From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-05-12
Present
- Denis Leroy (delero)
- Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
- Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)
Regrets
- Hans de Goede (hansg)
- Ralf Corsepius (racor)
Writeups
The following drafts have been accepted by FESCO and are to be written into the guidelines:
*
Votes
The following proposals were considered:
- Title
- URL
- New business?
- Target release:
- Accepted ( - )
- Voting for:
- Voting against:
Other Discussions
The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.
IRC Logs
| * spot gets ready for another exciting FPC meeting | 12:04 | |
| tibbs | Indeed. | 12:05 |
|---|---|---|
| spot | abadger1999, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs, rdieter: ping | 12:05 |
| rdieter | here | 12:05 |
| abadger1999 | spot: here | 12:05 |
| * SmootherFrOgZ here | 12:06 | |
| --> delero has joined this channel (n=delero@nat/sun/x-cf0eacf74c9de57d). | 12:07 | |
| * delero is here | 12:07 | |
| spot | i pinged Rathann too, but i think he's idle | 12:07 |
| spot | we're not expecting hans, racor | 12:07 |
| spot | so, i think everyone that's coming is here | 12:08 |
| spot | First item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29 | 12:08 |
| spot | This is abadger's refined draft of handling the GConf scriptlets | 12:08 |
| spot | abadger1999: have you tested the macros? | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | spot: I tested them last night. they seemd to work. | 12:09 |
| spot | okay. | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | spot: I may have left out some corner cases though so anyone else that wants to give them a try is welcome to. | 12:10 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | np | 12:10 |
| abadger1999 | Copy the macros into a file in /etc/rpm/ | 12:10 |
| * spot knows < 0 about GConf | 12:10 | |
| delero | negative knowledge | 12:10 |
| tibbs | Me too, but it sure looks nicer. | 12:10 |
| --> Rathann has joined this channel (n=rathann@fedora/rathann). | 12:10 | |
| spot | that said | 12:11 |
| Rathann | sorry for being late | 12:11 |
| spot | the macros look nice, the logic is sound | 12:11 |
| spot | and the GNOME folks seem to like it | 12:11 |
| abadger1999 | Rathann: We're discussing this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GConf_Scriptlets_%28draft%29 | 12:11 |
| Rathann | yup, I gathered as much from what spot said just now | 12:11 |
| spot | I'm inclined to +1 on this one. | 12:11 |
| Rathann | +1 from me as well | 12:12 |
| rdieter | +1 | 12:12 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | +1 from me | 12:12 |
| delero | +1 | 12:12 |
| abadger1999 | +1 | 12:12 |
| tibbs | Did the desktop team get a chance to chime in? | 12:13 |
| abadger1999 | Ah one thing -- anyone want to weigh in on what package to add this to? | 12:13 |
| abadger1999 | mclasen commented on the early drafts. He liked it. | 12:13 |
| spot | abadger1999: perhaps redhat-rpm-config ? | 12:13 |
| tibbs | I recall that they liked the idea of changing things. Just wanted to make sure that we didn't go off in the wrong direction for them. | 12:14 |
| spot | that would get it in the buildroot by default | 12:14 |
| abadger1999 | He's working with upstream to get schemas to move to %{_datadir} and wanted to have that change encoded in macros. | 12:14 |
| abadger1999 | <nod> | 12:14 |
| abadger1999 | redhat-rpm-config will work. Do we want the macro and the directory to be owned by the same package? | 12:15 |
| tibbs | Is that always present at runtime? | 12:15 |
| tibbs | It is not. | 12:15 |
| abadger1999 | If so, GConf using packages need to Require(pre): Require(post): redhat-rpm-config | 12:15 |
| spot | hrm. | 12:16 |
| abadger1999 | correct, it's not installed by default at runtime. | 12:16 |
| spot | it seems like GConf2 should own /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf | 12:16 |
| abadger1999 | yeah. | 12:16 |
| tibbs | Yes, if possible, gconf should own this. | 12:16 |
| spot | but i don't want redhat-rpm-config to dep on GConf2 | 12:16 |
| rdieter | spot: +2 | 12:16 |
| abadger1999 | The macros shouldn't need the directory at build time. | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | Just when the scriptlets run. | 12:17 |
| tibbs | Do things fail gracefully (or at least understandably) if that gets fouled up? | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: Not gracefully. But understandably for someone who knows what's in the macros. | 12:18 |
| spot | Well, since anything that tries to use these macros is going to need Requires(pre): GConf2 | 12:18 |
| tibbs | Someone somewhere will miss a dependency eventually. | 12:18 |
| abadger1999 | A bit obtuse for someone who doesn't know what's in the macros (that's the problem anytime you hide the intricate details of something) | 12:18 |
| spot | i think it is safe for GConf2 to own the dir and have redhat-rpm-config own the macros | 12:19 |
| spot | without an explicit dep between the two | 12:19 |
| --> mattiasellert has joined this channel (n=ellert@c213-100-175-41.swipnet.se). | 12:19 | |
| abadger1999 | Do we want to break up /var/lib/rpm-state and /var/lib/rpm-state/gconf (or use a different /var/lib/$DIRECTORY) | 12:19 |
| * spot doesn't care about that really | 12:20 | |
| * abadger1999 doesn't care either | 12:20 | |
| rdieter | macros could be in GConf2 as well, since gconf-using apps will have that BR'd anyway. | 12:20 |
| tibbs | Anyway, +1 to this; as long as the last couple of details get worked out sanely I don't see any problem. | 12:20 |
| spot | rdieter: thats a good point | 12:20 |
| spot | so, I see +7 | 12:21 |
| spot | it passes | 12:21 |
| spot | Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus | 12:21 |
| spot | the old macro cruft is gone from the examples (and presumably, the tool as well) | 12:22 |
| tibbs | I thought that was going to the list after things were changed but I don't recall seeing it. | 12:22 |
| mattiasellert | yes | 12:22 |
| * spot tries to remember what the other concerns were | 12:22 | |
| tibbs | Anyone else getting no response from fedoraproject.org all of a sudden? | 12:22 |
| spot | yep. | 12:22 |
| rdieter | tibbs: here too | 12:22 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | same | 12:23 |
| spot | i have cached copies of the pending drafts... | 12:23 |
| spot | if push comes to shove. :) | 12:23 |
| delero | ye | 12:25 |
| Rathann | looks like it's back | 12:25 |
| tibbs | Back up for me, at least. | 12:25 |
| spot | Okay, so the three items from last meeting were... | 12:25 |
| spot | the spec tool (and templates) needs to limit disttag macro use to rhel and fedora >= 9 | 12:25 |
| spot | (done) | 12:25 |
| spot | the spec tool should use pushd/popd to simplify the %install section | 12:25 |
| spot | and documenting the versions of doxygen that need to be cleaned up after | 12:26 |
| rdieter | dumb/late question perhaps, but any chance to ask globus upstream to distribute stuff a little more sanely? | 12:26 |
| tibbs | %install is simplified with a macro and looks much better. | 12:26 |
| f13 | hrm, package committee meeting? | 12:27 |
| spot | tibbs: well, its simplified with a shell variable, which is a little incongruous | 12:27 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | f13: yep | 12:27 |
| spot | but its not wrong | 12:27 |
| f13 | can somebody ping me when the java stuff comes up? | 12:27 |
| spot | f13: yeah | 12:27 |
| tibbs | We can't complain as long as we allow $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, of course. | 12:27 |
| Rathann | this flavor macro should be moved into rpm macros | 12:28 |
| spot | tibbs: yeah, i know. | 12:28 |
| tibbs | But I'd personally use something much shorter. Still, it looks better than it did. | 12:28 |
| Rathann | it's on top of every specfile in the examples | 12:28 |
| spot | mattiasellert: did you figure out which versions of doxygen required the cleanups? | 12:29 |
| mattiasellert | Yes. | 12:29 |
| mattiasellert | It is needed for RHEL4 | 12:29 |
| spot | okay. | 12:30 |
| mattiasellert | I added a comment about that in the examples. | 12:30 |
| spot | I see that now | 12:30 |
| Rathann | GLOBUSPACKAGEDIR could be an rpm macro too | 12:31 |
| spot | well, i'm okay with it with the changes. it looks like a nasty beast to have to tame (globus), but this seems mostly sane. | 12:31 |
| spot | Rathann: thats what I was talking about, but i won't lose sleep over it not being one | 12:31 |
| tibbs | Yes, this seems to be making the best of a rather bad situation. | 12:31 |
| Rathann | those fedora/rhel conditionals in BRs | 12:31 |
| Rathann | could be simplified by requiring the necessary binaries directly | 12:32 |
| Rathann | i.e. BR: %{_bindir}/latex | 12:32 |
| tibbs | True. | 12:32 |
| spot | %if %{?rhel}%{!?rhel:0} >= 6 ... predictive? :) | 12:32 |
| Rathann | since %{_bindir} and %{_sbindir} are in base metadata, this doesn't mean downloading filelists to resolve them | 12:33 |
| tibbs | That's not terribly important for build dependencies anyway. | 12:33 |
| Rathann | yup | 12:33 |
| * Rathann doesn't like distro-specific conditionals | 12:34 | |
| spot | Either with that change or without it, my vote here is +1. | 12:34 |
| tibbs | I don't like them because they make the spec look like line noise. | 12:34 |
| delero | don't like them either, but I wouldn't vote this down for it | 12:34 |
| Rathann | yeah | 12:35 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | tibbs: <nod> | 12:35 |
| Rathann | +1 from me | 12:35 |
| abadger1999 | +1 | 12:35 |
| rdieter | +1 | 12:35 |
| delero | +1 | 12:35 |
| spot | thats +5. | 12:36 |
| tibbs | I'm torn | 12:36 |
| tibbs | I support this, but I think it could be simpler. | 12:36 |
| tibbs | So I guess +1. | 12:36 |
| spot | mattiasellert: if you decide to move to using the file dependencies rather than the conditionalized ones, please let us know so we can update the templates in the guidelines | 12:37 |
| mattiasellert | OK | 12:37 |
| spot | Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pre-review_Guidelines_%28draft%29 | 12:37 |
| spot | Its worth noting that this is something we've been asked to do by FESCo | 12:38 |
| Rathann | frankly I don't like the whole idea of prereviews at all | 12:38 |
| spot | There is apparently a big pile of java packages that need to come in at once | 12:38 |
| dbhole | f13: This is us | 12:38 |
| Rathann | why can't they go through regular reviews? | 12:38 |
| dbhole | overholt: ^ | 12:38 |
| tibbs | I dislike this idea as well. | 12:38 |
| tibbs | However, that doesn't come from my committee position. | 12:38 |
| Rathann | the draft doesn't answer the question why we need them at all | 12:39 |
| f13 | so FESCo already approved them coming in | 12:39 |
| f13 | FESCo just asked the PC to come up with the minim required things to check off | 12:39 |
| f13 | such as build from source and proper licenses | 12:39 |
| spot | f13: is this only permitted for a specific set of java packages | 12:39 |
| tibbs | If we're going to do this (and admit that we don't care about package quality at that stage) then we just need to verify legal status and that the source is unadulterated. | 12:39 |
| spot | or is this for anything that wants to? | 12:39 |
| f13 | spot: no, this is a one time deal for a specific set of java packages for this time critical maven update | 12:40 |
| tibbs | I don't even agree with "build from source". | 12:40 |
| spot | tibbs: you don't? | 12:40 |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: I do since it's toolchain related. | 12:40 |
| f13 | the people who have the time/capability to work on the maven update have a small window of opportunity to work on it, and they are different folks than the ones that will work on the fine tuning of the packaging layout | 12:40 |
| tibbs | If we cared about that we wouldn't be doing this. | 12:40 |
| abadger1999 | If it wasn't toolchain, then I'd let that be caught at the full review stage. | 12:41 |
| spot | Honestly, i'm not sure that this is in the FPC domain. | 12:41 |
| tibbs | FESCo seems to have made it FPC domain. | 12:41 |
| f13 | spot: abadger1999 thought it was and asked it to be | 12:41 |
| abadger1999 | Well, I asked that the things to review for come here. | 12:41 |
| tibbs | So what can we agree on? | 12:41 |
| spot | These aren't really guidelines. They're asking us to tell them how to do "prereviews" before permitting cvs commit. | 12:41 |
| tibbs | "check the license", obviously. | 12:42 |
| tibbs | "check that the upstream source is unadulterated"? | 12:42 |
| spot | given that these apply only to Java, i think the key points on the draft are especially valid | 12:42 |
| abadger1999 | If we don't think it is FPC purview, I can just toss that page back out -- it satisfies notting, nirik, and the other FESCo member's criteria. | 12:42 |
| f13 | I as a reviewer need to know the minimum things to check before allowing the import and build on the side of these packages. | 12:42 |
| tibbs | I don't know how we can verify the other stuff when we can't even build the package. | 12:42 |
| abadger1999 | Err... toss the page back to FESCo/java people to start using. | 12:42 |
| spot | if it prevents java from dragging along prebuilt crufty jar crap, and we can catch it at this "prereview" stage, i think its a good thing | 12:43 |
| spot | binaries of something solely for bootstrapping purposes, okay, fine. I understand that. | 12:43 |
| dbhole | spot: Certain jars will still be pulled in at this preview stage, but only for bootstrap | 12:44 |
| tibbs | You can't properly check that without building the package, which you can't at this stage. | 12:44 |
| dbhole | spot: nvm, you already know that then :) | 12:44 |
| spot | tibbs: well, you can check that the jars in the package match the package | 12:44 |
| tibbs | Sure, you can look to see that it deletes some jars but that doesn't really tell you with any certainty. | 12:44 |
| spot | e.g. no "eclipse-1.2.3.jar" in "jboss-super-awesome-snake" | 12:44 |
| * overholt calls dibs on "super-awesome-snake" project name | 12:45 | |
| spot | unless its documented clearly as bootstrapping (and jboss-super-awesome-snake has a proper dep on eclipse) | 12:45 |
| spot | this falls under the "no system libraries" clause | 12:45 |
| spot | which is why i think its important to be covered in the prereview | 12:46 |
| spot | the builds from source is necessary to help explain the bootstrapping | 12:46 |
| * Rathann is looking at the relevant FESCO meeting log | 12:46 | |
| spot | and that the bootstrapping is TEMPORARY. :) | 12:46 |
| Rathann | http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-05-08.html | 12:46 |
| spot | so, even with the shortcomings, this draft seems like a good enough plan for "prereviews" | 12:48 |
| spot | +1 from me | 12:48 |
| abadger1999 | +1 from me naturally | 12:49 |
| spot | (even if i still don't think this is the FPC domain, i'd be happy to just pass these recommendations back to FESCo for implementation) | 12:49 |
| tibbs | I'll go along with it, but I maintain that it's not possible to properly follow these guidelines if you can't build the package. | 12:49 |
| abadger1999 | k. Build from source is too hard to verify? | 12:49 |
| spot | looks like it is attempting to build from source? ;) | 12:49 |
| tibbs | Indeed. | 12:50 |
| tibbs | But +1 anyway. | 12:50 |
| rdieter | +1 too | 12:50 |
| tibbs | My primary complaint is that this screws with (and dumps on) the review process even more. | 12:50 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | +1 | 12:50 |
| spot | tibbs: its a one-off, thankfully. | 12:50 |
| tibbs | I mean, it's dysfunctional enough as it is. | 12:50 |
| Rathann | 0 from me, I'm against such exceptions, even one-offs | 12:50 |
| spot | if f13 had said it was a new practice, i'd have been much more concerned. | 12:51 |
| tibbs | It should have been a zero-off, because there's a better way to do this that was ignored. | 12:51 |
| Rathann | spot: this will get used as an argument of "we did this before" later, you'll see | 12:51 |
| tibbs | The earlier representation was that this wasn't a one-off. | 12:51 |
| f13 | representation by whom? | 12:51 |
| spot | Rathann: well, its not going in the guidelines, we're just handing this back to FESCo. | 12:51 |
| spot | with +5, it passes. f13, here you go. ;) | 12:52 |
| f13 | thanks. | 12:52 |
| spot | Next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MAN_pages_which_exists_in_other_places%28draft%29 | 12:52 |
| tibbs | -1. | 12:52 |
| <-- overholt has left this channel. | 12:52 | |
| spot | the English is pretty rough in this one | 12:52 |
| tibbs | I simply disagree with the proposal in its entirety. | 12:52 |
| spot | there are a lot of SHOULDs in there | 12:53 |
| spot | but no MUST | 12:53 |
| tibbs | We can document somewhere outside the guidelines that maintainers might want to look for debian-specific manpages. | 12:53 |
| tibbs | But this directly contradicts our whole "do the work upstream" ethic. | 12:53 |
| * Rathann agrees with tibbs | 12:53 | |
| spot | yeah, i'm inclined to agree with this. | 12:54 |
| Rathann | -1 | 12:54 |
| spot | it sure would be nice if debian could figure out how to submit things upstream. | 12:54 |
| spot | -1 | 12:54 |
| tibbs | That doesn't stop our packagers from taking them and submitting them upsteam, of course. | 12:54 |
| abadger1999 | 0 | 12:54 |
| tibbs | But that doesn't need to be in the guidelines. | 12:55 |
| spot | tibbs: i was about to make the same point | 12:55 |
| spot | tibbs: or even carrying them while waiting for upstream to add them | 12:55 |
| tibbs | It would be nice in general to have some documentation about how to find other distro patches and fixes. | 12:55 |
| spot | (xpdf is carrying about 15 debian patches that upstream knows about) | 12:55 |
| tibbs | I have no idea how to even fathom debian's packaging format. | 12:56 |
| spot | tibbs: i could probably document that | 12:56 |
| * spot adds it to his todo list | 12:56 | |
| tibbs | I tried, but the patch of patches was just bizarre. | 12:56 |
| Rathann | f13: who is on the "Java Maven team"? | 12:57 |
| spot | theres a lot of crackrock there. | 12:57 |
| tibbs | I have a performance review at 1PM, BTW, so I need to leave very soon. | 12:57 |
| rdieter | tibbs: nod, makes me laugh whenever I hear folks tout .deb's being so much better than rpm | 12:57 |
| --> delero1 has joined this channel (n=delero@nat/sun/x-13744750215f7990). | 12:57 | |
| spot | okay, the only other item on the agenda is trying to find a better meeting time/day | 12:57 |
| spot | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/FPC_Availability | 12:57 |
| delero1 | just had a nice Xorg hang, with no ctrl-alt-del to escape it... | 12:57 |
| spot | that has everyone's data except SmootherFrOgZ... *cough* | 12:58 |
| f13 | Rathann: I don't have a full name list. dbhole might be able to come up with names. | 12:58 |
| spot | delero1: then turn it on. silly. ;) | 12:58 |
| delero1 | indeed | 12:58 |
| tibbs | I hate to mention it, but didn't hansg join a committee when he explicitly could not make the meetings? | 12:58 |
| spot | tibbs: he's made some of the meetings. | 12:58 |
| SmootherFrOgZ | spot: i will | 12:58 |
| tibbs | But the meeting time lies outside of the only times when he's available. | 12:58 |
| tibbs | I mean, it's possible that his availability changed, sure. | 12:59 |
| tibbs | Anyway, I'm logging but I need to go. | 12:59 |
| spot | okay, we can talk about this item on the list | 12:59 |
| spot | any other items for today's meeting? | 12:59 |
| Rathann | my availability times are going to change next month, BTW | 13:00 |
| Rathann | no idea to what yet | 13:00 |
| spot | i think if we can find a time where 8 of 9 can regularly attend it will have to be good enough | 13:01 |
| Rathann | f13: ok, it's fine if someone knows who can be held responsible for the mess ;) | 13:01 |
| spot | we'll invite the other individual to vote via email in advance or as a tie breaker later | 13:01 |
| f13 | Rathann: if all else fails, I will be responsible for it. I brought the request to FESCo in the first place. | 13:02 |
| Rathann | I'll keep that in mind | 13:02 |
| * abadger1999 trusts f13 to clean up and to yell at relevant people if it is a mess ;-) | 13:03 | |
| Rathann | spot: sounds reasonable, I think that's the best we can do in the circumstances | 13:03 |
| spot | okay, i think we're done for today, thanks everyone. | 13:04 |
| Rathann | thanks spot | 13:04 |