Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070412

= 2007 April 12 FESCo Meeting =

Present

 * Brian Pepple 	(bpepple)
 * Jason Tibbitts	(tibbs)
 * Christian Iseli	(c4chris)
 * Rex Dieter  	(rdieter)
 * Toshio Kuratomi	(abadger1999)
 * Kevin Fenzi 		(nirik)
 * Dennis Gilmore	(dgilmore)
 * Josh Boyer		(jwb)
 * Jeremy Katz		(jeremy)
 * Jesse Keating	(f13)
 * Bill Nottingham	(notting)

Absent

 * Tom Callaway		(spot)
 * Warren Togami	(warren)

Packaging Committee Report

 * FESCo approved the Packaging Committee's guidelines regarding:
 * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals
 * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts

Renaming cvsextras

 * FESCo approved warren's proposal to rename the cvsextras group.

Koji

 * f13 discussed the plans for the switch from plague to Koji in Extras.

EPEL

 * FESCo voted against the plan to delete everything and then do a mass-rebuild for EPEL5, instead of bumping the spec and rebuilding.

Package Conflicts

 * bpepple received from Michael Schwent the tool to identify packages with conflicts, but he hasn't had time to look at it.

Log
FESCo meeting ping -- abadger1999, bpepple, c4chris, dgilmore, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, rdieter, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren hi everyone. who's around.  I'm having some home repair done so I may be in and out. thl is on the rabble seats abadger1999 here here  here --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop tibbs|h: you want to take this?  Two proposals this week. Yes, I'll run it. First is a basic statement of the responsibilities of reviewers and packagers during the review process. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals If only the wiki were working.... d'oh!  This is going to be difficult otherwise, I guess. indeed  Perhaps abadger1999 has the text laying around somewhere. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:j3aohLyfkkAJ:fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals+fedora+overallreviewgoals&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us Google cache abadger1999: Not quite. Oh, there it is at the bottom. Can everyone see that? yup. This is intended to replace the first paragraph of the ReviewProcess document. I don't see any problem with it. +1 +1 abadger1999: Is that the final text we chose? The cache is from before the meeting. looks okay I guess +1 from here... If it's before the meeting then it's old. final draft was a worded a little diferent, but the intent is/was the same. sorry i'm late. url? I can pull the texts directly from the server if you want. well, I +1'd it in the packaging meeting, so I'll +1 it here. notting: wiki go boom, can't look directly at it abadger1999: That might be better; another alternative would be to postpone, but it would be really nice to get to the conflicts document. Since folks have been waiting on that. What's the URL for the other docs? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts If that's what you're asking. K. Let's postpone this portion and I'll pull the text so we can do this later in the meeting. abadger1999: ok. OK. bpepple, let's move on. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- renaming cvsextras group -- warren jeremy: warren's gone, but he mentioned on the mailing list that he wanted to implement this. possibly after the meeting, providing we approved the idea. bpepple: yeah. and as long as we're not switching the rest of the world at the same time, I'm okay with it fine with me quick vote then? +1 the wiki needs updating at the same time though +1 +1 here also. +1 jwb: yes. warren had a list of things needing updating +! +1 even +1 +1 +1 (also if the script that sends out the sponsorship needed needs updating it should be at the same time) +1 +1 ok, so this is approved. I'll send a note to warren. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC - koji - f13 f13: you wanted to talk about kojii bpepple: we should switch Extras from plague to koji in the next week yeah, I sent mail to maintainer's regarding using Koji outlined what I think needs to happen Yes, that seems reasonable. but it all seems doable. One question, though: it's not hte merger yet, but will ease us into it. if dist-fc7 inherits from dist-fc6, how do we drop packages? dgilmore: we still need an rpm fix for devel. sounds good to me, there should be a clear announcement about any outages and when and perhaps a "about to start" and "finished" emails to maintainers? Or am I confused about what "inherits" means? tibbs: you can block a package from dist-fc7 tibbs: there's a method of blocking packages to drop them f13: yes we have the srpm and jeremy looked at it tibbs: it won't get inherited. nasrat has not shown up OK, no problem. f13, is core still using brew? jwb: yes jeremy: can you get the patch into rpm f13: any progress on the build capacity tests? we don't have enough build power in the colo to switch over core yet. I'm looking forward to some "how to do cool things with koji" document. notting: yeah, doesn't look horrible, will be pretty good with a couple more boxes. f13, can the core build machines be switch to koji though? notting: crap, I knew I forgot to cc somebody on those tests. jwb: no. f13: buy buy buy! f13, because of RHEL? jwb: how did you go ppc wise? jwb: because of SarBox and essentially we'd be granting access to people outside of Red Hat to machines inside the firewall. dgilmore: will try to get to that this afternoon. a little busy with summit live dvd finagling jeremy: :) thanks and understood f13: mmcgrath: boxes on order? f13, no. i don't mean merge yet.  just run separate koji builder on the existing core machines notting: I've been granted a virtual blank check to get it done, we just have to figure out what is actually necessary for now until we can deploy the blade center. dgilmore, Quad G5 mac is available whenever mmcgrath wants it jwb: I'm not following. jwb: what good would that do? f13, do it there first where it's controlled and contained before releasing it to extras? jwb: lets talk about that after the meeting k? Obviously we just need a few racks of populated blade centers. jwb: can you help us price up som 1U power5 boxes dgilmore, i don't think IBM makes 1U power5 boxes jwb, f13:  lets talk hardware with mmcgrath after the meeting so, is there anybody that is in disagreement with going forward? dgilmore: yeah, lots of emails are flying by f13, i'm asking why extras first, that's all... jwb: lighter load, existing builders, easy to move. f13: I don't have any problem with it. I'm fine with the move As long as it's relatively painless for the maintainers, then I think the sooner the better. jwb: Core is essentially using the same codebase, just a different instance of it. f13: don't have enough info to ask more questions - behind on mail. f13, ok was just trying to get some feel for how much it's been tested seems fine with me jwb: due to.. ummm... "similarity" with other things, the underlying bits of koji are quite well tested. yeah, on-ward to f7 victory. ;) jeremy, that's great then which really, is mock nirik: indeed! when were you guys thinking of doing the changeover? nirik: that really depends on how soon we can get the needed software bits written nirik: when we can nirik: now that we have fesco buy-in, we can make that something of a priority ok, sounds good. I would like to see updates announced to maintainers or something to keep people in the loop... ;) mschwendent? f13: he resonds on some things and not on others nirik: yep, I"ll constantly drop notes there Did he have concerns he voiced earlier? not that I"m aware of f13: anything else in regard to koji? I can't tell if he's even noticed or not tibbs: no we need to tie the existing push scripts into koji will EPEL switch to koji at the same times as Extras? thl: yes dgilmore, k, was just wondering thl: well proberlly befcause f13's mail had a "(devel?)" in it thl: I can't say that right now. dgilmore: so will the 5 rebuild take place now in plague or in koji? I guess it depends on timeframe..? I'm planning just devel/ for now nirik: depends on timing as to not disrupt released product streams Does it look to be difficult to fix up the push scripts? tibbs: in theory, no. BUt i Haven't actually looked at the scripts so fc5/fc6 builds will be in plague still, and devel will use koji? nirik: that's my initial plan. nirik: and make build will do the right thing once devel use is solid, we can migrate fc6/5 too you should make sure to check the case of 'make plague' (which I sometimes use... ) sure, balk if on devel/ yeah. erk. we never did announce anything publicly about fc5, did we? notting: no notting: nope! f13, why? jwb: because plague buildroots won't be updated for devel builds. notting: in theory FC-5 will stop support when Test4 is out jwb: and push scripts migh tnot pick up anything build for devel/ in plague dgilmore: ? dgilmore, test4 or test3? dgilmore: pretty sure the 'new' thing was a month or two post f7 thl: test3 is out already. notting: we were waiting for RH buy in on that. f13, ohh really? ;-) f13, sorry, i meant why not switch to koji across the board? notting: that was agreed upon for future releases but never backdated Due to lack of clarity, I'd wager that many folks are expecting the new thing to apply to FC5 as well as FC6. jwb: I don't want to risk an interruption in delivering updates to FC6 tibbs: agreed. you mean FE6 jwb: right, both because we weren't planning on merging Core 6 either. not right away  dgilmore: someone at some point made the change retroactive for the "active" releases if we break rawhide, well it's rawhide.  I don't want to break a live product, especially if there is a security issue that comes up. ok.  i find it a bit confusing that two buildsystems will be in use, but i guess there is some pain like that to be expected EvilBob, sure? I never saw that annouced anywhere, but maybe I missed it EvilBob: that was not communicated anywhere jwb: 3 build systems for some of us. whee! :) dgilmore: I think we talked about it at a Fedora Board meeting heh :)  IIRC it was in a board meeting a discussion of how retroactive to make the new lifespan. well it needs to get out in the wild if that is the case anyway lest move on dgilmore, +1 dgilmore: agreed. I think that was waiting on RH buyin for doing security updates for fc5 longer. rdieter, discussions yes, but no final decisions iirc notting said no one yelled, so we called it good. :) :-) ok, we should probably move on. dgilmore: we wanted to get RH buy in before trying to get fesco buy in. f13: thats where i thought things were at waiting on RH hey, the wiki's alive --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Package Database - abadger1999 dgilmore: that's what we've just spent 10 minutes confirming. bpepple: Nothing to report. Move on. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop dgilmore: that it's still waiting on RH since the wiki's back up. tibbs thl tdiehl now that the wiki is up... (: tibbs: want to go back to this? I'm still getting "down for maintenance" it is? ...and it's down again d'oh! alright moving on again.... abadger1999: Any luck with extracting the texts? --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Package Conflicts http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Conflicts.html Ah, there's the conflicts draft. http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Overall.html I talked to mschwent about this, and got his tools. He didn't sound interested in heading it, though. So, we have enough to proceed with the PC report, and the conflicts draft ties in. --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Packaging Committee Report -- spot, abadger1999, rdieter, tibbs, scop First off is http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Overall.html 2 Not much there really, but questions cropped up recently about this so we felt a bit of clarification was in order. looks fine +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 Anyone else? +1 +1 OK, next is http://www.otoworchard.com/fedora/Conflicts.html +1 on that too +1 A bit more meat here; I hope everyone had a chance to read over it. +1 reading +1 looks pretty reasonable. +1 It is expected that we'll find other situations that will need to be clarified, so we'll add more sections to this as necessary. tibbs: did the PC approve the Conflicts draft? I don't remember it +1 but then again.... f13: Yes, voting was 5-0 On Tuesday. +1 And there's a +1 from you further down in the logs which I wasn't sure about. +1 tibbs: oh right, yeah I +1'd it sorry, this week has been... fun. f13: I'll update the minutes to indicate that. People have been wanting this conflicts draft for some time now, so it's good to get motion on it. BTW, +1 tibbs: i think the +1 was implied in your previous statement Anyone else? Remember to get your comments out there so that we can consider them before Tuesday when we'll write this up. bpepple: Assuming, of course, you indicate that this has passed. Otherwise that's all from the PC. tibbs: I consider these guidelines approved by FESCo. abadger1999: Thanks for extracting that text. tibbs: No problem tibbs: anything else, or should we move on? tibbs: a 'what to do if upstream refuses to rename' section might be good. not that i have any ideas in that regard I think that's it. Yes, that's it from us. ok, moving on.... --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- EPEL anything in regard to EPEL need to be discussed? yes notting: If you do have any ideas about that, please let us know. one hour or so ago there was the buildroot issue Axel wanted acked by FESCo tibbs: get out baseball bats and beat upstream? :) bpepple, it's about the "mass-rebuild of EPEL5 now that we soon have RHEL5 final on the builders" bpepple, it was voted to delete everything and just rebuild thl: ok. -1 everything, without chaning ENVR er.. yeah, -1 that may not bode well for clients whom already ahve stuff installed (note: only EPEL-5... not 4) f13, tell those that voted like that as noted many times before, packages changing checksums and such get messy f13, it was noted in their discussion. apparently it didn't seem that big of a deal are we voting on this yet? *shrug*  I don't run rhel5 so I won't get effected by it. jwb: Yeah, we should do a quick vote. f13, more than rhel5 I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't want to bump, and I read the IRC logs. tibbs, me either tibbs: becaue people did not want to fork the spec that is just lazy jwb, +1 i wanted to add a .1 and rebuild you're pissing on your users because you don't want to make a 2 character change Ah, that is a point, but I don't think it's a terribly good point. dgilmore, that would be very acceptable yea, .1 and rebuild dgilmore: +1 The spec will diverge pretty much immediately anyway. right dgilmore, why did you vote for deleting the packges then? ? you don't need to fork the spec. just b/c the release changes, doesn't mean you have to build and push for older releases notting, fork it vs. the fedora spec notting: er, they have to bump the spec there, but nowhere else, so now the specs are diverged *horrors* As I understand things, EPEL has no reason to attempt to keep any kind of release ordering with Fedora. thl: i was confused by then. not that I find anything _wrong_ with that. So it's not even appending ".1"; just bump the release. nod dgilmore, np, I was just confused now thl: well, two issues. i'd be all for 'rebuild and delete all old packages', but with a release bump tibbs, some people prefer to appending ".1" ovefr bumpin the release is there a call for fesco vote? I think they have a point f13, axel requested one or a point 1 (: notting, sounds fine for me :-) OTOH, not rebuilding at all seems to be working for Fedora at this point. What's the reason they absolutely must be rebuilt? tibbs: If they want to use the vanilla spec later, using .1 lets them come back on the next Fedora Release rather than the next upstream bump tibbs: they were build against beta1 abadger1999: Extremely good point. abadger1999: but that actually overwrites history unless they merge that .1 somewhere into the history of hte FEdora spec abadger1999: yeah, changelog is lost then if you merge nirik: And we have .fc6 packages in F7; surely F7 diverges from FC6 more than rhel5b1 diverges from rhel5release. f13, is that really a big problem if it was just a "rebuild" in the chanelog? dgilmore, this is only rebuilding things actually built for EPEL, not everything in EPEL cvs, right? notting, yes, only what has been build up to now thl: it's not a really big problem, but I generally don't like to see history get stomped tibbs: yeah, you would think so... dunno for sure. and who k nows what happens with the rebuild, something may end up needing changed to build again against RHEL5 GA f13, agreed; I think in this case it's still not nice, but acceptable tibbs: you'd be surprised what all changed from B1 to GOLD -1 (for their current plan) -1 (plan == rebuild and no bump, right) rdieter, but we can nack with a suggested improvement c4chris, yes c4chris: correct. c4chris: yep k, -1 then -1 -1 here also. Yeah, I hate to be an obstruction, but -1 to rebuilding with no bump. -1 jwb, I can take care of that if you want; i was against this in any case ;-) so it looks like we against EPEL suggested plan. thl, great bpepple, I'll get that out to epel and will take care of it notting: yeah just whats built thl: great, thanks. but I'd like to discuss something else: do you guys here really want to ACK or NACK each decission from the packaging commitee or the epel steering committee? wouldn#t it be easier to discuss it on the list thl: personally I don't. and bring only controversial topics (like the last one that just got nacked) up here? that might be a lot quicker and easier for everyone that how it was planed and done with the PC months ago, too except what's controversial for FESCo may not seem controversial to PC or EPEL sigs thl, it would be helpful for a set amount of time to pass by before actually moving forward with the decision f13, that why the summaries get posted to the list so FESCo has time to review and speak up jwb, sure The PC stuff can go either way, but it seems that some things just don't generate comments unless there's actually a vote called. I'd like to see a report of issues discussed/decided on. But not necessarily discussion or ACK/NACK. abadger1999: +1 abadger1999, +1 jwb, the rule was that the meeting minutes had to be send to the proper place at least 24 hours before the next fesco meeting abadger1999, +1 the question is: where to send it thl, right, but i mean if we're not going to ack/nack everything, wait a week or so before actually implementing the decisions can I send it to the FESCo list directly? or fedora-maintainers? devel? jwb, we are in agreement maybe just give fesco a week of veto power? I would lean towards either maintainers or devel. -maintainers notting, right bpepple, devel is public, so might be better notting: I can agree to that. -maintainers I admit I haven't always been able to get the PC summaries out a full 24 hours previous so far I've made at least the day before. why exclude the rest of the world or even -maintainers-announce thl: because the rest of the world doesn't have veto power. tibbs, well, then the veto power extends by one week f13, but the rest of the world should not be excluded IMHO no reason why maintainer's couldn't be read-only anyway, let's stop here for now we can work out the details on the list -devel is horribly noisy to try and run decisions through that might be easier thl: thanks. moving on.... --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora is lmacken around to give a quick status update on bodhi? what is bodhi jwb, the new updates system from lmacken the updates system huh? jwb: patrick swayze in point break? for update announcements? notting, nice :) https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi/ guess lmacken isn't around? Oh well. Just a thought. for getting new builds into updates-testing and then pushing them to updates f13, oh... does koji do scratch builds? yes and they'll be enabled for extras? multiple levels of scratch builds. yes you can A) build with --scratch, which doesn't tag the build, and puts it in temporary storage that will get flushed. cool B) build with --no-tag which will import the build into the database, but not actually tag it, but you can tag it later to be included. or C) build for a -candidate tag so you can test it and later "move" it to a live tag. oh and --scratch builds don't get imported into the DB and thus can never be tagged for any collection f13, there is a doc that will be sent out on how to use koji right? no, you have to figure it out yourself, no cheating and asking for help either. :) a simple one to start with warren is supposed to be working on a FAQ thl: I was thinking about bringing that up at next week's meeting, since I hadn't heard back from Max about it. rdieter, then you're screwed. you can't even make simple CVS requests correctly bpepple, k bpepple, maybe discussing it first on the list is easier anyway yep. :) f13, ok great not to mention we're running late. ;) :) anything else people want to discuss before wrapping up the meeting? nothing here bpepple will end the meeting in 30 bpepple will end the meeting in 15 -- MARK -- Meeting End
 * jeremy is here
 * jwb is here
 * nirik is here.
 * dgilmore is here
 * c4chris is here
 * f13 runs to grab his lunch
 * bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail today.
 * f13 had hoped mschendent would have responded by now...
 * thl wonders if mspevack is around to clarify
 * rdieter recalls the "retroactive" discussions as well.
 * f13 shakes his fist at mod_python
 * thl send some notes from this week to the list
 * bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail today. :(
 * thl disliked that plan, too
 * thl is confused
 * rdieter thinks we're not here to (re)make epel's decision for them (or not?), just ack or nack it.
 * nirik voted for just wipe and rebuild, but doesn't really care that much... if everyone thinks there needs to be a bump we can do that.
 * bpepple hasn't heard of it either.
 * nirik cheers
 * thl send something to the list for FESCo discussion ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-April/msg00246.html ), but that was probably to late to discuss it today
 * jwb runs
 * bpepple will end the meeting in 60