Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060907

= 2006 September 08 FESCo =

Meeting Summaries are posted on the wiki at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings

Attending

 * thl
 * bpepple
 * tibbs
 * warren
 * abadger1999
 * jwb
 * rdieter
 * c4chris (late)

Mass Rebuild

 * Thanks to nirik for the status update!
 * c4chris is working on nag-mails
 * Bugs to be filed on un-rebuilt packages after September 18th.

Ctrl-C Problem

 * Removed from schedule as it's not going to happen before the new VCS.

Packaging Committee Report

 * No new guidelines as there wasn't quorum to make decisions.
 * .pyo update:
 * Notification was sent to the -maintainers list.
 * It's possible that not everyone is on the list as new contributers have to be added manually, not automatically. (Added on the wiki as a requested feature of the new   Accounts system )
 * Request was made to have more historical information on why a Guideline is changed when bugs are files in bugzilla to make changes.

Branch Requests

 * gcin branched

New Sponsors

 * Patrice Dumas approved

Enterprise Extras
1. Fedora branding 2. whether to have independent infrastructure. 1. Adding the build target. 2. Adding the CVS branch. 3. Adding co-ownership/per-branch ownership. 3. There are packages which are updated for FC-Current without updates to older releases.
 * Rough plan: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Enterprise
 * z00dax (from centos.karan.org, rebuilder of Extras for CentOS) brought up several potential issues:
 * should differentiate Enterprise Extras from Fedora the distro (as it's for RHEL or CentOS, not Fedora Core).
 * "Fedora" has the nice property of showing non-supported by Red Hat.
 * Would be good to not have RHEL in the name as this is for other enterprise distros (like CentOS) as well.
 * Fedora Core is related to RHEL, so FE is related to EE in the same way.
 * Present infrastructure doesn't meet z00dax's expectations.
 * Multi-ownership is only a policy, not enforced at the bugzilla/VCS level.
 * FESCo and Extras members in attendence seem to be against separate infrastructure.
 * Makes more work for maintainers of packages.
 * Complicates the administration and merging of packages on different branches.
 * Sharing infrastructure entails:
 * The suggested plan will have EE be an explicit subset of FE where maintainers for each package-branch in EE commit to maintaining it until the RHEL EOL for that branch.
 * We'll probably build against a copy of CentOS since otherwise we'd need a publically accessible RHEL repository to build against.
 * Defining points of difference between FE and EE will happen through the EE-SIG.
 * Started to add mmcgrath and z00dax to FESCo to manage the EE merge but was reminded by cweyl that FESCo is an elected body so that was put on hold and alternatives will be explored.
 * thl will draft an announcement for extras-list.

Log
11:59 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- init 11:59 hi everybody! 11:59 who's around? 11:59 z00dax, mmcgrath, are you around? 12:00 * z00dax is here 12:00 * bpepple is here. 12:00 * nirik is sitting in the rabble seats with his cup of coffee. 12:00 I'm here. 12:00 * cweyl is here (rabble) 12:01 * Rathann joins nirik and cweyl 12:01 FYI, as of the cvs checkout seed from this morning, extras is approx 56% done with mass rebuilding.... still 976 packages to go. 12:01 well, not much FESCo-people around today :-/ 12:02 yeah. 12:02 I'm here. 12:02 thl: I'm here 12:02 for the moment. 12:02 then let's start slowly with the ususal stuff and wait who shows up in between 12:02 mmcgrath, z00dax, might take ten minutes until we get to EE (if that's okay for you) 12:02 sre 12:02 sure 12:02 thats cool 12:02 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- M{ae}ss-Rebuild 12:02 nirik, thx for the status update 12:03 I hope more maintainers start rebuilding when they get nag-mails 12:03 c4chris is working on that 12:03 Should bugs start being filed? 12:03 tibbs, not yet 12:03 * abadger1999 here but his internet connection keeps dropping 12:03 after September 18 -- maybe 12:03 September 25 -- yes 12:04 * cweyl is reminded to post his version of bump.sh to the mailing list -- it handles ver-rel in %changelog correctly 12:04 * thl thinks again about it 12:04  * jwb is here 12:04 no, bugs after September 18 seem to be a good idea 12:04 does that sound sane to eevrybody? 12:05 thl: when do they get nuked from extras if not rebuilt? 12:05 sane++ 12:05 perhaps another prod on the mailing list ? in case people didn't see the inital one? 12:05 thl, +1 12:05 thl: +1 12:05 cweyl, I don't know the exact plans; we just need to look how it all works out 12:05 nirik, could you do that please? can't hurt 12:06 sure... 12:06 any other comments on this topic? 12:06 nirik, thx 12:06 seem not 12:06 -!- finalzone [n=luya] has joined #fedora-extras 12:06 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Use comps.xml properly 12:07 no news afaics 12:07 c4chris not (yet) around 12:07 and dgilmore will look after automatic pushes next week hopefully 12:07 moveing on 12:07 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess --  Activate legacy in buildroots 12:07 same here: dgilmore will look after it next week hopefully 12:08 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- CTRL-C problem 12:08 well, still on the schedule 12:08 can we remove this one? 12:08 I'll think we remove it 12:08 I thought it was removed already. 12:08 We should. 12:08 -!- ChitleshGoorah [n=chitlesh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)] 12:08 k, settled 12:08 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Packaging Committee Report 12:08 any important news? 12:08 No quorum, so no progress. 12:09 i have a question 12:09 jwb: ? 12:09 the "no ghost .pyo" change caught many by surprised... was that ever sent out after it was decieded? 12:09 tibbs, btw, if it's to hard to find a new timeslot for the metting leave everything as it is please 12:09 tibbs, chageing the PC meetings time is not that important 12:09 jwb, I think it was -- long ago 12:10 ok. i couldn't recall 12:10 jwb: There was announcement on -maintainers 12:10 abadger1999, ok thanks 12:10 but next time the script that files the bugs should point to some backgrounds for those that misssed it 12:10 agreed 12:10 (and some small hints what needs to be fixed) 12:10 -!- xris [n=xris] has joined #fedora-extras 12:10 Shouldn't every package owner be on -maintainers automatically? 12:10 I wasn't 12:11 tibbs: yeah. 12:11 tibbs, they should all be there, but i don't think automatically 12:11 had to subscribe like 4 times before it worked 12:11 tibbs, normally yes 12:11 automatically? 12:11 * jwb didn't think so 12:11 jwb, no idea. warren? 12:11 * cweyl wasn't on automatically 12:11 they should, but there is no automation 12:12 could we make it part of the cvsextras approval? 12:12 thl: I thought http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python#pyos was in the bugs filed. Is this not enough? 12:12 Perhaps someone with the address list could compare it against owners.list and see who is missing. 12:12 abadger1999, that's just the new policy. i think a link to some history would be good? 12:12 abadger1999, ohh, sorry, i missed that 12:12 tibbs, +1 12:13 okay, moving on 12:13 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Branch requests for dists in maintenance state 12:13 there is gcin again https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-August/msg00625.html 12:13 Our only access to mailing list address lists is clumsy through the web interface. 12:13 I put it up there 12:14 we would need some crappy screen scraping in order to do it. 12:14 I think the maintainer of that package is here at the moment. 12:14 the reasons are outlines in the mail quite well 12:14 candyz: Is gcin your package? 12:14 +1 for creating the branches for the older dists 12:14 +1 and let's just move on 12:15 +1 12:15 +1 12:15 +2 12:15 er, 1 12:15 (fat fingers again) 12:15 k, settled 12:15 jwb, dialingwand? 12:15 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Sponsorship nominations 12:15 warren, huh? 12:15 Patrice Dumas got many +1 on the lists 12:16 +1 for Patrice 12:16 I'll consider him approved if there are no "-1" here 12:16 +1 and let's move on 12:16 That was easy. 12:16 any new nominations? 12:17 * thl will wait 20 seconds 12:17 -!- green_ [n=green] has quit ["Ex-Chat"] 12:17 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Enterprise Extras http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Enterprise 12:17 okay, now to the main topic of todays meeting 12:17 it's not on the schedule, but who cares ;-) 12:18 :) 12:18 so, what are the impressions? do you guys like the rough plan outlined in http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Enterprise ? 12:18 no 12:18 ahh :) 12:18 z00dax, --verbose please 12:18 like++ 12:18 undecided 12:18 gota to loose the Fedora brand, and got to have independant infrastructure 12:19 as in the concept - yes, lets get more people working on this 12:19 okay, one step at a time 12:19 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Enterprise Extras -- loose the Fedora brand 12:19 I'm simply not going to maintain any of my packages outside of the FE infrastructure, and I think many people would agree.  It has to be low overhead for the maintainers. 12:19 there are 180k odd users on centos.karan.org ( and 140 odd machines from within .redhat.com :) ) - i am sure they will all apreciate a more active project 12:19 tibbs++ 12:20 guys, the FEdora brand first please 12:20 (because that's easier) 12:20 I don#t care to much on the Fedora brand 12:20 * rdieter doesn't care about brand either 12:20 but no one came up with a really good name yet 12:20 the only issue I have with the Fedora brand is that there is way too much association with the Fedora distro 12:20 and FEdora implies == unsuspported by red hat 12:20 -!- mebrown_laptop [n=michael_] has joined #fedora-extras 12:21 that a nice side effect, but has other drawbaclks 12:21 and thats the one thing that Redhat go out of their way to point out that RHEL is not 12:21 thl: what do you mean by "loose the fedora brand"... start calling extras as a whole different? 12:21 what's wrong with "Enterprise Extras"? 12:21 cweyl, no, only for the Enterprise Extras stuff (e.g. Extras for RHEL) 12:21 thl: ok, whew :) 12:21 or.... "Cextras"? =) 12:21 hmm 12:21 (was joking about the latter) 12:21 warren: I like it. "Enterprise Extras, a subset of Fedora Extras" 12:22 cweyl: what makes it a subset ? 12:22 I'd say we name it "Enterprise Extras" for now, annouce it on the lists, and ask for name suggestions there 12:22 Centras :-) 12:22 thl: +1 12:22 rather a long maintained fork of Fedora Extras 12:22 I thought Enterprise Extras was a name already used in rhn? 12:22 z00dax: I'd imagine not every single package in FE would be branched to EE 12:22 rdieter: yes it is 12:22 Enterprise Extras is being renamed to something else in RHEL5 12:23 cweyl: true, not every one can - but is it a branch or a fork ? 12:23 but yes it will be confusing to RHEL4 12:23 I'm conflicted about the issue but, for example, I'm in an environment right now where almost no fedora is being used but tons of RHEL is being used and the need for Enterprise Extras is there. 12:23 cweyl, z00dax, let's stick to the topic for now please 12:23 z00dax: the differences between the two are becoming trivial :) 12:23 thl: ack 12:23 * cweyl is duely chastised 12:23 so I can appreciate why we wouldn't want the Fedora branding on it. 12:23 also, RHEL isnt the only Enterprise out there 12:24 z00dax: what would you suggest calling it then? 12:24 EE would have special EE branches on certain packages, but if they don't exist then it inherits from the corresponding FE. 12:24 rdieter: am open to options :) 12:24 cweyl, there are hundred details we could discuss now about htis whole stuff; but we need to form a rough plan now, everything else can be decided later 12:24 just not anything with "Fedora"? 12:24 How about EE is *related* to FE? 12:24 just do it 12:24 and figure out what to call it later? 12:25 I don't want RHEL in the proper name of "Enterprise Extras" because -- as z00dax said -- RHEL isnt the only Enterprise out there 12:25 z00dax: hey, put up or shut up, you're the one that doesn't like the currently proposed names, do you have anything better? 12:25 rpmforge ? 12:25 well....  RHEL uses fedora as upstream, right?  so why wouldn't EE use FE as upstream? 12:25 cweyl, +1 12:25 sorry -- from a naming perspective 12:25 cweyl's got a good point there. 12:25 (plus the other implications there, but for now, the name ) 12:25 cweyl: i believe RH spend big money telling people rhel is not Fedora. 12:26 Fedora Extras for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 12:26 and people actually, now, believe that 12:26 FERHEL 12:26 I like it 12:26 FEEL 12:26 cweyl: but Red Hat doesn't call their OS "Fedora's Red Hat Enterprise Linux" 12:26 * mmcgrath devils advocate 12:26 rdieter: f'real! 12:26 z00dax, you have that backwards. RH is telling people Fedora isn't RHEL 12:26 z00dax: yes, but fact of the matter is the fedora _is_ upstream... there aren't any naming issues there, so why should there be for EE? 12:26 jwb: +1 12:27 jwb: either way - the point is that there is emphasis on the difference 12:27 maybe 12:27 okay guys, let's stop here, we won't come to an agreement on this now; let do what I suggested earlier: name it "Enterprise Extras" for now, annouce it on the lists, and ask for name suggestions there 12:27 I'm still in favor of EE. 12:27 thl +1 12:27 thl: +1 12:27 ok, lets mark that open 12:27 thl++ (and I'm with warren, EE) 12:28 thl++ (warren++) 12:28 EE has position connotations in the industry 12:28 k, settled 12:28 err.. positive 12:28 warren, ? 12:28 an interlude ..... 12:28 move on =) 12:28 warren, k :) 12:28 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- Enterprise Extras -- infrastructure 12:29 humm or maybe.. 12:29 z00dax, why do you want a seperate infrastructure? 12:29 -!- c4chris [n=chris] has quit [Connection timed out] 12:29 * warren curious too 12:29 I see this as going one of two ways, like extras does it, or like legacy does it (legacy has their own CVS and rules) 12:29 thl: the existing one is not very usable in its present form 12:30 -!- c4chris [n=chris] has joined #fedora-extras 12:30 z00dax, in what ways? 12:30 whats the status on multi ownership of pkgs ? 12:30 * c4chris is here now 12:30 warren: we spoke about this in Jan 2005 i believe 12:30 sorry for being late 12:30 z00dax, we really want to add multi-ownership 12:30 plus my connection was broke, so I miss most of the meeting :-( 12:30 today it is just de-facto multi-ownership, there are no restrictions 12:30 z00dax: Multi ownership is currently there -- but only as policy 12:30 z00dax, doesn't work to good, but good enough for now IMHO 12:31 not sure what that implies... 12:31 z00dax, just FYI: I'm strictly against a seperate infrastructure 12:31 that complicates things a lot over time 12:31 thl++... let's not add any additional burdens on maintainers 12:31 thl: +1 12:31 thl++ 12:31 z00dax, anybody can commit to anything currently, there are no restrictions.  People today *talk* to each other and get permissions and form understood relationships. 12:31 howso ? 12:31 warren: ah ok.. 12:31 z00dax, well, consider you are a maintainer of pacakge foo 12:32 warren: bugzilla has assign's that work similarly ? 12:32 < Seg> Isnt that the whole point of this, sharing at minimum the CVS/build infrasructure? 12:32 It's easier to just copy somethings over from from branch to the other in one cvs/svn/VCS 12:32 z00dax, yes, but people in our bugzilla group have wide-open access to modify any fedora bugzilla ticket. 12:32 can i get all clamav for el4/el5 asigned to me. where all fe stuff goes to someone else ? 12:32 and use the same tools 12:32 warren: ok 12:32 z00dax: are you more concerned about the actual infrastructure or the rules governing that infrastructure? 12:32 mmcgrath: both 12:33 there is a lot of drive-by packaging in FE at this time. 12:33 * mmcgrath agrees with z00dax 12:33 if we have a chance to sort that out - lets do that now 12:33 z00dax, assignment not yet, we can add multi-CC to bugzilla today. the next generation of account system and package database that #fedora-infrastructure is working on will formally handle multi-owners. 12:33 " drive-by packaging " ? 12:33 z00dax: how so? 12:33 about the drive-by packaging I mean. 12:33 thl: lots of packagers only pkg and update for the distro ver they are using themselves at this time 12:33 z00dax, I'm afraid you are using generalizations that are not true of the project. 12:33 z00dax, agreed 12:34 And then the packages roll out of extras when that happens. What's the problem: 12:34 ? 12:34 warren++ 12:34 warren: speaking from experience. 12:35 * rdieter is getting the feeling of falling off-topic again... 12:35 rdieter, yeah, maybe 12:35 z00dax, maintainership is inconsistent across the entire FE space, thus that is one reason why I personally suggest EE begin as an explicitly defined subset and grow from that. You want the EE package set to be well maintained and with fewer surprises. 12:35 warren: yes! 12:35 I think we all want "the EE package set to be well maintained and with fewer surprises", do we? 12:36 thl, sure 12:36 thl, warren: +1 12:36 z00dax, just "branch" or "fork" related to FE is what you want to do. You can define lists of "inherit from" or "build my own", but either way using the same infrastructure is esay. 12:36 but that has not much bearing where they sit in CVS 12:36 easy 12:36 z00dax, as I said in that proposal in the wiki: Extras maintainers don#t become EE maintainers by default 12:37 thl, z00dax: but in many cases they will want to be, and they'll happily be co-maintainers 12:37 ok, i am ok with this as a stance - we'll need to work out specifics, which can happen in a mailing list 12:37 is redhat ok to share a public yum repo for building stuff ? 12:37 z00dax, you mean RHEL? or EE? 12:37 that's another question to ask, let's mak ea list. 12:38 z00dax, if RHEL -- why does it need to be public? 12:38 thl: EE will need to build on something. 12:38 yeah, sure, but why public? 12:38 thl: i'd like to build a few pkgs to see if they work ... i'd like to see something that i can use from wherever i am 12:38 z00dax: frankly, if rh's not ok with it, we can just use centos. 12:38 z00dax has a good point. EE has to be reproducible in order to be a viable community project. 12:38 CentOS is an option. 12:38 alternatively, is everyone happy to build on centos ? 12:39 -!- Londo [n=georgiou] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 12:39 z00dax: I am 12:39 centos++ 12:39 btw when is CentOS 4.4 coming? 12:39 I'd be happy with building on centos 12:39 warren: 4.4 is out 12:39 warren, it out 12:39 oh 12:39 warren: already out. 12:39 warren: out for most platforms 12:39 centos++ 12:39 * warren uses CentOS... 12:39 centos++ 12:39 centos++ 12:39 ok, that makes things easy then. 12:39 centos++ 12:39 okay, that seems settled :) 12:39 We agree on... 12:39 CentOS-Extras :) 12:39 centos++ 12:40 - EE being a defined subset of FE 12:40 - Formalize multi-owners later when infrastructure grows 12:40 so.. about infrastructure... 12:40 - Share infrastructure 12:40 warren: go on.. 12:41 warren, Formalize multi-owners later, but real soon 12:41 i suggest we build nothing as a part of this EE project, till the basic stuff is in place. 12:41 +3 (so far) 12:41 I'm less concerned with actual infrastructure and more concerned with the rules that govern them. I think the FE and EE markets are different. 12:41 z00dax, +1 12:41 mmcgrath: elaborate: 12:42 May I recommend creating a EESCo, as a subset of FESCo plus anybody z00dax chooses. EESCo decides all aspects that differ from FE, including that explicitly defined subset list. 12:42 warren, no 12:42 ? 12:42 warren, we mostly agree on a EE-SIG already 12:42 -!- pygi [n=pygi] has quit [Connection timed out] 12:42 I think the EE stuff will target different people and users than FE does, there will of course be overlap, but the rules that govern them should be different. 12:42 (I think we did) 12:43 (so did I) 12:43 or at least not tied to FE. 12:43 EE-SIG or whatever it is called needs to choose the subset. 12:43 whats a EE-SIG ? 12:43 warren, and proposed was to integrate z00dax and mmcgrath into FESCo 12:43 special interest group. 12:43 Let's ratify adding z00dax and mmcgrath then? 12:43 +1 to that. 12:43 +1 12:43 +1 12:43 is there any fineprint that needs reading first ? 12:44 z00dax, no, we explicitly require firstborns. No hidden clauses here. 12:44 z00dax, not that I know off 12:44 * z00dax flickers 12:44 wait -- FESCo has a defined, elected membership 12:44 AFAIK, we have ratified no rules saying that FESCo can't change the rules at any point. 12:44 cweyl, sure -- but this is a special case and IMHO requires special things 12:44 +1 12:45 * mmcgrath saw voting :) 12:45 -1 sorry. 12:45 I believe that FESCo will further change anyway in the next few months when Core + Extras merge happens. 12:45 warren: so changing the rules in the middle of the game is ok? :) 12:45 tibbs, it's okay 12:45 * cweyl is playing rabble-devils-advocate here 12:45 This dumps on the whole point there was an election. 12:45 tibbs, we probably should discuss this on the lists in any case 12:45 cweyl: Has a point... 12:45 Sure, let's discuss this further. 12:45 Change my vote to -1 12:45 this need more discussion 12:46 I'd prefer we see the EE SIG in action first 12:46 * cweyl sees a need for FESCo bylaws :) 12:46 My point will be however is that the mandate of FESCo is not an unchanging thing, and pretending that it doesn't change is artificially holding us back. 12:46 yeah, let's discuss this again after the EE idea was announced 12:46 so let's get a bit back to the topic now 12:46 warren: +1 12:46 z00dax, are you mostly okay to share infrastructure now? 12:47 I'd even be fine with being an FESco member that only can vote on EE related items. 12:47 thl: no, we need to work out the details. i agreed to look at the shared option 12:47 Sharing infrastructure entails... 12:47 z00dax, that why I said "mostly" ;-) 12:47 - Adding another build target 12:47 - Adding another CVS branch 12:47 what else? 12:48 - Adding multi/co owners 12:48 warren: some way to indicate that the branch is being mainatined by someone else, if that's the case? e.g. "maintained.by" in cvs until the uber-package-db is here? 12:48 thl: :) ok. 12:49 cweyl, I'd prefer a centralized owners.list personally that is extended in syntax, but we can discuss these specifics later. 12:49 cweyl, we can works out such details later 12:49 i need to drop off guys. meeting in another building 12:49 mmcgrath: We don't need to limit voting on issues to FESCo members only. 12:49 abadger1999, we never really did that afaics 12:49 What about new sponsors? 12:50 Does z00dax have cvsextras membership? 12:50 nope 12:50 that would be a good first step =) 12:50 warren, CLA would be a good first step ;-) 12:50 z00dax, could you please create an account and sign the CLA? 12:50 CLA not applicable to me. 12:50 I'm still a non-sponsor, I'd be happy to sponsor z00dax. 12:50 my current sponsor is ignacio :) 12:50 I cant be held to anything under US law 12:51 where are you? 12:51 UK, but have an Indian passport 12:51 We have plenty of people in India and UK signed the CLA. 12:51 only real problems we had were Iran and Syria 12:51 z00dax, remember, we have the Fedora Orbital Laser ;-) 12:51 DOOM! 12:51 < Seg> Why not a FESCo designated EE committee? 12:51 I'll look at it again... last time i did look there was some crazy bits in there. but that was almost 18 months back 12:52 I'll create an account etc. 12:52 z00dax, thx 12:52 If we're in agreement that Fedora Project is upstream for RHEL, CentOS and EE, then you will need to sign the CLA. 12:52 thl: It's the Fedora-CentOS Orbital Laser now. 12:52 Absolutely no contributors on a worldwide basis are exempt from the CLA requirement, even Red Hat employees. 12:53 there is one thing left: who will annouce this whole concept to the list? 12:53 there is one more thing, but i am going to save that for last 12:53 * thl fears taht he is the dumb again 12:53 Sounds like the details are fuzzy, perhaps there should be a draft announcement that we discuss first? 12:53 warren, sure 12:53 that sounds good. 12:53 where do we discuss it? 12:53 maybe work out exactly what is going to happen before its all announced ? 12:53 given that z00dax and mmcgrath aren't in FESCO list 12:53 Sorry guys, I have to run but I'll be back. 12:54 also, what lists is all this going to be discussed on ? extras.108 for now ? 12:54 z00dax, I'd really go to the puiblic now 12:54 warren: why not discuss it on extras-list? 12:54 z00dax, we're discussing this for three month in private already 12:54 extras-list is fine 12:54 extras-list is fine 12:54 too much traffic 12:55 extras-list +1 12:55 10 - 15 msgs a day is too many ? 12:55 z00dax, if you're leading EE, there will be a natural requirement for you to follow a few new lists. You don't filter lists into new folders? 12:55 * cweyl notes that's a rabble +1, but... 12:55 z00dax, we'll create a separeate list after we've found a name 12:55 warren: sure, i am on that list already - but also have 32k unread msgs there. 12:56 < Seg> This will all get seen in the meeting summary anyway. 12:56 warren, or can we create a public fedora-ee-list and rename it later easily if we have to or want? 12:56 z00dax, meanwhile please create your fedora project account and sign CLA soon, so we can add you to required groups. 12:56 thl, I'd prefer we choose a name for a list and stick to it 12:56 thl: (new-list)++ 12:56 warren, I'd prefer that too, but life sucks sometimes :-/ 12:57 is this really sustainable of a subproject if the leader of EE doesn't think it is important to follow FE discussion? (realistically) 12:57 if we're loosing the fedora brand, why not ee-list ? 12:57 ee-list is a possibility 12:57 warren: the issue is also that EE discussions will get swamped out in the extras-list 12:58 which is what i meant by too much info 12:58 s/info/traffic/ 12:58 I agree that EE should have its own list 12:58 I'm sure the naming of the list (if one) can be part of the discussion on fe-list :) 12:58 21 messages in the last 24 hours on extras list. 12:58 cweyl, +1 12:58 I was just stating that as leader of that project, you need to be aware of FE 12:58 and i dont think everyone on extras-list is going to even be interested in whats up with EE stuff 12:58 z00dax: but some will. and those'll be the ones who want to start helping, contributing, etc 12:58 z00dax, let's start with extras-list and create a seperate list later 12:58 thl: +1 12:59 thl, +1 12:59 thl++, there's too much parralelism (especially at first) 12:59 warren: i run a svn mirror for the entire cvs tree for RHEL + Fextras + Rpmforge.. i do have a fair idea about it 12:59 extras-list for now is where all existing contributors can discuss specifics of how to create EE. 12:59 if we need to - I'll make that svn public at some point this weekend 13:00 not sure how redhat would like the rhel tree in a public svn 13:00 but 13:00 the RHEL source is already public 13:00 ok, lets watch fe-list for now, since thats what everyone wants 13:00 z00dax, okay, thx 13:01 anything else we should discuss now? 13:01 regarding EE 13:01 ok, one point - my last point 13:01 why is no one from rpmforge involved here ? 13:01 z00dax, why is no one from rpmforge involved in Extras? 13:01 Axel and Matthias both contribute to Extras 13:01 i know matthias is semi-involved 13:02 z00dax, he has more then 60 packages iirc? 13:02 we was in FESCo 13:02 FE began as a merge of fedora.us + matthias 13:02 Axel in in the Packaging Commitee 13:02 s/in in/is in/ 13:03 axel isnt part of rpmforge... my question was more about dag / dries - they do and have done a lot of work for RHL / RHEL.. 13:03 z00dax, you'd have to ask them afaics 13:03 z00dax, dag was on the mailinglists in the beginning 13:03 right, i shall do that today evening 13:03 I don't think anyone has prevented them from contributing to FE. 13:03 z00dax, but vanished soon 13:03 FOSS is about choice and free will, they had a choice to join FE or not. 13:04 warren: sure 13:04 but i am all for combining stuff when possible and practical 13:04 z00dax, we all are 13:05 I'd be the first guy to get Pascal onboard as well, and do a es9/ es10 branch 13:05 z00dax, ES=SLES? 13:05 actually, I'll run this by him anyway. although i think we all know what his answer is going to be. 13:05 That's theoretically possible, but you'll need to do a lot of work yourself if you don't get interest from FE. 13:05 thl: yes 13:06 May I suggest focusing on EE first. 13:07 well, I think I should speak it out: I don't want to build for SLES 13:07 we do our buisiness 13:07 they do theirs 13:07 we can work to together 13:07 and share specs 13:07 getting more branches/distros is not a problem per se: you just need to get willing and able maintainers 13:07 but they should be seperated in VCS and on the builders 13:07 thats about all that we can do anyway.... share specs and work togher 13:08 c4chris, the question is: is this a good idea ? 13:08 c4chris, just as the suse build service 13:08 thl, that, too 13:08 there is competing again 13:08 but hey: the distributions comete 13:08 compete 13:08 are we all done here for the meet ? as in are we now in chatter mode -> so i can drift 13:08 warren: +1 on focusing on EE first 13:08 baby steps :) 13:08 depends if the general environments are compatble enough I guess 13:09 wwwwell, let's stop here 13:09 it's getting quite late 13:09 any other priority topics? 13:09 that's okay for everybody? 13:09 thl, agreed 13:10 thl: ++ 13:10 thl: ++ 13:10 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- MISC -- coverity's offer to scan FE packages 13:10 did someone talk to them / max ? warren, c4chris ? 13:10 things have been busy, I'll follow up with max 13:11 warren, just wated to make sure things are rolling 13:11 * c4chris didn't 13:11 I'm in favor of Warren's coverity plan. =) 13:11 -!- thl changed the topic of #fedora-extras to: FESCo Meeting in progess -- MISC 13:11 so, anything else to discuss ? 13:11 regarding extras as a whole? 13:11 was my housekeeping mail to heavy? 13:12 * warren branches gcin 13:12 thl, sorry, didn't read it completely yet... 13:12 am planning to though :-) 13:12 candyz, gcin is branched 13:12 c4chris: you were the one who pointed out that glibc thing last night, right? 13:12 -!- Nodoid [n=paul] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)] 13:12 xris, yes 13:12 did it work out in the end ? 13:13 thl: By and large, I agreed with it.  Haven't followd up to see what all is going to be affected, though. 13:13  * thl will close the meeting in 60 seconds 13:13 would that manifest if I compiled with -devel in mock, but was trying to install on a standard fc5 install? 13:13 xris, can you please wait until the meeting is over? tia! 13:13 xris, yes, I think so 13:13 oh, sorry, didn't notice. 13:13  * thl will close the meeting in 30 seconds 13:13 xris, np 13:14  * thl will close the meeting in 10 seconds 13:14 -- MARK -- Meeting closed