From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2009-03-17
Present
- Hans de Goede (hansg)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Ralf Corsepius (racor)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
Regrets
- Denis Leroy (delero)
- Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
- Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)
Votes
No votes this week.
Other Discussions
The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.
- Common Package Names
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_package_names_packaging_guideline_draft
- This draft contines to evolve.
IRC Logs
| spot | abadger1999, hansg, racor, rdieter, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs: ping | 12:06 |
|---|---|---|
| hansg | pogn | 12:06 |
| tibbs | Yep. | 12:06 |
| rdieter | hola | 12:06 |
| abadger1999 | pong | 12:07 |
| spot | well, with me, thats +5 | 12:07 |
| spot | Rathann isn't able to make it today | 12:08 |
| spot | and I don't see delero online | 12:08 |
| racor | pong | 12:08 |
| spot | okay, good, thats 6 | 12:08 |
| spot | lets go ahead and get started | 12:08 |
| spot | first item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_package_names_packaging_guideline_draft | 12:09 |
| spot | the only change here from last time is that it is structured to fit into Packaging:Conflicts now, correct? | 12:10 |
| abadger1999 | Just made a one-sentence addition. | 12:10 |
| hansg | First thing, this is about filenames not package names, that is rather confusing in the draft title and needs to be fixed | 12:10 |
| abadger1999 | Yeah, goes in Packaging:conflicts and added this line: | 12:10 |
| abadger1999 | "When a package name is changed for being likely to conflict you often have to change filenames as well. Follow the Packaging:Conflicts section to fix these. " | 12:10 |
| * spot doesn't see that sentence | 12:11 | |
| abadger1999 | hansg: Well... this is about package names. | 12:12 |
| spot | wait, now i do. :) | 12:12 |
| spot | Does the standard commands belong in this section? | 12:12 |
| spot | since that is about filenames | 12:12 |
| hansg | abadger1999, erm and about filenames, why else give the bindir/trash example ? | 12:12 |
| * hansg thinks the filename conflict actually is the one occuring the most | 12:13 | |
| abadger1999 | it's about both, I suppose. | 12:13 |
| spot | could it be drafted to be generic enough to apply to both? | 12:13 |
| spot | (or specific enough) | 12:14 |
| abadger1999 | Yeah, filenames happen more often. But is it not covered by the Conflicting_Files section? | 12:14 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Good point, should move standard commands out a level. | 12:14 |
| spot | fwiw, with the standard commands moved out a level, it seems okay to me. | 12:16 |
| spot | assuming that this is about package names only. | 12:16 |
| hansg | ack | 12:17 |
| spot | does anyone else have any other comments here? | 12:17 |
| * spot drops a pin | 12:18 | |
| tibbs | I suppose I'm OK with this, but It's a bit confusing as to whether this is about package names or files or both. | 12:18 |
| abadger1999 | I can see how we could break this apart better. | 12:18 |
| racor | errm, but I don't understand what this proposal is aim at, which isn't already covered elsewhere rsp. is "obvious" ... | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | "Change most of this to -- how to bring conflicts upstream" and then a few sentences about "This can happen to package names too" in a separate section | 12:20 |
| tibbs | I guess the problem is that someone submitted a package named "email" and everyone sort of asks whether that's a good idea or not. | 12:20 |
| abadger1999 | If it's covered elsewhere, we can get rid of it/link to it/etc. But obvious is the problem. | 12:20 |
| abadger1999 | Everyone disagrees on what obvious is. | 12:20 |
| spot | abadger1999: i don't think it can hurt to rework the draft in the way that you've suggested. | 12:22 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Okay, I'll take this back and do a more extensive rewrite. | 12:22 |
| spot | alright, so that was the only thing that I had on today's agenda | 12:23 |
| spot | the floor is open to any additional topics | 12:23 |
| tibbs | Which of the writeups remain to be written up? | 12:23 |
| tibbs | And what did FPC approve last time? | 12:23 |
| spot | it looks like we approved "Explicit Requires" and "Source URL Update" last time | 12:24 |
| tibbs | Sorry, not FPC, FESCo. | 12:24 |
| spot | there are currently quite a few things pending writeup | 12:24 |
| spot | FESCo ratified both items, i was actually at that meeting | 12:24 |
| spot | i'll work on the writeups this afternoon | 12:25 |
| tibbs | I take it we'll stay at 17:00UTC. | 12:26 |
| spot | for the time being, yes. | 12:26 |
| spot | okay, i think we're done. thanks everyone. :) | 12:27 |
| tibbs | What might happen to change the time? It would be good to know in advance what will happen around the various summer time changes. | 12:27 |
| hansg | wow that was short | 12:27 |
| spot | let's assume we're on 1700 UTC unless we change the time entirely | 12:27 |
| hansg | I vote for keeping the meeting at 17:00 UTC, just like we did when we went from winter to summer time | 12:28 |
| hansg | bye all | 12:29 |