]  The only real point is due to that there's no hope for a wholesale incorporation of jpackage into Fedora, which is what some folks seem to have wanted. [11:26]  Personally I'm happy about that, but now if we have to go modifying every package to remove broken jpackage-isms, we might as well have our own set of clean guidelines. [11:26]  Unfortunately nobody from the java team wants to step forward to help write them. [11:28]  As I review more java packages, though, I might be able to cobble together enough random knowledge to at least propose something. [11:28] I'm also interested in helping out with that [11:28] Maybe having a concrete proposal on the table could at least generate some feedback. [11:29] The big problem is that everything is going to change when icedtea becomes fully functional. As I understand things, it's supposed to support PPC now. [11:30] Maybe we can ditch the "gcj_support" stuff at some point. [11:31] Because this isn't pleasant: %define gcj_support %{?_with_gcj_support:1}%{!?_with_gcj_support:%{?_without_gcj_support:0}%{!?_without_gcj_support:%{?_gcj_support:%{_gcj_support}}%{!?_gcj_support:0 [11:31] I'd rather get a papercut and pour lemon juice on it [11:32]  well, that could be simplified a lot [11:32] %bcond_with gcj_support [11:33] it seems they can't make up their mind how to indicate gcj_support [11:33] "backwards support" [11:33] tibbs: is thaty in every rpm or in some macro file somewhere ? If the latter, it doesn't seem like that big a deal [11:34] lutter: every rpm at the top [11:34] yuck [11:34] And completely meaningless to us because you can't pass flags to the buildsys. [11:34] the example tibbs posted also looks broken, btw [11:34] yes. [11:35] its pure junk from jpackage. [11:35] s/posted/pasted/ [11:36] I think a basic java template would be nice and simple. I really don't understand why all of the complexity is in there. [11:36] jpackage. [11:36] back when I was an active JPackage member, I tried to resist quite a bit of junk and complexity, but unfortunately with pretty thin results [11:36] and the plethora of jvms [11:37] But for Fedora, we just have to consider icedtea. [11:37] (Assuming icedtea now has sufficiently complete support for our platforms.) [11:37] I don't think it's quite _that_ simple [11:37] as long as the alternatives system is in place [11:38] I don't see why; that can't alter how the packages are built. [11:38] We just need to make sure jars are in the proper place. [11:39] and that the stuff is compiled with appropriate -source flags [11:39] and that it loads a sufficiently new java runtime when run [11:39] All of that is meaningless to me. [11:39] And the example packages I'm looking at make no mention of that kind of thing. [11:39] ditto to most people out there, which is why I actively resisted the alternatives mess in the first place [11:40] I still contend that icedtea is the only thing we need to consider in guidelines. [11:40] *** dwmw2 is now known as dwmw2_gone. [11:40] I disagree strongly unless we rip out the alternatives stuff [11:41] If someone wants to write up a document on how to deal with "your package doesn't work with Sun JVM" bugs, then good. [11:41] But we simply can't consider the implications of every random JVM that someone might want to plug into their system. [11:42] but by having the alternatives stuff in place, we are giving a "permission" to not only do exactly that, but to make it the system default [11:42] That then falls on the end user to deal with the mess. [11:42] People can try to build a 2.4 kernel, too. We don't care if it works. [11:43] not the same thing IMO [11:44] In the end all this is going to result in is a continued lack of any java guideline at all. [11:45] I disagree, but we'll see [11:45] I do not think it appropriate to expect any community maintainer of a java-using package to have to worry about what random jvm end users might try to plug in. [11:45] scop: +1 to some extent. Using alternatives does seem to imply that we support the idea of using alternate jvms. [11:45] OTOH, I don't know if we need to extend it to jvm's that Fedora doesn't ship.... [11:45] tibbs, you're overreacting [11:45] Erm, no. [11:46]  * scop shrugs [11:47] anyway, I should have left already 15 minutes ago, can't hang around any longer tonight [11:47] later scop [11:47] later [11:47] <-- scop has left this channel ("Leaving"). [11:49] Well, too bad, I guess. [11:49] <-- bhanupatial has left this channel. [11:51] I'm going to wander off unless someone has anything else. [11:53] not I.