Packaging:Minutes20070501

Present

 * DavidLutterkort
 * JasonTibbitts
 * JesseKeating
 * RexDieter
 * TomCallaway
 * ToshioKuratomi

Writeups
No drafts were presented to FESCO last week, so no writeups this week.

Votes
The following proposals were considered:


 * Two PHP proposals: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP (the first two items only: PECL Extensions and Versioned BuildRequires in Macros Section)
 * Accepted (5-0)
 * Voting for: spot tibbs rdieter lutter abadger1999
 * Voting against: (none)


 * Ruby Gems guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems
 * Accepted (6-0)
 * Voting for: spot rdieter tibbs lutter f13 abadger1999
 * Voting against: (none)

Other Discussions
Nothing of note this week.

IRC Logs
[12:01] * spot is here [12:01] --> mdomsch has joined this channel (n=mdomsch@cpe-70-113-73-138.austin.res.rr.com). [12:01] * tibbs is here [12:01] It seems most of Europe won't be, though. [12:01] * rdieter is here (still) [12:02] i wish i had as many holidays. :) [12:02] slackers, the whoe lot of 'em. :) [12:02] lutter? f13? [12:02] one short of doing anything? [12:02] abadger1999 ? [12:02] I'm here. [12:03] yay. [12:03] Yeah -- wrapping up an impromptu meeting. [12:03] 1/2 here. [12:03] thats five. (well, 4 1/2) [12:05] well, since we're waiting, cmake updates were pushed (finally) for FC-5/FC-6, so i'll be doing the final writeup for the cmake draft. [12:06] as for new meeting time, I'm flexible enough to be able to make pretty much any time as proposed, so I didn't bother plastering my name all over the wiki page. [12:06] ok. good to know. [12:06] I blocked out the times I'm in the car. [12:06] did one of you guys put Xs everywhere? [12:06] I didn't [12:07]  I put some X's in. [12:07] are those good or bad times for you? :) [12:07] "(tibbs commuting)" pretty much says it all. [12:08]  I can put that in every field if you like. [12:08]  ok, so the X also means (tibbs commuting) [12:08]  gotcha. [12:08]  Yes, that is unchanged from the last time we filled in the chart. [12:08]  So, 1600-1900 seems like our range [12:09]  I can actually go until 20:30 but then I need to be packing up.  That would let a 19:00 meeting go a bit long, I suppose. [12:10]  But I remember that racor indicated that later times aren't good for him. [12:10]  ok. [12:10]  Not that he's indicated that in the table, of course. [12:10]  i think what we'll find is that the best time with the least amt of pain is when f13 (and in a few months me) usually has lunch [12:11]  I can live with that. [12:11]  but i think we can move our lunch hour to accomodate other peoples family time. [12:11]  it's a mild annoyance, but whatever. [12:11]  I'm in the middle of lunch at the moment. [12:11] Actually there's a retirement party out in the hall; I may slip away to grab something. [12:12] more slacker'ism! it's everywhere. [12:12] tibbs: like office equipment from the guy leaving? [12:12] No, some professor's really old and there's free food. [12:12] I'm the one with all the good equipment anyway. [12:13]  is this the PC meeting? I have a couple items i need to bring up [12:14] well, its barely quorum today, but yes. [12:14] XulChris: sort of; many members are on holiday. [12:14] * spot will eventually start enforcing the "you need to submit a draft" policy [12:14]  well i have a couple really minor things [12:14]  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP#head-5e7a9766c620301722a4afbd97294a6a804dca10 [12:14] go ahead. :) [12:15] ok, thats a no brainer. [12:15]  +1 [12:15]   the first item basically gives php-pecl modules perl like abi compatiblity checks [12:15]   pretty straight forward stuff, let me know if there are any questions [12:15]  reading.... [12:16]  all of the non-TODO items are ok by me [12:16]  speaking of rpm macros, is it worth prepending _ to any of these? [12:17]  The first two are no-brainers; +1 to those from me. [12:17]   ya first two are all i want to bring up today [12:17]  The channel bits are more interesting. [12:17]  Ah, OK. [12:17]  sorry .. I am here now [12:17]   channel bits arent ready yet [12:17]  completely spaced that it was Tuesday [12:18]  When you completey forget that it's Friday, seek professional help. [12:18]  rdieter, lutter, abadger1999, f13, look at the first two php items and vote? :) [12:19] +1 php [12:19] +1 on pecl extensions [12:19] pecl +1 [12:19] Looking at the rest [12:20] +1 on the versioned BR [12:20]   5 votes needed for quorum? [12:20] yep. [12:21] XulChris: is the channel business about namespaces only or is there some component of yum-like distribution ? [12:21] so, we're waiting on abadger1999. (or f13) [12:21]  lutter: the channel business isnt ready yet, we still need to flesh that out, just voting on pecl stuff and versioned requires stuff [12:21] --> MauricioPretto has joined this channel (n=hash@fedora/MauricioPretto). [12:21] Versioned BR +1 [12:22] XulChris: ok, then I'll hold my breath [12:22] ok, it passes. [12:22] i'll own this one for writeup purposes. [12:22]  woohoo! does this need ratification by fesco now? [12:22] XulChris: yep [12:22]  k [12:22]  XulChris: anything else? [12:23]  oh just that php group would like a mailing list, not sure if this is the proper place to ask though [12:23]  rdieter: did we answer all questions you and I talked about on the phone? [12:24] XulChris: talk to warren, i think he can help you [12:24] mlum_thud: I think so, outstanding issues: your sponsor nomination, .jar signing. [12:24] ? [12:24]   rdieter: ah, what was the status of the sponsorship? [12:24]  rdieter: and jar signing? Sorry, I didn't see the info.. [12:24] warren: XulChris and php group wants a mailing list. can you help? :) [12:24] XulChris, similar to fedora-perl-devel-list? [12:25]  Sorry, was looking at something else. [12:25]   warren: yes [12:25]  XulChris, http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list  like my all caps? =) [12:25] ok, lets continue [12:25] *** dwmw2 is now known as dwmw2_gone. [12:25] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems is ready for review [12:26] <XulChris> warren: looks good :) [12:26]  i read over it this morning, and it looks very straightforward to me, and answers all of my concerns with the previous draft. [12:26]  what changed since we last talked about it is the stuff about making the same library available as a gem and not-as-a-gem [12:26]  <mlum_thud> do I also need to submit anything on IRC for review as well, outside of the bugzilla submission form? [12:27]  mlum_thud: not for package review, no [12:27]  +1 from me for RubyGems [12:28]  lutter: these may end up being confusing: [12:28]  Requires: rubygem(activesupport) = %version [12:28]  Provides: ruby(active_support) = %version  # The underscore is intentional [12:28]  I had two concerns but I only remember one at the moment -- [12:28]  Will it be obvious to packagers that the names will need to differ? [12:28]  The documentation in the gem isn't marked as %doc. [12:28] +1 rubygems [12:28] yeah, it's ugly ... the first one is the name of the gem, whereas the second one is what you would require for the non-gem; the latter is that way because of the straight ruby guidelines [12:29] I can handle that, but I'm concerned that it may need to be explained extremely clearly for the sake of packagers and reviewers alike. [12:30] tibbs: they don't have to differ, it's a matter of looking what you would actually say in your require in ruby to load that library [12:30] abadger1999: hmm .. it should be. gem2spec marks the doc/ subdir of the gem as %doc [12:31] lutter: Oh. I must have done something wrong when I tried it. [12:32] I'm fine with things as is; we can make another pass after we have some packages in and some idea of what sticking points there are. [12:32] So +1 rubygems from me. [12:32] abadger1999: at least the intention is that ppl mark docs as docs, shouldn't be different from any other package [12:32] +1 from me obviously [12:32] I'm not sure it needs to be specifically stated that docs should be %doc. [12:33] f13/abadger1999: awaiting vote [12:33] * spot is now known as FPC-votebot [12:35] yeah, +1 [12:35] lutter: What is the purpose of the  cache/*.gem [12:35] file [12:35] * tibbs afk appx. 2min. [12:36] abadger1999: I believe gem uses it for it's own purpose; not entirely sure what for [12:36] Is it a duplicate of the files expanded on the filesystem or does it contain something different? [12:38] back [12:39] abadger1999: no, it's a duplicate .. a quick grep through the code shows that it's used for some of gem's commands, which are not all that interesting in an rpm-based scenario, but I'd still not want to break them [12:39] k [12:40]  I'm not sure I like the duplication but it doesn't seem like we can fix it quickly. [12:40] abadger1999: one gem command that uses it is 'unpack' which puts a copy of the gem into the current dir [12:40] +1 from me. [12:40] wouldn't be surprised if there were apps out there that expect unpack to work [12:40] ok, rubygems passes [12:40] cool [12:41] thats all i have for this week, floor is open for any other items [12:41] Well, cross compilers are back in the forefront. [12:42] I'm thinking that perhaps that old draft that Rex brought up on-list should just be nuked. [12:42] yeah. i'd agree. [12:42] Ralf really should be the one driving that, imo. [12:42] Did Ralf ever produce the draft he promised? [12:42] someone can make a new draft if they're motivated (ralf, kevin) [12:43] tibbs: afaik, no. [12:43]  Seems disingenuous to complain that Fedora can't accept his packages when the process is actually blocked on him. [12:47] ok, i think we're done for the day [12:47] next week is the RH Summit [12:48] f13 and I will be missing the meeting for that [12:48] ditto [12:48] <-- nim-nim has left this server ("Leaving."). [12:48] * rdieter goes to work on a server that's melting... [12:48] thanks all.