Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060302

Summary
Present from FESCo: thl, warren, jeremy, scop, skvidal, mschwendt, ensc, thomasvs

Important topics:


 * Kernel module standardization


 * xen naming problems should be solved soon
 * scop will fire some test builds (site note: there was a problem; see the lists)


 * Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5


 * poke thias again -- he still has a lot of packages that are not yet rebuild (site note: poked, no response yet)
 * orphans that can be removed without breaking other stuff will be deleted from the repo and disabled in cvs (site note: was done already by mschwendt).
 * gst08 -- we need this in FE5 because some packages depend on it. Plan: Get it into extras until next Thursday. even if it's not perfect.


 * EOL Policy for FE


 * No process. thl has it on his todo-list.


 * Encourage Extras reviews


 * better documentation. warren will do that after FC5 is out the door


 * Broken deps report


 * problems when running on rawhide. mschwendt and skvidal will look into this.


 * Weekly sponsorship nomination


 * Nobody.


 * separate lists for bugzilla-spam


 * warren is working on it


 * FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker bug


 * Will be removed from the schedule. Warren will document it in the updated documentation. We can put it back if there is anything remaining regarding it.


 * Free discussion; Highlights: Script that automatically checks things during review, Multilib in extras (seems some people don't like the idea)

19:55 <        jwb> | are we still waiting for plague 0.5 before discussing scratch builds again? 19:56 <        thl> | jwb, yes, I think so --- 19:56 <    ignacio> | I was talking to jbj, and he was saying that a number of things that we currently check for in the review can easily be automated. 19:57 <       spot> | the difficulty with automating the review tasks is that there are far too many special case scenarios that have to be dealt with 19:58 <       spot> | where an intelligent human can adapt, an automated process can not. 19:58 <    ignacio> | Not automating the review tasks, but automating the things the review checks for. 19:58 <       spot> | thats what i mean. 19:58 <    ignacio> | Such as calling ldconfig, and so on. 19:59 <       spot> | given enough time, i'm sure people will find exception cases 19:59 <       spot> | like packages that include so files, but dont want to call ldconfig 19:59 <        thl> | ignacio, is writting a script or app that checks this stuff really worth the effort? 19:59             * | bpepple thinks the fedora-qa script does a lot of that. 20:00 <    ignacio> | Maybe. 20:00 <       spot> | it might be helpful for reviewers, but not as a replacement 20:00 <    ignacio> | There does need to be some looking into it done. 20:00 <    ignacio> | Or maybe just should, but still. 20:00 <        jwb> | there's a fedora-qa script? 20:00 <      nirik> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AurelienBompard 20:00 <      nirik> | for the fedora-qa script. ;) 20:01 <    ignacio> | Why isn't that in UsefulScripts? 20:01 <        ensc> | I would think about a system which checks submitted packages (e.g. with rpmlint, various installation tests, ...), tells the results into the review system and human reviewer can decide whether the package can be accepted 20:01 <         jwb> | why isn't there a package for it!? 20:01 <     bpepple> | jwb: Yup, it checks a lot of the items (dup BR's, etc.)/ 20:01 <        ensc> | but that's nothing which can  be done with some scripts 20:01 <        spot> | ensc: +1 20:01 <        ensc> | I wrote (resp. tarted to wrote) such a system for me diploma thesis 20:02 <       ensc> | but it's far away from being ready 20:02 <         thl> | ensc, yeah, might be a good idea 20:02 <         thl> | ensc, how about asking hte list for coments? 20:02 <       ensc> | thl: http://enrico-scholz.de/diplom 20:03 <        ensc> | afair, I was at 15000 LOC  :( 20:03 <        thl> | we'll let's look at this idea after FC5 is out --- 19:56 <        thl> | I would like multilib for extras 19:56 <        thl> | wine.i386 in the x86_64 tree for example 19:56 <  thomasvs> | thl: ew 20:03 <         thl> | thomasvs, don't like the multilib idea? 20:04 <  thomasvs> | thl: I think people who want multilib in that way, should get from both trees explicitly 20:04 <  thomasvs> | thl: the only way to improve true 64 bit is to make sure you can get 64-bit only systems installed 20:04 <        thl> | thomasvs, wine is a exception 20:05 <  thomasvs> | thl: right - so it should be installed by hand, but that's just MO 20:05 <         thl> | because a wine.x86_64 would only be able to execute win x64 apps 20:05 <        thl> | okay, let's stop this at this point

Full Log
18:59           --> | scop (Ville Skytta)  has joined #fedora-extras 18:59             * | jeremy will be in and out for fesco today 18:59             * | skvidal is here 19:00 <    skvidal> | right on time, for once 19:00             * | scop is partially here 19:00 <    skvidal> | scop: which part? 19:00 <       scop> | skvidal, you don't want to know :) 19:00 <     skvidal> | heh 19:00              * | jeremy refrains from asking if scop is wearing pants ;-) 19:00           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress 19:00 <    skvidal> | jeremy: he could be our own jdub 19:01 <        thl> | hi everybody; who's around? 19:01           --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:02             * | nman64 lurks in the shadows. 19:02           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- 19:02           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress -- Kernel module standardization 19:02 <    skvidal> | hi thl 19:02 <    skvidal> | I'm around 19:02             * | skvidal runs away from the topc 19:02 <        thl> | jeremy, any sign regarding xen changes? 19:03 <    jeremy> | thl: they will happen. but xen has to be building again first 19:03 <        thl> | :-) 19:03 <         thl> | scop, anything else that needs to be discussed regarding kmods 19:04 <        scop> | nothing new, I guess 19:04 <        scop> | I'll fire some test builds tonight 19:04 <         thl> | k, great 19:04 <         thl> | then let's proceed 19:04            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting in progress --  Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5 19:04 <         thl> | well, what about orphans? 19:05              * | spot has most of his giant pile of packages rebuilt 19:05 <         thl> | some people want to remove those that can be removed safely 19:05 <         thl> | thx spot -- better late than never ;-) 19:05 <        thl> | but thias didn't rebuild his packages yet 19:05 <    ignacio> | It has been discovered that about a dozen or so packages still need the old OpenSSL. 19:05 <        thl> | does anybody know why thias did not? 19:06 <   skvidal> | thl: is he responding? 19:06 <        thl> | skvidal, no, I did not here anything from him 19:06 <        thl> | but he was online 19:06 <    skvidal> | okay 19:06 <        thl> | he fixed xmms 19:06 <        thl> | or xmms-foo 19:06 <    skvidal> | email him again 19:06 <        thl> | k 19:06 <         thl> | ignacio, do we have a compat package for it? 19:06 <        thl> | ignacio, or do we need one? 19:07 <    ignacio> | It's only Extras packages so I would just rebuild those. 19:07 <     nirik> | thl: I just replied to that thread with the 3 extras orphans that have dependent packages. 19:07 <      nirik> | if we can get someone to maintain those, we can not worry about removing the rest of the orphans. 19:08 <    ignacio> | cyrus-imapd-nntp cyrus-imapd-murder up-imapproxy perl-Cyrus pam_mount logjam up-imapproxy tripwire cyrus-imapd proftpd erlang valknut pgadmin3 d4x cyrus-imapd-utils 19:08 <        thl> | ignacio, sorry, I can't follow you here... 19:08           --> | jpo (Unknown)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:08 <        thl> | ignacio, those just need a rebuild? those are orphans? 19:09           <-- | ensc has quit (Remote closed the connection) 19:09 <    ignacio> | Sorry, those are the packages that need to be rebuilt. Let me find the owners. 19:09 <    ignacio> | For OpenSSL, that is. 19:09           --> | ensc (Enrico Scholz)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:09 <      nirik> | lua, ots and python-numeric are the 3 orphans I see that have non orphans depending on them. 19:10 <    ignacio> | python-numeric is in Core. 19:10 <        thl> | nirik, I'm fine with removing the others 19:10 <        thl> | mschwendt, you didn't like the idea to much iirc. Still the case? 19:10 <      nirik> | ignacio: odd. it's also listed as a orphan in the extras owners.list 19:11 <  mschwendt> | should have happened sooner, I think -- I'm not so fond of last-minute removals 19:11           --> | thomasvs (Thomas Vander Stichele)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:11 <        thl> | mschwendt, how about moving them aside 19:12 <        thl> | mschwendt, and if anything breaks we copy them back into the repo 19:12 <  mschwendt> | if anything breaks, there are maintainers who don't test their stuff 19:12 <  mschwendt> | I think we should remove the orphans at beginning of FE6 devel cycle 19:12 <        thl> | well, other opinions? 19:13 <    ignacio> | None of the OpenSSL-dependent packages are orphans. 19:13 <        thl> | or how about a small vote: 19:13 <      nirik> | my problem with orphans is that users will report bugs and they will go into the bit bucket and will get no answer... thats pretty lousy. Better to not provide them at all. 19:13 <  mschwendt> | nirik: orphan-owner is monitored 19:14 <        thl> | people that want to remove them now paste a "a" here, people that thinke we should remove the orphans later past a "b" into the channel 19:14 <      nirik> | oh? cool... by whom? 19:14 < mschwendt> | thl: there are packaged in the repo which do have an owner, but which don't work well - we don't remove them either, but orphan them occasionally (see "elmo", for instance) 19:14 <  mschwendt> | nirik: a few, Bill Nottingham, me, ... 19:15 <        thl> | I'm still for "putting them aside" 19:16 <       spot> | i think we should wait for FC-6 19:16 <       spot> | and make some more noise about them being orphaned 19:16 <      nirik> | I think moving forward we should do something like: if orphan for more than a month, remove from repo and disable in cvs. 19:16 <        thl> | scop, what's your opinion? 19:17 <      nirik> | I vote for 'a' (remove them now), but thats just my 2cents... :) 19:17             * | scop awakens 19:17 <         thl> | skvidal, jeremy, jpo, ensc ? 19:17              * | ensc tends to 'a' 19:18 <     skvidal> | so we have a double edge 19:18 <     skvidal> | 1. new people installing fc5 will be confused by broken pkgs in extras 19:18 <     skvidal> | 2. old people upgrading from fc4 will get hung up if the packages stop the upgrade from happening b/c of the new ones being non-existent or broken 19:19 <     skvidal> | in general I'd say remove them, warn people and maybe allow any of the sponsors to take over the pkg for the maintainer 19:19 <        spot> | how many packages are orphaned right now? 19:19 <   mschwendt> | skvidal: case 2 would be caught by repoclosure thingy 19:19 <      jeremy> | spot: yeah, I think that's a key question 19:19 <        scop> | I'm undecided but maybe slightly inclined towards "b" 19:19 <     skvidal> | mschwendt: true 19:19 <     nman64> | Based upon personal experiences elsewhere, I would recommend 'a', but I don't have a vote here. ;-) 19:19 <       ensc> | an FC4 -> FC5 upgrade is a major break; nobody really expects that things work without reconfiguration 19:19              * | warren here now 19:19 <   mschwendt> | spot: unknown -- except for http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages 19:20 <   mschwendt> | spot: there are some packages marked as orpaned in owners.list which should not be orphans (e.g. Hula) 19:20 <         thl> | mschwendt, spot, I'm checking, just wait a minute 19:20 <       nirik> | grep extras-orphan owners/owners.list| wc -l    11:15:24 19:20 <       nirik> | 51 19:20 <       nirik> | yeah, thats approx... 19:20 <         thl> | nirik, not all of them are in extras/devel 19:20 <       nirik> | ah, true. 19:21 <         thl> | spot, look at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/FC5Status and search for extras-orphan_AT_fedoraproject.org 19:22 <         thl> | repoquery says we have 34 orphans in extras/devel/ 19:22 <        thl> | 23 are arch packages 19:22 <        thl> | only those are in the wiki-list 19:22 <        jwb> | if it were up to me, i'd say 'a'. i "fixed" an orphaned package for FE4 release and it's sat there since. in retrospect, deleting it would have been better 19:23 <        thl> | the problem with orphans imho is: 19:23 <        thl> | if we allow them in fc5 we have to deal with them a long time 19:23 <        thl> | e.g until fe5 is EOL 19:23 <        jwb> | right 19:24 <        jwb> | and breakage if they are removed is often a motivator for someone who cares to step up and maintain the package 19:24 <     warren> | In my opinion, orphans should be deleted sooner instead of later. 19:24 <     warren> | *removed, not deleted 19:24 <        thl> | any other arguments? Then let's vote again "remove now" or "remove later" please 19:24 <     warren> | remove now 19:24 <      nirik> | remove now 19:25 <  mschwendt> | warren: do you know what is up with jrb@redhat.com and at-poke in Extras? 19:25 <       ensc> | now 19:25             * | jeremy is convinced to "remove now" 19:25 <        jwb> | nirik, we don't count ;) 19:25 <    thomasvs> | remove now 19:25 <      jeremy> | mschwendt: I can throw a rock at him later 19:25 <      warren> | mschwendt, I talked with jrb today about Extras 19:25 <       nirik> | oh yeah, sorry. ;) remove my remove now. ;) 19:25 <       spot> | remove now is ok by me. 19:25 <   mschwendt> | jeremy, warren: thanks 19:25            <-- | Foolish has quit ("mbop..") 19:25 <      warren> | I did "training" of Extras for their team today. 19:25 <         thl> | so I take that as "remove now" 19:26 <  mschwendt> | thl: including the "potentially orphaned" packages?? 19:26              * | scop conveniently changes his opinion: remove now 19:26 <         thl> | mschwendt, just to be sure: define potentially orphaned? 19:26 <      warren> | Removal doesn't mean lost forever 19:26 <      warren> | we still have CVS 19:27 <      warren> | and we could keep the removed packages somewhere 19:27 <   mschwendt> | like "wesnoth"? it's in good shape, because I updated it for several months, but it still needs a new maintainer 19:27 <         thl> | warren, yeah, we should keep them for some month 19:27 <      warren> | Removal is meant as 1) responsibility 2) motivator 19:27 < mschwendt> | thl: "potentially" here means somebody is still the owner, but would like to drop the package 19:27 <    mdomsch> |  mock group 19:27 <    bpepple> | mschwendt: Wasn't wesnoth picked up recently? If not, I'd be willing to take it. 19:27 <        thl> | mschwendt, I'm fine if those stay 19:28 <        thl> | or maybe 19:28 <        jwb> | they have to 19:28 <         thl> | no, let's remove them 19:28 <  mschwendt> | bpepple: it's still listed on the Wiki page -> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/OrphanedPackages 19:28 <     warren> | Or give it all to bpepple =) 19:28 <         thl> | okay, let's move on 19:28 <         thl> | gst08 in FE5 19:28 <         thl> | gnome-baker is a problem afaics 19:28 <         thl> | It needs it 19:29 <      warren> | owner? 19:29 <     bpepple> | me 19:29 <   thomasvs> | thl: as said before, I don't mind offering my packages for it 19:29              * | skvidal makes a note: thomasvs offers his package to people 19:29 <     skvidal> | la la la 19:29 <     bpepple> | I've got a gstreamer08 package for review, but it's got an error about the rpath still. 19:29 <         jwb> | ew 19:29 <         thl> | thomasvs, fixing the bug |Jef| has on x86_64 would be a start ;-) 19:29 <  mschwendt> | I've had a look at the gst08 review request. issues: where is gstreamer08-plugins-devel? where are the packagers who need gst08? 19:29 <    skvidal> | jwb: :) 19:29 <      |Jef|> | thl: he cant 19:30 <   mschwendt> | bpepple: I cannot reproduce the rpath problems here, but I don't use mock or root. 19:30 <      |Jef|> | thl: until the gst08 stuff is in Extras again 19:30 <   thomasvs> | thl: yeah, but I have a hard time reproducing the build failure 19:30 <   mschwendt> | bpepple: but I've had to add BR libtool automake bison flex 19:30 <   thomasvs> | thl: I'm going to work on it again tomorrow on my 20% day 19:30 <         thl> | thomasvs, k 19:30 <      warren> | 20% day? 19:30 <      |Jef|> | thl: gstreamer08-python can not be rebuilt until the gst08 and gst08-plugins are back in tree 19:30 <        ensc> | mschwendt: afaik, mock/plague adds these BR implicitly 19:30 <         thl> | |Jef|, ohh, yes, that's true :) 19:31 <    bpepple> | mschwendt: I was going to put up a gstreamer08-plugins package, also. Just haven't added it yet to bugzilla. 19:31 <        thl> | so how do we get gst08 into FE5 fast? 19:31 <     |Jef|> | thl: i have..deep issues 19:31 <  thomasvs> | thl: well --- what's wrong with putting in the actual specs right before they were removed from core ? 19:31 <   thomasvs> | afaik they came from me anyway 19:31 <   thomasvs> | warren: 20% day, just like at google - work on something else 19:31 <     warren> | cool 19:32 <   bpepple> | thl: How about importing the Core spec into FE? 19:32 <        thl> | mschwendt, your opinion? 19:32 <   thomasvs> | surely a package that comes from core can be trusted to meet the requirements! 19:32 <  mschwendt> | I'm lacking packages to test the offered gst08 packages with. :-/ 19:33 <       spot> | thomasvs: HAHAHAHA 19:33 <        thl> | thomasvs, ;-) 19:33 <     ignacio> | thomasvs: Not really. 19:33 <     bpepple> | It's not like those packages haven't been around for a while. 19:33 <        spot> | oh god, it hurts 19:33 <         thl> | But let's face it: We need gst08 19:33 <     ignacio> | I've seen some, ahem, less-than-optimal packages in Core. 19:33 <      warren> | like gnome* 19:33 <         thl> | thomasvs, mschwendt, bpepple could you get that done somehow? 19:33 <        ensc> | ignacio: some? 19:33 <         thl> | even if it's not perfect? 19:33 <   thomasvs> | thl: sure 19:33 <     bpepple> | No problem. 19:34 <     ignacio> | ensc: I'm trying to not be devastatingly negative here. 19:34 <   thomasvs> | thl,bpepple: I would just import the latest package that was in core 19:34 <    thomasvs> | bpepple: you or me ? 19:34 <    thomasvs> | I have the next three days to babysit it through the build system if that matters 19:34 <    bpepple> | How about my package for the gst08? It removes a lot of the unnecessary BR. 19:34 <  mschwendt> | thomasvs: do you still have the latest rawhide src.rpm of gst80? 19:34 <    bpepple> | And adds the missing BR or mock. 19:34 <   thomasvs> | but you said you have an rpath problem 19:35 <        thl> | okay, so let's make the exception "was in core can be imported to extras" for gst08 19:35 <    bpepple> | mschwendt: That's what I built mine from. 19:35 <   thomasvs> | mschwendt: not the latest, but the ones I submitted to warren in the first place 19:35 <    warren> | thl, that's fine 19:35 <   thomasvs> | bpepple: anyway, if yours work (depends on the rpath), put them in 19:35 <      warren> | the gst08 package that was in rawhide I "reviewed" 19:35 <     warren> | it wont break stuff, it isn't pretty 19:35             * | spot would much rather see it have a fast formal review 19:36 <     warren> | if someone is willing to do the work, go ahead 19:36 <        thl> | spot, agreed 19:36 <   thomasvs> | but the last spec that rh used should be in cvs, no ? 19:36 <    ignacio> | I tried, but rpaths are being a PITA. 19:36 <       spot> | it only takes two people to rush it through. 19:36 <        thl> | ignacio, ignore the rpaths 19:36 <        thl> | for now 19:36 <    bpepple> | spot: Ignacio, I beleve has already given a look at the gst08 package. 19:36             * | ignacio pulls up the review request 19:36 <  mschwendt> | ignacio: no rpaths here with a local build of bpepple's src.rpm 19:37 <       spot> | bpepple: then have him close out the review req. :) 19:37 <    ignacio> | They show up using mock. 19:37 <     bpepple> | I'll put up a gst08-plugin package later today, so that can be looked at. 19:38 <         thl> | thomasvs, ignacio, thomasvs, mschwendt, would be great if we could have a solution until the next meeting 19:38 <         thl> | anyway, let's move on 19:38            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- EOL Policy 19:38 <   mschwendt> | the rpaths will make it fail to build in the buildsystem, so NEEDSWORK anyway, right? 19:38 <         thl> | bahh, I need to find time for it 19:38 <         thl> | and talk to those Security SIG people 19:38 <         thl> | let's ignore that for today 19:39 <         thl> | okay? 19:39            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- Encourage Extras reviews 19:39 <         thl> | any new ideas in this area? 19:39 <         f13> | wheeee.......  EOL policy will come into effect sometime around when FC7 goes EOL... (19:39 <     warren> | improve documentation 19:39 <         thl> | f13, ;-) 19:40 <        thl> | warren, well, agreed 19:40 <        thl> | warren, who takes the job? 19:40 <     warren> | Me 19:40            --> | Foolish (Sindre Pedersen Bjordal)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:40 <        thl> | when? 19:40 <     warren> | I'll have a lot more time when we have FC5 out the door 19:40 <        thl> | k 19:40 <         thl> | anything else? 19:40 <     warren> | not much 19:41 <     warren> | It's just that I've had to explain the documentation to people in person far too many times lately 19:41 <     warren> | because the documentation is too much details in one place, in the wrong order, etc. 19:41 <      warren> | it needs to be split out 19:41 <     warren> | maybe with some flow diagrams for visual aids 19:41 <     warren> | with links to deeper details 19:42 <        thl> | okay, just do it, 19:42 <     warren> | nod 19:42 <        thl> | so, moving on 19:42            --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting --  Broken deps report 19:42 <        thl> | mschwendt, any news? 19:42 <        thl> | or should we revisit this after FC5 is out to work on some details? 19:42 <  mschwendt> | memory consumption on Rawhide is 3x to 4x higher than on FC4 19:43 <        thl> | ? 19:43 <        thl> | when runnig the script? 19:43 <  mschwendt> | yes, it breaks my normal machine 19:43 <  mschwendt> | which starts swapping 19:43 <  mschwendt> | there's also a bug somewhere in the Yum backend it seems 19:43           <-- | Foolish has quit (Remote closed the connection) 19:44 <  mschwendt> | sometimes it reloads the gzipped xml files again and again 19:44 <     warren> | not beagle ? 19:44 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: there is? 19:44 <  mschwendt> | well, I could not complete a single run on rawhide yet 19:46 <        thl> | so what do we do? Revisit this after FC5? 19:46 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: you have an old sqlite, maybe? 19:47 <  mschwendt> | I keep running it regulary on FC, but complete automation has moved a step into the future 19:47 <  mschwendt> | maybe it just needs to start with a clean yum cache dir or so 19:47 <   mschwendt> | that won't solve the memory consumption problem, however 19:47 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: I've not gotten any bugs about memory usage in rawhide at all 19:47 <  mschwendt> | skvidal: would be a Python issue anyway 19:48 <    skvidal> | mschwendt: or sqlite 19:48 <  mschwendt> | it's the python process which grows like hell 19:48 <    skvidal> | the python-sqlite module 19:48 <    skvidal> | it was a bug in there last time that caused the memory problems. 19:48 <    skvidal> | paul fixed it 19:48 <   mschwendt> | this is up-to-date rawhide, I believe 19:48 <  mschwendt> | python-sqlite-1.1.7-1.2 19:49 <        thl> | mschwendt, skvidal can you try to sort this out after the meeting and/or on the lists? 19:49 <    skvidal> | err yah 19:49 <        thl> | k, thx 19:49           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- Weekly sponsorship nomination 19:49 <        thl> | anyone? 19:49           --> | Foolish (Sindre Pedersen Bjordal)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:50           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- separate lists for bugzilla-spam 19:50 <        thl> | warren ? 19:50 <        jwb> | do it 19:50 <      warren> | lists are created, I only need to do it now 19:51 <        thl> | anything that still needs to be discussed? 19:51 <     warren> | not really, I think we're good 19:51 <        thl> | k, great 19:51 <     warren> | only I'm just slow 19:51           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker bug 19:51 <        thl> | warren, that's still on the schedule 19:51 <        thl> | we have such a bug now 19:51 <        thl> | anything we need to do with it? 19:52 <        thl> | it was your task, but somebody else created that bug 19:52 <     warren> | I wasn't among the supporters of this idea 19:52 <        thl> | ? 19:52 <     warren> | oh 19:52 <      warren> | only a process issue 19:52 <  mschwendt> | :)  does anyone think the extra ticket helps? 19:52 <      warren> | dunno 19:53 <         thl> | I think it does, but I'm not 100% sure 19:53 <   mschwendt> | does anyone think it hurts the process? ;) 19:53 <    bpepple> | Well, it makes it easy to know who's package I can't approve. 19:53 <  mschwendt> | bpepple: right 19:53 <        thl> | I'll remove it from the schedule 19:53 <        thl> | if somebody does not like it complain to the list 19:53 <  mschwendt> | is its usage documented in the wiki? 19:54 <        thl> | I don't thinks so 19:54 <         thl> | warren, could you handle that when you work on the docs? 19:54 <        thl> | just a link and s short para should be enought afaics 19:54 <     warren> | yup 19:55 <        thl> | warren, thx 19:55 <     warren> | no prob 19:55           --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo Meeting -- Free discussion 19:55 <        thl> | anything? 19:55 <    ignacio> | I though I had something, but I can't remember now. 19:55 <    skvidal> | I think giraffes are cool 19:55 <    skvidal> | oh 19:55 <         jwb> | are we still waiting for plague 0.5 before discussing scratch builds again? 19:55 <       spot> | i like pork. 19:55 <    skvidal> | free discussion about extras.. 19:55 <    skvidal> | whoops 19:56 <        thl> | jwb, yes, I think so 19:56 <         jwb> | k 19:56 <   mschwendt> | *oink* 19:56 <        jwb> | i like beef 19:56 <    ignacio> | Oh, I remember. 19:56 <    skvidal> | I like big butts, and I cannot lie 19:56 <        jwb> | lol 19:56 <        thl> | I would like multilib for extras 19:56 <  mschwendt> | ignacio: we certainly won't ignore such an rpath 19:56 <    skvidal> | I would like to spoon my eyes out 19:56 <        thl> | wine.i386 in the x86_64 tree for example 19:56 <  mschwendt> | ignacio: it's in /var/tmp! 19:56 <  thomasvs> | thl: ew 19:56 <     ignacio> | I was talking to jbj, and he was saying that a number of things that we currently check for in the review can easily be automated. 19:57 <       spot> | jbj also did a lot of drugs in his youth. 19:57 <    skvidal> | yes 19:57 <    skvidal> | yes he did 19:57 <   thomasvs> | and he has an earring 19:57 <       spot> | the difficulty with automating the review tasks is that there are far too many special case scenarios that have to be dealt with 19:58           --> | finalzone (gaim)  has joined #fedora-extras 19:58 <       spot> | where an intelligent human can adapt, an automated process can not. 19:58 <    ignacio> | Not automating the review tasks, but automating the things the review checks for. 19:58 <       spot> | thats what i mean. 19:58 <    ignacio> | Such as calling ldconfig, and so on. 19:59 <       spot> | given enough time, i'm sure people will find exception cases 19:59 <       spot> | like packages that include so files, but dont want to call ldconfig 19:59 <        thl> | ignacio, is writting a script or app that checks this stuff really worth the effort? 19:59             * | bpepple thinks the fedora-qa script does a lot of that. 20:00 <    ignacio> | Maybe. 20:00 <       spot> | it might be helpful for reviewers, but not as a replacement 20:00 <    ignacio> | There does need to be some looking into it done. 20:00           <-- | mschwendt has quit ("Lost terminal") 20:00 <    ignacio> | Or maybe just should, but still. 20:00 <        jwb> | there's a fedora-qa script? 20:00           <-- | finalzone has quit (Client Quit) 20:00 <      nirik> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AurelienBompard 20:00 <      nirik> | for the fedora-qa script. ;) 20:01 <    ignacio> | Why isn't that in UsefulScripts? 20:01 <        ensc> | I would think about a system which checks submitted packages (e.g. with rpmlint, various installation tests, ...), tells the results into the review system and human reviewer can decide whether the package can be accepted 20:01 <         jwb> | why isn't there a package for it!? 20:01 <     bpepple> | jwb: Yup, it checks a lot of the items (dup BR's, etc.)/ 20:01 <        ensc> | but that's nothing which can  be done with some scripts 20:01 <        spot> | ensc: +1 20:01 <        ensc> | I wrote (resp. tarted to wrote) such a system for me diploma thesis 20:02             * | spot has to go eat lunch now, the food is getting cold 20:02 <        ensc> | but it's far away from being ready 20:02 <         thl> | ensc, yeah, might be a good idea 20:02 <         thl> | ensc, how about asking hte list for coments? 20:02 <       ensc> | thl: http://enrico-scholz.de/diplom 20:03 <        ensc> | afair, I was at 15000 LOC  :( 20:03 <        thl> | we'll let's look at this idea after FC5 is out 20:03 <        thl> | anything else? 20:03 <        thl> | thomasvs, don#t like the multilib idea? 20:04 <  thomasvs> | thl: I think people who want multilib in that way, should get from both trees explicitly 20:04 <  thomasvs> | thl: the only way to improve true 64 bit is to make sure you can get 64-bit only systems installed 20:04 <        thl> | thomasvs, wine is a exception 20:05 <  thomasvs> | thl: right - so it should be installed by hand, but that's just MO 20:05 <         thl> | because a wine.x86_64 would only be able to execute win x64 apps 20:05 <        thl> | okay, let's stop this at this point 20:06 <        thl> | anything else 20:06             * | thl will close the meeting in 30 20:06             * | thl will close the meeting in 20 20:06             * | thl will close the meeting in 10 20:06 <        thl> | MARK Meeting end 20:06 <        thl> | thx guys