| bpepple | topic FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | |
|---|---|---|
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | d'oh | |
| * warren here | ||
| rsc | RobertScheck | |
| * poelcat here | ||
| tibbs|h here | ||
| dwmw2 | fish | |
| * nirik is around. | ||
| rdieter sits in the rabble-seats, shares popcorn with knurd | ||
| c4chris is here | ||
| * jima here (rabble) | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| jwb | bpepple, will be a few minutes late | |
| * knurd hands the coke to rdieter | ||
| bpepple | Hi, everyone; who's around? | |
| jwb: np. | ||
| * kasal here, willing to join the discussion on "packages in buildroot' | ||
| dwmw2 | ||
| jeremybb | Spot and f13 will be late too | |
| bpepple | That's fine, we can start off slow. | |
| * dwmw2 is good at slow | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Any objection to this week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00702.html | ||
| bpepple | Everyone get a chance to read Tibb's summary? | |
| tibbs|h | It's just a few minor changes, really. | |
| * bpepple read it, and didn't have any objections to the FPC's proposals. | ||
| tibbs|h | Tweaks to the PHP guidelines to come up to date with what new PHP stuff is doing. | |
| jeremybb | I don't remember seeing anything controversial | |
| tibbs|h | And a clarification which probably doesn't need to come before FESCo anyway. | |
| * nirik has no problem with it. | ||
| warren | sorry, my IRC proxy died | |
| * warren here | ||
| tibbs|h | Next week's python eggs proposal is more interesting, I think, so folks should weigh in on that. | |
| If they care, of course. | ||
| bpepple | ok, I don't see any objections on the mailing list or here, so I think we can safely move on. | |
| * jwb returns | ||
| dgilmore | looks fine to me | |
| c4chris | fine for me | |
| bpepple | alright, movin' on........ | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- extending mandate (permanent?) for EPEL - nirik | ||
| bpepple | This seems like a no-brainer item to me. | |
| jwb | fine with me | |
| tibbs|h | +1 | |
| dgilmore | i think we need to decide elect some people or apoint new people | |
| nirik | yeah, I don't recall why it was limited... | |
| warren | this really needs discussion? | |
| jeremybb | Just do it... Good work is being done, there seems to be a growing user base which will lead to more contributors too | |
| dgilmore | nirik: it was limited to see if it worked and was really needed | |
| tibbs|h | It would need discussion if EPEL hadn't actually done anything useful. | |
| jwb | dgilmore, i think we can leave that up to the EPEL committee... | |
| knurd | dgilmore, does FESCO need to/want to decide that? | |
| nirik | dgilmore: yeah, sounds right I guess. | |
| dgilmore | knurd: i kinda think fesco should say epel needs to have some elected people | |
| caillon | just got in, the guys at thai jasmin were slow today | |
| dgilmore | but we have a had a couple of elections recently | |
| nirik | I like the idea of EPEL being more SIG like personally... people just step up and do the work they want to/are able to... but I suppose we do need a way to decide difficult issues. | |
| dgilmore | Just so everyone knows whatever happens i wont be involeved in EPEL to the level i have been anymore | |
| jeremybb | I care more about there's stuff getting done than elections or appintments for the sake of elections | |
| bpepple | jeremybb: +1 | |
| dgilmore | nirik: i think SIG more than steering committie personally | |
| notting | dgilmore: no time? | |
| dgilmore | notting: yeah | |
| i got all the piece in place which ate alot of time. i have other things i want to work on that need alot of my time | ||
| nirik | Well, if it's SIG like it's more a matter for the SIG to decide how to manage itself I would think? unless FESCo wants to appoint someone to report to fesco from the sig or something. | |
| dgilmore: thanks for all the hard work on EPEL stuff, BTW... it's really appreciated. | ||
| bpepple | nirik: I'm all for EPEL deciding how to manage itself. knurd meeting summaries are fine w/ me. | |
| dgilmore | nirik: SIG like the SIG decides who gives a report back to fesco | |
| bpepple | s/knurd/knurd's/ | |
| nirik | ok, sounds fine to me... so for now we have an OK from fesco to keep going... and manage as we see fit? | |
| bpepple | nirik: yup. | |
| jwb | as long as you don't go insane :) | |
| nirik | well, we can try. ;) | |
| bpepple | nirik: anything else in regard to EPEL, or should we move on? | |
| caillon | please to not be doing the insane thing, either | |
| nirik | nothing in this topic I don't think... move on. | |
| bpepple | ok. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Review of new features status http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList - poelcat, jwb | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: you wanted to talk about dropping features not finished. | |
| jeremybb | I think that needs to be on a feature by feature basis | |
| jwb | yes | |
| bpepple | jeremybb: correct. | |
| dgilmore | jeremybb: i.e. is it nearly done or no where near done | |
| bpepple | hmm, seems poelcat has stepped away. | |
| poelcat | bpepple: yes | |
| poelcat | background: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-August/msg02087.html | |
| jeremybb | Could be even a little more involved | |
| poelcat | Does FESCo have a preferred course of action? | |
| jeremybb: it is | ||
| tibbs | Things that aren't done still have some time to get done, but we need to triage those features which have no chance. | |
| And status updates are mandatory for us to do that. | ||
| poelcat | tibbs: then what does "feature freeze" mean? | |
| tibbs | We've chosen the features that will be in the release. | |
| poelcat | we also said we would drop them if they weren't done on time :) | |
| tibbs | When has "feature freeze" ever meant anything else? | |
| f13 | here | |
| poelcat: if they weren't in a testable state. | ||
| jeremy | feature freeze means that "feature is largely to a reasonable place and is testable, bugs still to come". _or_ that the feature has to get an okay to continue to go in | |
| tibbs | My point is that if we can't even get status updates then the features should be dropped. | |
| poelcat | hm... we didn't say that here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#drop | |
| f13 | they don't have to be 100% done, they just have to be in a testable state by test2, to be shored up throughout the rest. | |
| dgilmore | i think right now we need to cut what is not at least 75-80% feature complete | |
| jwb | agreed | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: that sounds about right to me, | |
| poelcat | i'm just trying to follow the policy we set in the beginning... naturally we can change it if we all agree :) | |
| tibbs | Well, "wakeups" probably gets a pass unless we can't honestly say that things are better than they used to be. | |
| drago01 | dgilmore: what if they are >=75-80% but the page is not updated? | |
| dgilmore | drago01: feature owners should be keeping the status updated. | |
| nirik | no updates should be == move to f9 target/dropped for f8 | |
| jwb | drago01, people got personal emails to update their page. if they can't do that, it's their fault | |
| drago01 | jwb: ok fair enough | |
| bpepple | poelcat: I see your point, but using the 100% threshold, don't we have only 4 features done? | |
| jeremy | the fact that we drop a feature page from being tracked does absolutely nothing as far as "does code happen", though. _that_ is why you can't just say "sorry, try again" | |
| jwb | huh? | |
| caillon | jeremy: +1 | |
| poelcat | bpepple: yes; so we need to tweak the policy or do what it says :) | |
| poelcat | which is how these things go | |
| caillon | i always thought the "Feature" list was mostly for marketing anyway | |
| jwb | caillon, yes and no | |
| caillon | i didn't say all. i said mostly | |
| jwb | caillon, for example... presto could have been a feature. but it wasn't in place, and now it won't be for f8 ever | |
| caillon | right | |
| jwb | the only controversial feature i see on this page that might get dropped is BigBoard | |
| tibbs | Take the "Dictionary" feature. It's not done, because nobody wrote the aspell compatibility layer. But firefox and openoffice can share dictionaries now. Do we just not mention that as a feature? | |
| jeremy | jwb: except that the plugin is still available for people that want to install it. and we're even still hoping to get to where the repos have deltarpms available. so it's not black or white | |
| poelcat | tibbs: or you change the description to reflect what is done | |
| and propose the rest for F9 | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: I think realistically we need to tweak our policy. I would lean towards modifying it to dgilomore's suggestion of 75-80%. | |
| jwb | jeremy, i meant in the fedora scope of things | |
| jeremy, you aren't going to enable deltarpms in the official repos now, are you? | ||
| jeremy | jwb: we talked about it last week. and if we can get to where they're there, yes. because without the plugin being installed, advertising it, etc then it provides a real value both for getting a leg up on testing and for users that are comfortable with it | |
| dgilmore | jwb: when they are available we could | |
| jwb | that sort of pisses me off | |
| but lets not focus on presto at the moment | ||
| nirik | can we agree to drop all features that are less than 50% and/or have no updates? | |
| jwb | nirik, +1 | |
| nirik | or less than 75% / aren't testable | |
| jwb | yeah, something like that | |
| poelcat | nirik: "testable" is too ambiguous... how do we make that determination? | |
| s/we/I :) | ||
| jeremy | nirik: what does "dropping" them mean? I'm looking at the list of things that fall into that category and just not really seeing much for what it really means | |
| f13 | poelcat: percentage done is also ambiguous and somewhat arbitrary isn't it? | |
| tibbs | xulrunner is one, I guess. | |
| nirik | poelcat: yeah, thats true... approved to go on by fesco? | |
| jeremy | tibbs: yeah, xulrunner is the only one that I can clearly understand what dropping means | |
| poelcat | f13: we don't have a field for "testable" :) | |
| nirik | jeremy: I would say that means they get moved to 'f9 feature' and wait for that cycle ? | |
| jeremy | tibbs: and making a hunspell-based libaspell | |
| tibbs | texlive is another. | |
| jwb | does it occur to anyone else how ambiguous this whole thing is? | |
| poelcat | f13: and i can't tell just by looking at the feature page | |
| jeremy | tibbs: texlive says it's at 95% :) | |
| caillon | xulrunner is on the feature list? | |
| tibbs | But it still hasn't passed review. | |
| jwb | seems we were doing fine up until we had to really do anything about the features | |
| f13 | "is it in a state that can be used by users and are problems they find useful to the development of this feature?" | |
| caillon | oops | |
| f13 | if it's in a state that is know broken, and users using it will just cause noise, that's not "Testable" | |
| poelcat | caillon: it got approved | |
| jeremy | tibbs: yeah, I'm just saying that if we're following that criteria, it's not there | |
| caillon | oh i guess rahul submited it | |
| drago01 | caillon: rahul added it .. can you remeber the flamewar on the mailing list? | |
| caillon | drago01: i'm in too many flamewars :) | |
| notting_ | so, basically, we want to do a reality check and move things to 'not this release'? | |
| drago01 | caillon: and you said "done in 2 weeks" | |
| jeremy | but changing the bookmarks is going to happen whether it's a "feature" or not, generic logos will continue to march a little bit forward probably, wakeup problems will get fixed as filed, ... | |
| bpepple | notting_: yeah. | |
| caillon | yeah, and then stuff happened. it's sitting on my harddrive. i have minor changes to the olpc one, and should just import that | |
| c4chris | notting_: I think yes | |
| dgilmore | spot: one feature thats not there but should show results. probably soon after F-8 is done is secondary archs | |
| poelcat | f13: i agree with you... how do I collect this information in an efficient way for each feature? | |
| dgilmore | opps sorry spot | |
| jwb | dgilmore, it's not a feature | |
| dgilmore | jwb: sure it is | |
| caillon | f13: what is the "test2" deadline? | |
| dgilmore | jwb: enabling many more archs is a feature | |
| f13 | caillon: yesterday | |
| caillon | heh | |
| jwb | dgilmore, no, i meant it's not a Feature | |
| f13 | or the day before really, but I did a somewhat silent pull of all yesterday's stuff. | |
| jwb | we aren't tracking it as such | |
| caillon | any leeway there? | |
| dgilmore | jwb: thats what i said | |
| one feature thats not there | ||
| * bpepple thinks we're getting off track. | ||
| jwb | we are | |
| notting_ | it's an ugly process, but we could go through them one-by-one with the current state and do go/no-go | |
| dgilmore | notting_: i think we should | |
| f13 | caillon: some, I'm pretty sure we're going to slip anyway. | |
| drago01 | there are many features that aren't feartures (untracked) | |
| caillon | but what does no go mean? | |
| notting_ | caillon: not-for-f8 | |
| f13 | caillon: no-go should mean don't advertise it for F8, and use the Contengency plan. | |
| caillon | notting_: but does that mean we back out changes if they happen anyway? | |
| dgilmore | caillon: that it wont be in the release initially and we dont push it as something new | |
| bpepple | caillon: not for f8 as an advertised feature. | |
| f13 | which is supposed to be required of each feature. | |
| this is why I harped on having a Contengency plan. | ||
| notting_ | caillon: depends on the contingency plan, i suppose | |
| caillon | ok | |
| f13 | said plan could simply be "the bits will still land, but we won't advertise nor make them the default" | |
| caillon | so let's do the 1by1 thing | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBigboard | |
| f13 | this one doesn't have a clear indiciation of what the Feature would be, other than having the packages available. | |
| jeremy | and they're available | |
| jwb | the packages are there and testab le | |
| notting_ | so, update the % and move on? | |
| f13 | probably. | |
| poelcat | notting_: feature owner won't respond | |
| caillon | yep | |
| tibbs | Erm, FeatureBigboard only talke about online desktop. | |
| Oh, Bigboard is online desktop. Duh. | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: I can contact walters, and see if he will update the page. | |
| poelcat | bpepple: thanks | |
| caillon | some people are just swamped with mail; so i don't think mail is the best way to contact everyone | |
| notting_ | walters shows up on irc from time to time. undue harassment there may work | |
| poelcat | caillon: I would do in person vists, but can't get approval to travel ;-) | |
| bpepple | caillon: I was planning to contact him on irc first. | |
| caillon | yeah, that's what i'd do | |
| ok, next | ||
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth\ | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBluetooth | |
| warren | Percentage of completion: ??% | |
| that's helpful | ||
| caillon | "Make things better" is hard to put a percentage on anyway | |
| tibbs | Well, what has been made better at this point? | |
| notting | however there's a specific list of tasks in 'current status'. so we should be able to at least put a semi-arbitrary number on it | |
| f13 | this one probably just needs a clarification at some point of "what things are better, and can be liste din release notes" | |
| poelcat | caillon: then maybe it is not a clearly defined feature | |
| drago01 | well some stuff is already in rawhide | |
| jeremy | I don't think that we're going to have an amazing bluetooth experience in f8 (if so, I haven't noticed it), so probably not a marketry type of feature | |
| drago01 | like the "browse device" feature | |
| bpepple | jeremy: I agree. this might be something to pull. | |
| tibbs | I mean, the kde bluetooth stuff went in at some point, but that isn't even mentioned in this feature. | |
| bpepple | hadess packages will still be available. | |
| jeremy | the packages are there, some things are better, but we can't say "Bluetooth Just Works" | |
| dgilmore | tibbs: indeed | |
| c4chris | jeremy: agreed | |
| bpepple | Does anyone object to removing this as a feature? | |
| dgilmore | no | |
| f13 | not here. | |
| tibbs | no objections from me. | |
| warren | +1 | |
| * nirik doesn't object. | ||
| caillon | do it | |
| nirik | next? | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureDictionary | |
| tibbs | If the patches to firefox are in, I think enough has been done here to mention it. | |
| notting | caillon: approval of patch for branch yet? | |
| bpepple | tibbs: agreed. | |
| nirik | tibbs: +1 | |
| c4chris | tibbs: agreed | |
| tibbs | Would be nice to get the vim patch in as well, I guess. | |
| f13 | probably need to list what all has been merged to share as the release notes item. | |
| caillon | notting: no | |
| nirik | is that patch in rawhide? for firefox? | |
| caillon | but i can push harder | |
| no | ||
| notting | the firefox patch is *not* merged. it's on ff trunk. not going into f8 unless it's approved for 2.0.x branch | |
| (whoops, didn't mean to speak for caillon) | ||
| dgilmore | i think we need to add a note on weather or not this is available for gnome, xfce, kde apps also | |
| poelcat | can the owners tune up the feature page? please? :) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureDictionary#head-10016c3f31a18eb3cc0f93030682b129502f0aae | |
| nirik | dgilmore: yeah, that would be nice... not too many xfce apps need spelling tho. | |
| notting | dgilmore: kde uses aspell :/ | |
| caillon | notting: and right now there's some legal question about whether mozilla can even ship it | |
| notting | caillon: ? | |
| nirik | so, looks like this feature might be cranked up to 75%ish? | |
| notting | caillon: license mishmash? | |
| warren | caillon, why? | |
| caillon | notting: the dictionaries are LGPL only. | |
| not MPL/LGPL | ||
| dgilmore | notting: but just a note saying it works on <blah> desktops. make it very clear for everyone | |
| notting | caillon: it's just data, but IANAL | |
| caillon | it doesn't really affect us, but it affects them, which affects u | |
| us | ||
| yeah | ||
| I know | ||
| anyway | ||
| moving on | ||
| poelcat | what is the decision? | |
| tibbs | So if the only real change here is that the dictionaries have been split out of openoffice but only openoffice uses them, then I'm not sure we actually have something worth talking about. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: yeah, you're probably right. | |
| tibbs | Which is sad, really. | |
| c4chris | bummer | |
| nirik | yeah. Agreed. even having vim might have added enough... | |
| f13 | hey, it's only the what, third release we've tried to do this? | |
| notting | so, i guess move to f9 as an advertised feature. we'd really need the aspell layer to get both kde and gnome proper | |
| caillon | after other distros get it first | |
| tibbs | Well, we can't advertise it if we don't actually have it. | |
| poelcat | next is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureGenericLogos | |
| tibbs | And it sure looks like we have nothing to actually advertise. | |
| nirik | humm.. vim does have it already doesn't it? | |
| tibbs | nirik: It's not really possible to tell from the feature page whether vim actually has it. | |
| nirik | oh, it's in the spec and a with_hunspell variable thats 0 by default... | |
| jeremy | poelcat: for this one, I think we conitnue to track it because we want to know what the holes are (and some of them will continue to get plugged as they'll be "fixes" which don't impact the normal case) | |
| tibbs | We shouldn't need to look in the source to determine these things. | |
| poelcat | tibbs: +1 | |
| nirik | tibbs: agreed. | |
| notting | poelcat: i'd like a minor extension if for no other reason than how we solve this is dependent on the branded art, which wasn't finalized until now | |
| dgilmore | notting: i think thats fine | |
| f13 | I'm with notting. | |
| * nirik is ok with an extension on this... but it should be done asap... | ||
| f13 | We're doing other things to make derivitives easy with F8, this should get some extra time to get in. | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureLaptopImprovements | |
| f13 | (speaking of, I need to go find all the things that require fedora-release and fix them) | |
| warren | f13, in what way? | |
| tibbs | I think there's enough done with laptop improvements to warrant mentioning. | |
| f13 | warren: fedora-release now provides 'system-release' | |
| warren | ah | |
| f13 | warren: so that you can drop in replace it and not have something named "fedora" in your package set. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: +1 | |
| nirik | +1 for laptop improvements. Hopefully it will keep getting better. | |
| f13 | yeah, get a break down of what we improved, release note them, and move this feature over to F9 as we always want to make ongoing improvements. | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| warren | +1 | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureNetworkManager | |
| tibbs | This really needs an update. | |
| nirik | I think work should keep going of course, but we should target f9 with the 'on by default' | |
| dwmw2 | doesn't look like it's ready in time | |
| dgilmore | my main question is can we make it work without a gui | |
| drago01 | caillon: status? | |
| nirik | I'd like to see a lot of testing on something like this... there are a lot of cases here that would need to get handled right. | |
| caillon | so update is: | |
| i fucked up | ||
| and thought that today was the freeze date | ||
| caillon | i just now got off the phone with dcbw | |
| he's about to build the bits we need | ||
| so it will be ready to go by tonight if we are slipping as jkeating alluded to | ||
| tibbs | Which bits are ready to go? | |
| poelcat | caillon: can you update the wiki to reflect what will be going in? | |
| warren | how certain are you that the new bits work? | |
| tibbs | The stuff under "Required"? | |
| caillon | the required bits, the rest will be continued to be worked on | |
| and i'm sure we'll find some bugs as this is new code | ||
| but we'll be looking to fix those up too | ||
| f13 | if anything for f8 we need t omake it easier to discover and turn on to enable. | |
| caillon | the main points is that the public interfaces are done and not going to change | |
| nirik | so you think it's ready to enable by default? are their server/command line only tools ? | |
| caillon | warren: we are going to import the version that does work | |
| tibbs | Nobody's talking about removing the possibility of configuring things the "old way", right? | |
| wwoods | I assume this means we'll be changing the startup number (rating? order?) for NetworkManager? | |
| tibbs | I need weird routing and stuff that I doubt networkmanager supports. | |
| drago01 | tibbs: afaik no | |
| notting | tibbs: probably not yet ;) | |
| caillon | tibbs: like what? | |
| tibbs: we have the interfaces to support it now | ||
| though not the UI yet | ||
| tibbs | stuff like /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0 | |
| poelcat | can we vote +/- so we can move on? | |
| caillon | tibbs: yeah we've got the general support for that | |
| poelcat | seems like a wiki page update would answer these questions | |
| f13 | I give a +1 to a small extention, trying to get it in for Test2 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| caillon | +1 for me obviously | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| tibbs | If that's possible, +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| notting | +1. although we might need to do some dancing as to how/where it's used by default | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFixWakeups | |
| notting | poelcat: i updated this. we've done all the 'feature' work. now it's just bugfixing. | |
| tibbs | The question here is whether we've done enough to mention. | |
| nirik | +1 for NM... hopefully it can be pounded on testing wise before release. | |
| bpepple | poelcat: +1 | |
| poelcat | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner | |
| notting | tibbs: that's probably a testing issue. if f7 was good enough by accident ... no | |
| * c4chris has to leave early... later folks | ||
| bpepple | c4chris: later. | |
| caillon | and i can get xulrunner in today and rebuild the stuff that depends on it | |
| nirik | +1 for fixwakeups... I think it's a good thing to tout, and changes will be ongoing. | |
| poelcat | caillon: pls update the wiki page too | |
| f13 | ok, so +1 for xul. | |
| bpepple | +1 xul here also. | |
| tibbs | All we have to do is get the xulrunner package in, right? We can rebuild the packages over time. | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| nirik | +1... would be a very nice thing to have. | |
| caillon | tibbs: i think so. firefox will not build against it as-is really, though | |
| but other things like epiphany and miro can | ||
| tibbs | Hrm. Another patch we can't ship? Or something else? | |
| caillon | multilib fun | |
| bpepple | liferea also can be built against it. | |
| dwmw2 | caillon: I thought xulrunner made that easier? | |
| bpepple | poelcat: any other items? | |
| kasal | poelcat: what about TeXlive? | |
| drago01 | caillon: does it still have versioned lib paths? | |
| caillon | dwmw2: yes and no. | |
| poelcat | kasal: i was only covering features < 70% or questionable | |
| caillon | dwmw2: do you (or others) have a solution for: firefox requires the following directory structure to build: sdk/include sdk/lib sdk/idl sdk/bin | |
| poelcat | i will update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList | |
| bpepple | kasal: It's 95% done. | |
| poelcat: thanks. | ||
| kasal | poelcat: ... but it was questioned earlier. thx | |
| poelcat | based on today's meeting; for F9 we can tweak the policy to refelet what works best | |
| dwmw2 | caillon: where is this 'sdk'? Not in %libdir? | |
| tibbs | texlive might as well be 0% done if it doesn't pass review. | |
| * warren has to leave now | ||
| tibbs | And if the licensing issues aren't cleared up, it will never pass review. | |
| dwmw2 | sorry, not familar with the details of this at all. (So no, I don't have a handy solution :) | |
| caillon | dwmw2: sdk is mostly headers and such so, it wants to live in %includedir | |
| poelcat | tibbs: so what % should we put it at? the inention is to set reasonable expectations for what will be in the release | |
| dwmw2 | caillon: but has a sdk/bin subdirectory... ? | |
| caillon | yes :) | |
| and sdk/lib | ||
| which make things interesting | ||
| dwmw2 | that's that kind of thing we had to fix everywhere else for fhs complliance | |
| tibbs | poelcat: all I can say is to ping on the review ticket and try to get a status. | |
| f13 | poelcat: so off my head of arbitrary, 75% == Testable. | |
| dwmw2 | to put stuff in sharedir/libdir/bindir as appropriate | |
| kasal | tibbs: I was going to offer that I help w/ the review of TeXlive. Is that the only problem w/ texlive you know of? | |
| f13 | poelcat: higher than that is fixing buts that have been reported. Lower is 'not ready for wide testing'. | |
| bpepple | f13: yeah, that sounds reasonable. | |
| caillon | dwmw2: yeah, but that's the reason why i haven't gotten firefox working with it yet | |
| dwmw2 | fair enough :) | |
| caillon | anyway, we can move on i guess | |
| f13 | but we really should put up a grid somewhere of what we expect the percentages to mean. | |
| bpepple | poelcat: anything else? | |
| f13 | (and if we do that, do we really need percentages or can we just use human words?) | |
| poelcat | bpepple: thanks... i think that was only 16 minutes ;-) | |
| tibbs | kasal: All sorts of things are swirling around that review. Naming for tex packages, licenses, whether to split or not, the update package, etc. | |
| bpepple | poelcat: yeah. ;) | |
| tibbs | There's just a ton of stuff there. | |
| dwmw2 | f13: don't say that. You scare me... and remind me of a conversation Karen had with a gym teacher about percentages... and how one particular test mark was percent out of 60... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| dwmw2 | did we decide to skip the kmod thing again? | |
| caillon | sounds like a good candidate comic for xkcd | |
| kasal | tibbs: ok, so the pkg review bug is a good indicator what to do. thx | |
| jwb | dgilmore, spot: how's the 2nd arch thing coming? | |
| tibbs | kasal: BTW, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242416 | |
| nirik | well, we are 11min over already... ;( | |
| dgilmore | jwb: fixing some bugs in the tool chain for sparc right now | |
| f13 | dwmw2: just haven't got there yet, but probably since I haven't seen any communication from |jef| regarding the dell method. | |
| kasal | tibbs: thcx | |
| f13 | I had a couple subjects too :( | |
| dwmw2 | ok. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: the secondary arch daemon is pre-alpha right now | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: yeah, I'll try to schedule at the beginning of the meeting next week. | |
| jwb | dgilmore, did we ever figure out why spot though the needed rawhide to run the buildsys tools? | |
| bpepple | there was quite a bit of talk about the buildroot, but I'm not sure if we have enough time to discuss it this week. | |
| dwmw2 | I can post it back to the list as knurd requested... even though the proposal is just a cut and paste of what was already said on the list | |
| dgilmore | jwb: we need to have python-2.5 in the buildroot | |
| jwb | s/though the/thought he | |
| ah | ||
| dgilmore | jwb: we dont need it to run | |
| tibbs | This feature stuff always takes up all of our time. | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: that sounds good. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: it was probably bad communication on my part to spot | |
| kasal | bpepple: I wrote an article about the buildroot. Can this be scheduled for next week? | |
| dwmw2 | I'm really unconvinced that the feature stuff is worth the time we spend on it (says he fairly hypocritically, having been absent for three weeks) | |
| jwb | dgilmore, so we have a koji instance running on sparc then? | |
| bpepple | kasal: that sounds good to me. I'll add it to the schedule for next week. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org | |
| nirik | so will we need to deal with features next week? or since it's freeze time it's over for this cycle? | |
| jwb | dgilmore, is that box outside the colo? | |
| f13 | FESCo can assign a sub-commitee to deal with features.. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: once we get a few things built we will switch it on live | |
| bpepple | nirik: I don't think so. We really have a lot of other items we need to discuss. | |
| kasal | bpepple: ok, I'll remember to join this mtg next week. | |
| dgilmore | jwb: its at my house | |
| f13 | The Feature Police | |
| jwb | dgilmore, awesome | |
| poelcat | f13: i thought that was my job :) | |
| dgilmore | jwb: secondary archs have to host themselves | |
| jwb | dgilmore, i know, i was just verifying. this is very good news | |
| notting | nirik: i don't think 'because we ran out of meeting time' is a proper reason to end discussion for the things at the end of the list. although not sure having another interim meeting is 'better' | |
| kasal | all: please look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StepanKasal/Add_to_Exception_List | |
| nirik | notting: agreed, perhaps a special session? and/or continue on email? | |
| notting | poelcat: can you bring all the features we didn't go over today to e-mail? | |
| or do we want a separate meeting? | ||
| bpepple | nirik: yeah, we've done special sessions in the past. | |
| poelcat | notting: we hit everything < 70% | |
| notting | oh. ok. we're more done than i thought! | |
| poelcat | doing this over email has not worked in the past | |
| * kasal will be glad to discuss the Add_to_Exception_List with anyone interested during this week | ||
| nirik is fine with whatever, but right now needs to go work on real work(tm) | ||
| jeremy thinks we need to get the add to exception list thing out of the way | ||
| bpepple | yeah, we should wrap it up for this week. | |
| jeremy | because it really is impacting people | |
| f13 | I do too. | |
| bpepple | jeremy: agreed. | |
| f13 | I'm willing to stick around if others are. | |
| bpepple | I can stick around, also. | |
| tibbs | I'm off today, so not else to do. | |
| caillon | i can for a bit | |
| kasal | well, I'm willing to discuss awk. ;-) If anyone is interested... | |
| f13 | the proposed list doesn't look that bad. I do want to do some comparisons between what is currently there, and what more will be brought in by this, and if it's at all possible to do a Fedora install (including rpm-build), log in, and /not/ have some of these things installed. | |
| that's really the goals of the minimal build root. | ||
| A) prep the build root quickly, B) keep users from having to guess at what they're missing when they do a rpmbuild --rebuild foo.src.rpm | ||
| dgilmore | i think that the assumption that deps would not change was a bad assumption made by many people. | |
| f13 | and we did a poor job messaging that they could change. | |
| (and an even poorer job of keeping the implicit list updated with changes) | ||
| dgilmore | indeed | |
| f13 | especially since the changes aren't the same across the releases. | |
| * jeremy says deputize f13 to look at the proposed list and take what makes sense within the constraints he said above | ||
| kasal | f13: awk will pass the "minimal install test" by shere luck: initscripts require it. | |
| dgilmore | so going forward i think awk is probably ok to add to the exception list | |
| bpepple | jeremy: +1 | |
| f13 | heh. | |
| I +1 that. | ||
| dgilmore | possibly make sure sed is there but thats it | |
| f13 | If I make the change, it's going to be across the board. | |
| notting | kasal: initscripts isn't in the build root atm in rawhide | |
| dgilmore | im ok with f13 makeing a recomendation | |
| wwoods | sed's in coreutils, innit? | |
| f13 | I do not want to have collection specific build groups. | |
| we should talk about perl-devel though. | ||
| jeremy | wwoods: no, it has its own package | |
| wwoods | oh ho. it isn't. | |
| nirik | if we re-add gawk, someone should go grep through all the packages that added it and ask them to take it out? | |
| wwoods | nevermind! | |
| f13 | nirik: no. Honestly extra BRs don't hurt | |
| tibbs | I personally don't think that gcc should be in the minimal buildroot, but what do I know. | |
| dgilmore | f13: i think that people should have to RB perl-devel | |
| f13 | I do too, but I'm sure perl people will yell at me. | |
| * notting thinks we should explicitly add sed, grep, awk, util-linux, remove perl | ||
| dgilmore | tibbs: well we could use icc | |
| f13 | perl-devel was added as a short term work around, and we never removed it. | |
| tibbs | I think that people should have to BR the actual perl modules they need. | |
| notting | probably findutils as well | |
| tibbs | We agreed to remove it. | |
| f13 | ok, I"m happy with that. | |
| tibbs | And is it util-linux or util-linux-ng these days? | |
| jeremy | notting: rpm-build requires findutils, but probably good to make it explicit | |
| f13 | -ng | |
| tibbs | Does -ng not provide the non-ng package? | |
| kasal | tibbs: util-linux-ng will provide util-linux, so if the list says util-linux, it's not that bad. | |
| f13 | tibbs: it does. | |
| as well as 'setarch' and the other htings that were their own packages prior to. | ||
| notting | info as suggested by kasal seems ok | |
| f13 | now, if only I had a working rawhide to test installs with... (: | |
| kasal | Actually, there was a suggestion to state that "if the package is in Exception List, you can omit the BuildRequires tag" | |
| this formulation would prevent unwise depending on current state of deps. | ||
| f13 | yeah, you can, but not must. | |
| tibbs | You can. I used to ding people on this in reviews but experience has taught me not to. | |
| kasal | f13: sure you do not have to. | |
| tibbs: so did I. But when I think about it, I see it was silly. | ||
| tibbs | Some reviewers still want to see the BR list trimmed but as far as I'm concerned if the package builds in mock I don't really care what you have there as long as you're not pulling in hundreds of megs of packages you don't need. | |
| f13 | anywho, I think that was enough general approval for the proposal, so long as it fits in teh criteria I've put forth, so I'll work on that hopefully today while waiting for things to compose. | |
| bpepple | f13: great. thanks. | |
| kasal | f13: great! | |
| bpepple | anything else, or should we call it quits? | |
| f13 | yeah, please think on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LubomirKundrak/SecurityUpdateProcessDraft | |
| kasal | f13: when I mentioned the "new formulation" I meant something else: | |
| jwb | bpepple, could you mention the updated status of the secondary arch stuff in the meeting minutes? | |
| bpepple | jwb: yup. I was planning on writing them later this afternoon at the coffee shop. | |
| kasal | f13: the old formulation pointed people to the full expansion of Exception List. The new one should say: if a BuildRequires comes to your mind, and is not in the ExceptionList proper, do add it to the spec. | |
| jwb | bpepple, thanks. i know several people are anxiously awaiting that news :) | |
| bpepple | f13: I'll make a mention of that in the meeting minutes also. | |
| f13 | kasal: gotcha, yeah, that sounds right. | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| bpepple will end the meeting in 30 | ||
| kasal | f13: that would mean we have to add binutils explicitly, too | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 15 | ||
| kasal | f13: but not much else, I guess. We do not want to mention fielsystem or some such. | |
| bpepple | -- MARK -- Meeting End | |
| Thanks, everyone! | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!