[[Dec 05 11:02:46] <spot> i'm here, just finishing up this conflicts draft
[[Dec 05 11:02:56] * rdieter is here.
[[Dec 05 11:03:35] <rdieter> +1 to whatever spot has in his Conflicts draft. (:
[[Dec 05 11:04:04] <lutter> haha .. package texas hold'em
[[Dec 05 11:05:25] * abadger1999 (email@example.com) has joined #fedora-packaging
[[Dec 05 11:05:28] <rdieter> sounds fun, I'll match your +1, and raise +2.
[[Dec 05 11:05:56] <abadger1999> Hello
[[Dec 05 11:07:07] <rdieter> attendance will iikely be lite today, no Ralf or Ville.
[[Dec 05 11:07:17] <spot> do we have quorum
[[Dec 05 11:07:49] <lutter> I count 4 with me
[[Dec 05 11:07:59] <lutter> though tibbs was here earlier
[[Dec 05 11:08:03] <spot> abadger1999, lutter, rdieter, spot, tibbs (assuming tibbs is still around)
[[Dec 05 11:08:08] <spot> f13: alive?
[[Dec 05 11:08:27] <rdieter> tibbs was here ~20 minutes go.
[[Dec 05 11:08:31] <rdieter> s/go/ago/
[[Dec 05 11:10:19] <abadger1999> Hmm... not looking so hopeful.
[[Dec 05 11:11:02] <rdieter> spot, do have the Conflicts draft ready for us to read yet?
[[Dec 05 11:11:56] <spot> just clicking save on it now
[[Dec 05 11:12:06] <spot> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
[[Dec 05 11:12:37] * spot fixes a grammar mistake
[[Dec 05 11:13:06] <rdieter> looks sane to me.
[[Dec 05 11:14:03] <spot> unless tibbs or f13 awakens, we don't have quorum
[[Dec 05 11:14:27] <lutter> let's give them a couple of minutes
[[Dec 05 11:14:45] <rdieter> could email to fedora-packagers, and ask for e-mail vote (for anything we'd like to vote on anyway today).
[[Dec 05 11:15:56] <spot> well, does everyone alive think the proposal is sane?
[[Dec 05 11:16:08] <spot> thl: this includes you. :)
[[Dec 05 11:16:23] <rdieter> I consider the Conflicts draft close to a no-brainer and just common sense.
[[Dec 05 11:16:41] <spot> rdieter: me too, which is why i was able to crank it out in 15 minutes
[[Dec 05 11:16:51] <thl> spot, well, I don't like the example you made with the kernel
[[Dec 05 11:16:54] <thl> I don#t care much
[[Dec 05 11:17:01] <thl> But I know alot of people will
[[Dec 05 11:17:19] <rdieter> maybe use a different example?
[[Dec 05 11:17:25] <thl> otherwise I'd like it
[[Dec 05 11:17:27] <thl> rdieter, +1
[[Dec 05 11:17:29] <abadger1999> spot: Did notting have some post that had a reason to use conflicts?
[[Dec 05 11:17:37] <spot> i can change the example
[[Dec 05 11:17:46] <spot> abadger1999: if so, i didn't see it
[[Dec 05 11:17:47] <rdieter> kernels are one place where Conflicts may actually make sense.
[[Dec 05 11:17:56] <thl> rdieter, +1 (again)
[[Dec 05 11:18:00] <spot> but i haven't exactly been diving deep into email lately
[[Dec 05 11:18:09] * spot is trying to get aurora done (already)
[[Dec 05 11:18:50] <rdieter> regardless, if nottings' example is legit, it'll pass muster wrt this proposal.
[[Dec 05 11:19:10] <lutter> spot: just use a package that is only ever instaled once in the example (e.g. glibc) that should avoid most of hte heckling
[[Dec 05 11:19:27] <rdieter> Or just use example of package 'foo'
[[Dec 05 11:19:27] <spot> lutter: i just made it generic
[[Dec 05 11:19:31] <lutter> spot: minor nit: the 'man page name conflicts' should say 'prefix' instead of suffix
[[Dec 05 11:19:53] <spot> lutter: fixed, thanks
[[Dec 05 11:20:42] <spot> well, in absense of quorum, i'll send this proposal out for email vote.
[[Dec 05 11:21:01] <rdieter> worksforme.
[[Dec 05 11:21:02] <abadger1999> I think nottings example was kernel and userspace mismatches.
[[Dec 05 11:21:11] <lutter> spot: you really want to force Conflicts to go through FESCo ?
[[Dec 05 11:21:32] <spot> lutter: this committee is not tasked to do anything besides draft packaging guidelines
[[Dec 05 11:21:52] <abadger1999> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-November/msg00043.html
[[Dec 05 11:21:58] <spot> FESCO has to give thumbs up/down on case-by-case
[[Dec 05 11:22:06] <thl> I think that's okay for now to go through FESCo; but I think the PC should handle such stuff after the merge (when it happens)
[[Dec 05 11:22:09] <spot> if FESCO asks for the PC's opinion, we can give it
[[Dec 05 11:22:14] <abadger1999> It as Nicolas Mailhot's example -- Notting just agreed ith it.
[[Dec 05 11:22:18] <abadger1999> s/as/was/
[[Dec 05 11:23:12] <thl> I'm wondering if we should have a genereal exception for the kernel. But maybe let people yell on the list first; it can still be added later
[[Dec 05 11:23:15] <spot> I think the kernel is a rather special case
[[Dec 05 11:23:26] <spot> and that most of its conflicts will be approved by FESCO
[[Dec 05 11:26:35] <spot> ok, thats it for today then. see you next week.
[[Dec 05 11:26:45] * spot has changed the topic to: Channel for Fedora packaging related discussion | Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 17:00 UTC