Packaging:Minutes20070612

Present

 * AxelThimm
 * DavidLutterkort
 * JasonTibbitts
 * RalfCorsepius
 * RexDieter
 * TomCallaway
 * ToshioKuratomi
 * VilleSkyttä

Writeups
No writeups this week.

Votes
The following proposals were considered:


 * Corrections to the scriptlets: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippetsFixes
 * Accepted (7 - 0)
 * Voting for: spot scop tibbs lutter abadger1999 racor thimm


 * OCaml guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml
 * Accepted (7 - 0)
 * Voting for: spot tibbs rdieter scop lutter abadger1999 racor


 * Revisions to the rule on directory ownership: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DirectoryOwnershipImprovement
 * Accepted (7 - 0)
 * Voting for: scop rdieter spot tibbs abadger1999 lutter thimm

IRC Logs
[12:01] * spot shakes his broom at the kde folks [12:02] get offa my lawn! [12:02] oh, forgot, ok, I guess we need to finish up. Thanks Than, Kevin, Sebastian (+ everyone I forgot). :) [12:02] yeah, we need to do "real work". ;) [12:03] howdy [12:03] * tibbs here [12:03] spot: did the terms for the fpc change ? [12:03] here (still) [12:03] * lutter is startled by real work [12:03] terms? [12:03] --> scop has joined this channel (n=scop@cs181043142.pp.htv.fi). [12:03] oh, no. i'm just poking fun at the kde sig. ;) [12:03]  rdieter: Before I leave: is there still the KDE meeting at 2000 UTC? If not, let's remove it from the wiki. :-) [12:04] we dont actually do any real work in this meeting. [12:04] Kevin_Kofler: I'll be here for this week anyway, otherwise yeah, remove it (for now). [12:05] abadger1999: alive? [12:05] ok. well, lets get started [12:06] rdieter: your cmake writeup is the only pending item [12:06] Is there anything that needs full voting body? [12:06] is there an agenda? [12:06] * spot cracks the whip [12:06] I will need to leave early [12:06] spot: writup is done. [12:06] yes. there is. :) [12:06] rdieter: please take it off GuidelinesTodo [12:06]  * rdieter thought he did... [12:06]  i might have a cached copy [12:07]  oops, didn't hit save. [12:07]  ok, so the first issue is: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippetsFixes [12:07]  The only improvement I can think of for that would be an example. [12:08]  the language is correct, but very technically thick. [12:08]  That and the first sentence is a little confusing. [12:08]  I'm a big fan of clarifying examples. [12:08]  the main scriptletsnippets page is full of examples... [12:09]  scop: i know, but i think an example of where to use : and exit 0 would be useful [12:09]  Maybe shorten to what the guideline is and then explain in further paragraphs? [12:09]  since most people are conditioned/used to using || : [12:09]  Like "avoid non-zero exit codes of scriplets as these can mess up a whole yum transaction"? [12:09] it's hard to understand what exactly you are supposed to do [12:10]  It could be as simple as "Processes executed in scriptlets should never exit with a non-zero exit code. Here are the reasons why. Here are some ways that you can prevent it." [12:10] lutter: "Make your scripts failproof, don't reply on rpm to cater for you" [12:11] (obviously, I'm oversimplifying, but the idea is the same) [12:12] scop: thoughts? [12:13] * abadger1999 growls at at pidgin [12:13] no particular thoughts, as long as the info is correct, I don't really care [12:13] so... do we want to approve this as is, or do we want to rework it somewhat? [12:14] if someone wants to rework, feel free [12:14] I don't have any real complaints about what's in the draft. [12:14] neither do i. i think its ok to vote on this draft, we can always improve it if people get confused. [12:14] approve as-is (for now): +1 [12:14] +1 [12:14]  But some of the examples earlier in the page will need to be altered as well, won't they? [12:15] +1 [12:15]  tibbs, I'll have a look if this passes [12:15] tibbs: yeah, the examples need to be altered to reflect this. [12:15] +1 [12:15]  thimm? [12:16] lutter? [12:16] abadger1999? [12:16] bueller? [12:16] +1 [12:16]  +1 [12:16]  (sorry, on the phone) [12:16] +1 [12:16]  +1 [12:16]  ok, thats a pass. [12:16] next item: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml [12:16] yes ... [12:17] I summarised everything that happened since last tuesday here: [12:17] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-June/msg00070.html [12:17] & I hope that covers all the things people raised last week [12:17] Looks like it passed [12:18] I think these guidelines are to the point where we can start to make use of them. [12:18] The draft looks good to me. [12:18] Why do we need signature hashes for ocaml and not all the rest of the languages? [12:18] because of the very strict dependencies that compiled code has [12:18] "rest of the languages" being Perl, Python, etc? [12:18]  it's very different from dynamic languages [12:18] a good analogy are the kernel module symbols [12:19] which have hashes because of super-strict type (and other) dependencies [12:19] It's not really up to us to judge the ABI constraints of a language anyway. [12:19] agreed. [12:19] we don't have to like it though... :) [12:20] That's what's necessary; our goal is to figure out how to make reasonable guidelines. [12:20]  I think these guidelines are extremely well polished and written. [12:20]  vote on draft? [12:20]  +1 [12:20]  +1 [12:20]  +1 [12:20]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-May/msg00105.html <-- explanation of the hashes [12:20]  I guess the RPM folks were amenable to getting the dependency generators into rpm-build? [12:20]  +1 [12:21]  tibbs: yes [12:21]  +1 [12:21]  https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg01071.html <-- into RPM [12:21]  racor, abadger1999, thimm? [12:21]  +1 [12:21]  Should we wait for that or just go ahead with the _use_internal_depencency_generator bit? [12:22]  I'm happy to remove those from the specfiles when/if they go in to rpmbuild [12:22]  +1, sorry I am distracted and probably will have to leave suddenly [12:22]  racor: thats understandable, thank you for your time. [12:22] Because I'm concerned that turning off the dependency generation will cause other things to break. [12:22] rwmjones:+1 [12:22] rwmjones: now is the time to be pushing on the rpm maintainers for these changes in rawhide, very early in the f8 cycle [12:22] the ocaml-find-provides/requires scripts call /usr/lib/rpm/find-{provides,requires} [12:22] I don't know if that is sufficient [12:23] That should be OK. [12:23] the draft passes. [12:23] rwmjones: Just a note -- they probably won't hit older rpm versions so we'll need to keep it around for a while and note at which Fedora Release it is no longer required. [12:23] Obviously that will have to go before it gets into rpm-build, though. [12:23] thanks ... quick question, do I need to rename that page? [12:23] rwmjones: no, abadger1999 will take care of it [12:23]  ok, thanks [12:23] rwmjones: I'll do it [12:23]  Next item: EmacsenAddOns [12:24] this one looks like its waiting on some bugzillas to be resolved [12:24] does anyone here have experience/care about emacs? :) [12:25] I do, both :) [12:25] ok, i'll wait for you to tell me that one is ready. [12:25] ok [12:25]  is there any thing else anyone would like to discuss? [12:26] I use emacs but I know zip about packaging. [12:26] abadger1999: Did you want to propose something about static libraries? [12:26] I added the pkgconfig file to the latest xemacs package builds, dunno what's the status of emacs [12:26] I haven't written anything up yet but there are several issues. [12:27] ok, i have one minor item that I came up with [12:27] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DirectoryOwnershipImprovement [12:27] +1 [12:27]  +1 [12:28]  +1 (i like my own drafts, usually) [12:28] +1 my perl example is overly complicated anyway. [12:28] actually s/acceptable/mandatory/ [12:28] or something to that effect [12:28] (last sentence of the draft addition) [12:28] ah, thats a good point. I'll reword that before committing [12:29] +1 [12:29]  In this case, each package must own the /usr/share/Foo/Animal/ directory. [12:29] +1 [12:30]  ok, it passes [12:30] BTW, caillon asked if directory ownership problems could be addressed in rpm (No bug filed that I know of) [12:30] +1 (just for counting votes ;) [12:30] I love counting votes. [12:30] abadger1999: so, the answer is almost certainly yes, ajax has also pointed this out [12:31] if the guidelines become obsoleted by rpm, then we have less guidelines, but our job is not to point to rpm and demand fixes. :) [12:31] How would rpm manage directory ownership? [12:31]  This is a cross-package problem [12:31]  abadger1999,thamm: fwiw, that *other* rpm(5) already does enforce that (ie, no unowned dirs). [12:31]  And rpm never examines the dependency chains (at runtime) during the build [12:31]  rdieter: How? [12:32]  How will rpm5 know that there is no package owning "Animal" [12:32]  thimm: it adds deps to parent dirs (somehow). [12:32]  Especially if it is not part of the BRs [12:32]  thimm: only checked at install-time (afaict) [12:32]  So rpm5 does owenrship bloating [12:32]  That's not better than now [12:32]  Point is: Only gloabl tools can ,manage cross-package issues like directory ownerships [12:33]  caillon thought checking at install time and recording when an unowned directory was created would work. [12:33]  adding deps to parent dirs is not ownership bloating [12:33]  thimm: only at install time, pkgs don't bloat [12:33] OK, as a warning then? [12:33] OK, I'll have to go now [12:33] packges' dependencies do bloat, and yum's filelist behaviour will probably be triggered a lot [12:33] Hope there is nothing where votes are 50-50 [12:33] abadger1999: encourage caillon to patch rpm. We're always willing to let others make our life easier. :) [12:33] are there any other drafts or items of business? [12:33]  spot: +1 [12:34]  there were some disagreements about usersandgroups, is anyone working on an alternate draft? [12:34]  i'm going to try to work something out [12:35]  About "no modifications to upstream tarball except...": [12:35]  That discussion ran on into a different area. [12:35]  fyi, epel list includes notice that they're going to vote on repotags... [12:35]  " [12:35]  We hereby like to ask the Packaging Committee to bless the use of [12:35]  repotags for EPEL. [12:35]  FPC = pope? [12:36]  not sure what that means. :) [12:36]  Did they vote on that? [12:36]  spot: going to vote. [12:36]  I just wanted to ask if the general sentiment was that I could say "removal of unacceptable content ONLY". [12:36]  sorry, just a proposal at this point. [12:36]  OK, well, we'll deal with that when and if it happens. [12:36]  tibbs++ [12:36] OK, now I really need to lift, bye all! [12:36] thimm: thanks [12:36] Thanks, thimm. [12:37] tibbs++ [12:37] tibs: +1 [12:37] i agree with tibbs as well [12:37] tibbs even. [12:37] -1 [12:37]  OK, I'll go ahead and draft that for next week. [12:37] I spent all of my time on reviews last week... [12:38] alright. i think thats it for this week. i'm going to go feed my hungry cat. [12:38] thanks all.