From Fedora Project Wiki

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of 2007.04.10


  • DavidLutterkort (lutter)
  • JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
  • JesseKeating (f13)
  • RexDieter (rdieter)
  • TomCallaway (spot)
  • ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)


There were no votes last week, so nothing added to the guidelines this week.


The following proposals were considered:

  • A statement of the responsibilities of reviewers and packagers during the package review process PackagingDrafts/OverallReviewGoals
  • Accepted (6 - 0).
  • Voting for: spot tibbs f13 abadger1999 rdieter lutter
  • Voting against: (none)
  • There was confusion regarding the status of the draft on the use of Conflicts:, so the issue was reconsidered and the existing draft was slightly modified PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
  • Accepted (5 - 0).
  • Voting for: tibbs rdieter abadger1999 spot lutter
  • Voting against: (none)
  • Note: there's a +1 from f13 down in the log; I will clarify what this applies to and edit these minutes as appropriate.

Other Discussions

The following additional item was discussed; see the logs for full details.

  • Meeting time: Since Europe has switched to DST and the meeting time remains at 17:00UTC, the meeting time is now very difficult for at least one committee member. Discussion of solutions to this continue on the mailing list.

IRC Logs

[12:00]  * spot is here
[12:02]  <-- giallu has left this server (Remote closed the connection).
[12:02]  * lutter is sorta here
[12:03]  * abadger1999 is here
[12:03]  * bpepple is lurking about.
[12:04]  <spot> rdieter: don't forget to write up the cmake draft and email the lists
[12:04]  <f13> I'm here.
[12:06]  <spot> four does not quorum make. :)
[12:07]  <rdieter> here
[12:07]  <spot> ok, barely quorum. :)
[12:07]  <spot> lutter: any updates for rubygems?
[12:07]  <rdieter> was waiting for cmake to include the macros before updating the guideline (it's only in the devel build atm).
[12:08]  <spot> rdieter: ah, ok, same reason i'm waiting for the dist macros change. :)
[12:08]  <rdieter> already emailed the list though. :)
[12:08]  <rdieter> (and getting cmake shlib permissions right out of the box, without specfile hacks).
[12:09]  <lutter> spot: sorry, no ENOTIME ... I'll tryreally hard for next week
[12:09]  <spot> lutter: ok, we'll keep it on the todo list. :)
[12:09]  <spot> abadger1999: do you want to try to consider ?
[12:10]  <spot> abadger1999: or would you like to wait until we have more turnout?
[12:10]  <abadger1999> If we have nothing else to discuss it would be fine.
[12:10]  <abadger1999> Does anyone find it controversial?
[12:11]  * f13 reads
[12:11]  <rdieter> no, imo, is(should be?) a no-brainer.
[12:11]  <f13> I think it is a good start.
[12:11]  <spot> yeah. its a good base to build from.
[12:11]  <spot> +1
[12:11]  <f13> Might want to make it clear that exceptions can and do exist and that guidelines are not written in stone.
[12:12]  <lutter> yeah, might be a nice intro to or similar
[12:12]  <f13> rdieter: this is a good pre-page to the guidelines or hte review process, a nice overview of what it tries to accomplish before diving directly into the meat.
[12:14]  <abadger1999> f13: Something like "...The guidelines are frequently updated as new issues are brought up or old rules are found to be too inflexible. If a reviewer or packager believe their package reveals a flaw in the Guidelines..."
[12:14]  <rdieter> f13: absolutely.
[12:14]  <abadger1999> Good addition?
[12:15]  <rdieter> yup
[12:15]  <f13> that is in itself, I was thinking more that a package can get an exception to a rule if reasonable and that we shouldn't have reviews stuck in a point where the reviewer is just spitting the guideline verbatim and not understanding what the guideline is trying to do when the package may have a reasonable exception.
[12:16]  <rdieter> f13: well, what to do about that, except to whip out a clue-stick?
[12:17]  <abadger1999> f13: Hmm... That's true.  I've seen reviewers get hung up on the letter of a guideline without understanding that there's a valid exception there.
[12:17]  <abadger1999> OTOH, I think those issues should be brought to the Packaging Committee so we can update the Guidelines with the exception.
[12:18]  <tibbs> Dammit, people keep taking my time today.
[12:18]  <spot> "While these guidelines should not be ignored, they should also not be blindly followed. If you think that your package should be exempt from part of the Guidelines, please bring up the issue to the Fedora Packaging Committee."
[12:19]  <f13> spot: awesome!
[12:19]  <abadger1999> spot: +1.  I like that.
[12:19]  <tibbs> +1
[12:19]  <rdieter> +1, will hopefuly go along way to stem animosity toward us darn "packaging comittee folks on high" type of comments. :)
[12:20]  <lutter> +1
[12:20]  <spot> +1
[12:20]  <f13> +1
[12:20]  <abadger1999> So -- final edit:
[12:21]  <spot> +1 to the final edit
[12:21]  <tibbs> +1
[12:21]  <f13> +1
[12:21]  <abadger1999> +1
[12:22]  <rdieter> +1
[12:22]  <abadger1999> Cool.  Do we want this to replace the text at the top of
[12:22]  <spot> sure.
[12:23]  <spot> leave the ReviewGuidelines sentence though
[12:23]  <abadger1999> k
[12:23]  <lutter> +1
[12:25]  <spot> ok, lets talk about PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
[12:25]  <spot> i'm not sure that we actually voted on it
[12:25]  <tibbs> See
[12:25]  * rdieter thought we did.
[12:25]  <tibbs> (09:59:29 AM) tibbs: Did we ever finish the Conflicts: draft?
[12:25]  <tibbs> (09:59:30 AM) spot: (i think this has been our most productive meeting ever)
[12:25]  <tibbs> (09:59:41 AM) spot: we approved it
[12:25]  <tibbs> (09:59:48 AM) spot: and i don't think anyone vetoed it
[12:25]  <spot> ok, far beit me to contradict myself.
[12:25]  <rdieter> vote again, for fun?
[12:26]  <spot> yeah, lets vote once more for the record.
[12:26]  <rdieter> +1
[12:26]  <spot> +1
[12:26]  <spot> URL for the lazy:
[12:26]  *** thl is now known as thl_afk.
[12:26]  <tibbs> Just making sure that everything we talked about got into that draft.
[12:27]  <spot> i changed it at least 5 times. :)
[12:27]  <tibbs> I think it might be worth it to make it clear that all conflicts need to be explicit via Conflicts:
[12:27]  <tibbs> Or is that something we want?
[12:27]  <abadger1999> Was this the draft where we started worrying about what steering committee issues should go to?
[12:27]  <rdieter> I think (ironically) it implicitly says that. :)
[12:27]  <abadger1999> tibbs: +1
[12:28]  <f13> +1
[12:28]  <tibbs> I think it's implicit in the final paragraph, but it might be good to state it clearly.
[12:29]  <rdieter> sure, clearly stated usually beats implicit subterfuge. :)
[12:29]  <lutter> yeah, agreed
[12:29]  <abadger1999> We'll have people who don't realize that it's implicit if we don't spell it out.
[12:29]  <lutter> and why talk mysteriously about hte appropriate Fedora Steering Committee ? Shouldn'tthey just mail fedora-packaging, i.e. talk to us ?
[12:29]  <spot> ok, one sec
[12:30]  <spot> lutter: probably cause this is a pre-merge draft
[12:30]  <spot> do we want this to come to the FPC for resolution?
[12:30]  <spot> (i'd think so)
[12:31]  <tibbs> Yes, I think so too.
[12:31]  <abadger1999> I think so.
[12:34]  <spot> ok, reload it folks. 0.6 has a section on implict conflicts, and has the FPC as the point of contact for resolution
[12:34]  <tibbs> +1
[12:35]  <rdieter> +1, we have a winner.
[12:35]  <abadger1999> +1
[12:35]  <spot> +1
[12:36]  <spot> f13, lutter?
[12:36]  <lutter> +1
[12:37]  --> sankarshan has joined this channel (i=sankarsh@fedora/sankarshan).
[12:37]  <spot> ok, thats a pass.
[12:37]  <spot> any other business not on the schedule that people want to bring up?
[12:37]  <tibbs> Meeting time?
[12:37]  <tibbs> With DST now in Europe, we've essentially lost Ralf.
[12:38]  <spot> yeah.
[12:38]  <spot> i know we can't move up too much, or we lose lutter
[12:38]  <tibbs> f13 as well, I think.
[12:38]  <spot> will 1600 work?
[12:38]  <lutter> that's an hour earlier ?
[12:38]  <tibbs> Yes.
[12:39]  <lutter> works for me
[12:39]  <tibbs> It would work well enough for me; I'm flexible.
[12:39]  <tibbs> But we should make sure it works for Ralf as well.
[12:39]  <spot> lets take this to the mailing list
[12:39]  <tibbs> Unfortunately it's hard to discuss it on IRC when he can't be here.
[12:40]  <f13> +1
[12:40]  <lutter> yeah, mailing list is good
[12:40]  <lutter> is there anything else ? I kinda have to run, sorry
[12:40]  <rdieter> list, though if it doesn't get resolved soon, we may have to move to find a replacement who *can* regularly make it.
[12:42]  <tibbs> Do we need to pass the OverallReviewGoals thing through FESCO?
[12:42]  <spot> ok, email sent to list
[12:43]  <spot> tibbs: huh?
[12:43]  <spot> yeah, i think we do
[12:43]  <spot> even if its just rubber stamping
[12:43]  <tibbs> It's not really a guideline change; I'm just making sure.
[12:43]  <spot> i dont want any suprises or people claiming we're getting too big for our pants. :)
[12:43]  <spot> s/suprises/surprises
[12:44]  <spot> ok, i think thats it for today
[12:44]  <spot> thanks everyone. :)
[12:44]  <abadger1999> Thanks spot, thanks tibbs