| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| * j-rod here | ||
| * j-rod about to start stuffing face, at which point typing will be harder | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, sharkcz, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * nirik is here. | ||
| j-rod | here | |
| * sharkcz here | ||
| rwmjones_ | going to discuss feature readiness tonight? | |
| bpepple | I believe jds2001 & notting are going to arrive late. | |
| rwmjones: I believe that's on the agenda. | ||
| * jwb is here | ||
| bpepple | ok, while we wait for folks to show up, we can probably start review the FPC items. | |
| bpepple | .fesco 99 | |
| zodbot | bpepple: #99 (Review FPC items) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/99 | |
| * notting is here now | ||
| bpepple | Looks like there are two items from FPC: | |
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExplicitRequires | ||
| https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Troublesome_source_URL_packaging_guideline_draft | ||
| * bpepple doesn't have any objections to either item. | ||
| notting | both look fine to me | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| sharkcz | both are fine to me | |
| nirik | fine with both of those here. | |
| j-rod | worksforme | |
| bpepple | ok, I don't see any objections so we're fine with the FPC items. | |
| aright, I don't see any feature items on the agenda, but I believe there are some features we need to look at, aren't there? | ||
| notting | the rpm agenda item could be considered a feature | |
| bpepple | notting: ok, let me pull that up. | |
| .fesco 97 | ||
| zodbot | bpepple: #97 (rpm 4.7 in Fedora 11) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/97 | |
| bpepple | notting: are they planning on writing a feature page for this? | |
| f13 | if they have to, they will | |
| jwb | so... | |
| ddumas | yes, i'll do a page | |
| f13 | from releng, I'd really like to see this in, but I'd like some assurance that it'll leave beta and hit final release prior to the Fedora 11 devel freeze | |
| jwb | has the rpm team done any sort of mass rebuilds with it? | |
| ddumas | their schedule calls for final by May 1, devel freeze is apr 14 | |
| can pull it in | ||
| caveat is that if a truly awful problem shows up, fallback is revert to 4.6 | ||
| f13 | and then rpm grows an epoch. It's like meta! | |
| jwb | f13, this doesn't make you hesitate at all, being so close to Beta? | |
| and after the mass rebuild? | ||
| f13 | jwb: not really. I think its mostly userspace improvements not so much build side | |
| f13 | and the idea was that if approved, the build goes into rawhide today | |
| notting | jwb: according to pan on the mailing list, the one change that could break builds (checking for binaries in noarch packages) was already in the rpm used for the mass rebuild | |
| f13 | which gives us a number of days before the freeze and after the freeze to back it out. | |
| jwb | f13, have you done any test composes with it? | |
| nirik | this would NOT include lzma right? | |
| jwb | nirik, believe that is correct | |
| spot | nirik: yeah, we would not be enabling lzma format with this | |
| * nirik doesn't think we need yet another incompatible rpm format change right now. | ||
| f13 | jwb: I haven't seen a build of it yet | |
| notting | nirik: well, the support is there. but given that's it's an incompatible change for now, we don't have to use it | |
| Panu | no lzma, there isn't new enough lzma in rawhide anyway | |
| ffesti_ | the lzma version needed is not even in Fedora | |
| f13 | jwb: but that'll be one of the first things I'll do | |
| nirik | right. Just making sure that this wouldn't result in needing 4.7 to read rpms produced by 4.7 | |
| spot | nirik: nope. we could drop back to 4.6 if needed without rebuilds | |
| f13 | we can target lzma for F12 or whenver we rebuild everything again for .i686 | |
| notting | Panu: do you have anyone who really wants to use the posix file cap stuff? | |
| nirik | ok, with that said I'm ok with doing it... might need a feature page tho if the improvements are end use visible, which it sounds like they are... (less mem, etc) | |
| j-rod | does it make any sense to branch rpm in cvs now? | |
| Panu | people from Suse and RHEL-side have shown interest in that, but whether we build with libcap support for F11 is another matter | |
| we can just leave it out too, so it's impossible to produce incompatible packages | ||
| j-rod | build 4.7 into raw-er-hide, test compose before throwing it at f11? | |
| * notting is +1 for 4.7 | ||
| bpepple | +1 to rpm-4.7 here also. | |
| j-rod | cautiously optimistic +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 too | |
| nirik | +1 (to be less verbose) | |
| Panu | if you want to play on the safer side, I'm ok with branching in cvs now | |
| f13 | j-rod: I think that's probably unncessarily complicated | |
| j-rod | that' | |
| f13 | Panu: do you have a build queued up yet? | |
| j-rod | that's what I suspected, but wasn't sure if maybe worth it to mitigate risk | |
| jwb | can anyone tell me any kind of testing that has happened with it? | |
| f13 | j-rod: we want it built for rawhide to get testing by users, stuffing it somewhere else misses the users | |
| Panu | f13: no, but it's mostly just commit + build away | |
| f13 | Panu: will you be able to do so after the meeting, so that I can try some composes with it? | |
| Panu | f13: sure | |
| j-rod | f13: stuffing it somewhere else lets a select few test it to make sure its sane before we unleash it on users though... :) | |
| spot | jwb: i've done some local abuse testing and it looks okay on my end | |
| bpepple | ok, I see five '+1', and no objections to having rpm-4.7 in F11. So, we've approved the proposal. | |
| f13 | j-rod: it'll be in koji until the rawhide compose tonight | |
| jwb | spot, consisting of? | |
| jwb | bpepple, i'm not done yet | |
| f13 | j-rod: giving select few the ability to test it and untag it if necessary | |
| jwb | bpepple, though it won't change the outcome | |
| spot | jwb: building some of my more disgusting packages against it, running big yum updates | |
| nirik | the feature page should be written up asap since it's after the deadline for the process. | |
| notting | bpepple: the other feature thing is we owe a response to the banshee ticket | |
| jwb | spot, on sparc? | |
| spot | jwb: hahaha, no, on x86_64 | |
| Panu | jwb: we trash and burn rpm pretty heavily in our tests (like dist-upgrades, huge installs etc), but there's always something that no amount of local testing will get | |
| j-rod | f13: ok, so do the test compose w/it in koji, make sure composes work, and if not, untag? | |
| f13 | j-rod: pretty much | |
| j-rod | ok, cool | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| jwb | Panu, yeah, understand. i just didn't see any sort of "hey, we really have tested this" anywhere | |
| which was making me nervous | ||
| Panu | jwb: the included test suite actually does something real now - it's of course nowhere near "complete" but it's caught all sorts of breakage while developing so it's not just blind faith | |
| jwb | ok. +1 | |
| bpepple | any other questions about rpm-4.7 or should we move on? | |
| ok, moving on then.... | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BansheeAsDefaultMediaplayer | ||
| * notting votes -1 | ||
| bpepple | This was a feature that the Desktop team was against. | |
| jwb | 0 | |
| * dgilmore is using it and finds it works better than amarok and totem | ||
| bpepple | -1, since the feature doesn't have buy-in from the desktop team. | |
| nirik | I don't think we as fesco should compell a package being default without buy-in from the affected team without a really really really good reason. | |
| nirik | -1 here. | |
| sharkcz | 0 | |
| jwb | hm | |
| we don't have enough votes for a quorum now | ||
| nirik | if it works better and is nicer, they should convince the desktop folks to use it by default. | |
| * dgilmore is leaning towards +1 | ||
| j-rod | I'm leaning -1. | |
| spot | fwiw, i'm tracking the banshee bugs, and there are still quite a few. | |
| j-rod | desktop team doesn't want it, wish to respect their wishes | |
| plus, mono | ||
| dgilmore | j-rod: i agree that the desktop team should buy in which is why im not just +1 | |
| so far im finding it easiser to use and less buggy than other options | ||
| sharkcz | mono makes me worries too ... | |
| abadger1999 | mono does drag in dependencies for the livecd spin which is negative, but dnielsen is right to say we shouldn't be second-classing apps solely because they're written in mono. | |
| dgilmore | i think what its written in should have no bearing on what goes in | |
| notting | abadger1999: i reserve the right to be a language bigot. i'd be second classing things written in tcl too >:) | |
| abadger1999 | :-) | |
| wwoods | I call bullshit | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: I just don't see Banshee bringing that much extra to the table for the additional dependency bloat it brings. | |
| wwoods | anything that requires its own imaginary computer to run on | |
| is inherently second-class to something that runs on the native hardware | ||
| I mean, obviously | ||
| f13 | abadger1999: given that mono isn't allowed in RHEL it is a very real concern. | |
| abadger1999 | I'd say... We can second class based on lack of in-house knowledge of a language. | |
| f13: then why do we allow it in Fedora? | ||
| wwoods | there's a difference between "allowed" and "enforced" | |
| abadger1999 | I don't dispute the dependency bloat. | |
| f13 | abadger1999: lawyers. | |
| abadger1999 | That's a real technical problem. | |
| f13 | abadger1999: apparently there is less "risk" in Fedora, but don't quote me on that. | |
| abadger1999: and it could boil down to RHEL engineering just plain not wanting to support mono | ||
| abadger1999 | wwoods: I don't buy that. A lot of languages we run don't run are interpreted | |
| notting | reading, we have 3 -1, 2 0, one leaning -1, one leaning +1. which means it's impossible for it to pass? | |
| wwoods | yes, and I'd suggest that FESCo should prefer solutions that run natively over things that run interpreted | |
| dgilmore | f13: thats fine for them to do | |
| abadger1999 | f13: That's fine. So that's a Fedora vs RHEL difference. Not a technical reason to make a language second class. | |
| dgilmore | doesnt mean we have to do the same thing | |
| bpepple | notting: correct. In essence we've rejected this as a feature. | |
| f13 | I didn't say we do. | |
| abadger1999 | wwoods: So... deluge is out and rtorrent is in? | |
| rwmjones_ | I say repalce all shell scripts with ocaml | |
| * nirik doesn't care what it's written in... forcing it on the desktop folks seems like a bad idea. | ||
| jwb | notting, yeah, that's what i said earlier | |
| f13 | however it is a real consideration, technical or not. | |
| wwoods | I am *not* suggesting that FESCo refuse, reject, or otherwise *penalize* things soley for being interpreted | |
| abadger1999 | f13: it's a real consideration for Fedora? | |
| jwb | guyes... | |
| f13 | abadger1999: yes, we can't simply ignore our biggest consumer | |
| notting | can we move on, we do have a lot of other agenda items | |
| f13 | abadger1999: we're certainly not RHELs puppet, and we make our own decisions | |
| j-rod | call me a hard -1. | |
| f13 | abadger1999: but that doesn't mean we completely ignore the biggest consumer we have. | |
| bpepple | notting: yeah, there's no reason to rehash the whole mono argument here. | |
| wwoods | but given a choice between otherwise similar solutions, things that run natively should be *preferred* | |
| j-rod | NEXT | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: you wanted us to discuss your feature didn't you? | |
| rwmjones_ | bpepple, sure | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: got a link handy? I don't see that it was added to the agenda. :( | |
| rwmjones_ | current status is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Windows_cross_compiler#Current_status | |
| rwmjones_ | I didn't necessarily want to discuss it, just show fesco that it's proceeding a a reasonable pace | |
| bpepple | So, there are 7 or so packages that still need to be reviewed? | |
| rwmjones_ | yes, and some upstream work on portableXDR (which is, ironically, blocked on *Sun*), and change to comps-f11.xml | |
| the comps-f11.xml change was briefly discussed on f-d-l today | ||
| nirik | so we need to ack that it's not 100% and thats ok, right? since it's supposed to be at this point... | |
| rwmjones_ | isn't it supposed to be at 100% by 14th April? anyway, yes | |
| notting | rwmjones_: i'd say please get the comps group in ASAP - AIUI, even if all the reviews aren't done, there's still enough available for the group to be meaningful? | |
| jwb | rwmjones_, it's supposed to be testable by Beta | |
| which is next week | ||
| rwmjones_ | yup, there's still 33 packages going to be in F11, which includes all the major stuff. The other 7 are nice to have, but they're just libraries. | |
| sgallagh | On a related note, I wanted to confirm the status of SSSD as a feature. (After this discussion) | |
| bpepple | sgallagh: works for me. | |
| f13 | jwb: no, its supposed to be testable by the feature freeze, which was this week | |
| dgilmore | rwmjones_: so as things get added to fedora how will a user pick up the new packages? | |
| nirik | yeah, testable now, but I guess not 100% needed yet. ;) | |
| jwb | f13, right, sorry | |
| rwmjones_ | dgilmore, not sure I understand the question? | |
| there's a core of compiler packages (about 5 in total) which went into Fedora last year | ||
| dgilmore | rwmjones_: the missing packages. as they get added to fedora will a user need to take manual steps to pick them up? me is thinking yes | |
| rwmjones_ | but to compile real software you also need libraries ... which libraries you need depends on the software oyu're trying to compile | |
| so we picked ~ 30 libraries as a "good set" to have | ||
| and we've got basically 7 reviews to get done before we will have that good set | ||
| dgilmore | i guess someone that needs to compile something knows what libraries they need and makes sure they have them | |
| rwmjones_ | but that doesn't mean you can't compile software | |
| dgilmore | so basically its testable but not as complete as it could be? | |
| rwmjones_ | dgilmore, yes, you just yum install mingw32-foo | |
| dgilmore, yes | ||
| it'd be nice to have Gtk for example, which we are missing two reviews before we have that | ||
| dgilmore | ok | |
| so its met the guidelines as a feature for Feature freeze | ||
| rwmjones_ | actually 3 reviews, mingw32-jasper, mingw32-pango and mingw32-fontconfig | |
| dgilmore | its testable | |
| rwmjones_ | yes | |
| dgilmore | I think that we should add the comps group and tout it | |
| * nirik thinks it seems just fine... add the comps group soonly... | ||
| rwmjones_ | I'll do it today | |
| * j-rod approves this message | ||
| bpepple | rwmjones: cool. Any other questions for rwmjones otherwise we can move on. | |
| dgilmore | make sure you add your new group to the develoment group so it shows up in anaconda etc in the right spot | |
| notting | i wouldn't necessarily quibble about the completion percentage, it sounds like one of those features where it's a somewhat meaningless number, once the base compiler gets in | |
| dgilmore | notting: right. the completeness will grow over time | |
| rwmjones_ | outside fedora we have something like 50 more packages ... | |
| http://annexia.org/fedora_mingw | ||
| * jwb looks at clock | ||
| notting | next is sssd? | |
| bpepple | alright, if there's nothing else, let's move on to the SSSD feature update. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: SSSD feature | ||
| bpepple | sgallagh: your up. | |
| sgallagh | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSD | |
| sgallagh | As discussed on f-d-l, we are slightly behind on delivery. We were not package-reviewed by the Feature Freeze, though we fully expect to be at 100% completion and testable by the beta freeze | |
| dgilmore | sgallagh: so its not testable today? | |
| notting | this is the one with the commnication snafu? | |
| bpepple | notting: correct. | |
| sgallagh | dgilmore: tied up in package revie at the moment | |
| It will be testable as soon as the package hits Rawhide (hopefully today) and 100% feature-complete by Monday night | ||
| nirik | I think due to miscommunication we owe them the chance to get it in... they were targeting the wrong date. | |
| jwb | yes | |
| * notting agrees | ||
| bpepple | nirik: agreed. | |
| sharkcz | nirik: +1 | |
| * dgilmore agrees | ||
| bpepple | and based on sgallagh's info here it looks like it will be ready by Monday/ | |
| dgilmore | it sounds like it will be done by then | |
| bpepple | sgallagh: anything else we need to know? otherwise we can probably move on. | |
| sgallagh | bpepple: I don't believe so. Thank you very much. | |
| bpepple | sgallagh: thanks! | |
| anything else regarding features, or should we go back to the agenda? | ||
| dgilmore | lets move on | |
| notting | bpepple: unless we go through poelcat's list of 5 features that don't appear to meet the criteria | |
| bpepple | notting: most have missed that e-mail. let me see if I can find it real quick. | |
| notting | "Subject: F11 feature pages needing update or evaluation" | |
| * nirik goes to grab more coffee. | ||
| bpepple | ah, found it. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/gcc4.4 -- stale information | ||
| notting | seems obviously in and testable | |
| bpepple | notting: agreed. It probably just needs the % completed updated. | |
| jwb | someone just edit the page | |
| dgilmore | notting: indeed | |
| bpepple | how many packages are still needing to be rebuilt? | |
| notting | 200-ish? | |
| * notting looks at f13 | ||
| dgilmore | http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f11-rebuilds.html | |
| 295 | ||
| f13 | that' s a bit misleading | |
| dgilmore | 9 of those are my sparc specific packages | |
| f13 | some of those are either secondary arch specific packages, or packages that are olpc and never built for devel (but not blocked form devel) | |
| nirik | also some are now blocked/obsoleted. | |
| * bpepple still has 3 to fix himself. | ||
| f13 | and some are just mysteries, added to pkgdb and koji, but never built or checked into CVS | |
| dgilmore | f13: typos? | |
| f13 | dgilmore: some may be, some are just odd | |
| f13 | I've sent some mail on them to the owners, but not all of them | |
| dgilmore | ok | |
| bpepple | ok, so it looks like the page just needs to be updated, and finish fixing the outstanding packages that haven't been rebuilt. | |
| dgilmore | but overall we are in decent shape | |
| f13 | I was going to look more closely as that number is what's left after all the known failures are fixed | |
| sharkcz | some of the package are blocked by closed acls on their deps | |
| dgilmore | http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/failed-f11-rebuilds.html | |
| bpepple | cool, anything else about gcc4.4? or should we move on to the next item. | |
| bpepple | ok, moving on then...... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/IntelKMS -- docs requested by FESCo still missing | ||
| * jds2001 here, better late than never | ||
| bpepple | ok, it looks like they've only had a week to get the docs completed. | |
| notting | it's certainly testable now, so i would say it's fine for beta | |
| * nirik is testing it even now. ;) | ||
| bpepple | notting: agreed. what sort of deadline should we give for the docs? | |
| notting | when do we finalize the relnotes? | |
| f13 | docs should be done prior to the string freeze | |
| or just at string freeze, so that translators can translate them. | ||
| dgilmore | so monday | |
| jds2001 | 17:53 < f13> I've sent so | |
| oops | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: hmmm, that's not good. | |
| f13 | Monday is string freeze? yikes | |
| that doesn't seem right | ||
| bpepple | yeah, seems early. | |
| dgilmore | thats what the schedule says | |
| f13 | yeah, I wonder if the release notes people realize that | |
| dgilmore | probably not | |
| bpepple | if that is right, we need to see if Kristian can get it done by then. | |
| dgilmore | thats what the schedule says | |
| so we need to try make sure its done by then | ||
| bpepple | yup. | |
| * nirik nods | ||
| dgilmore | we should send an email out today stating beta/string freeze is monday | |
| to fedora-devel-announce | ||
| bpepple | dgilmore: agreed. | |
| dgilmore | If people want i will do it | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: thanks! | |
| nirik | also someone should bug Kristian specificially. ;) | |
| bpepple | nirik: agreed, you want to handle that? ;) | |
| nirik | I can mail him... I don't know if he is on irc anywhere to bug more realtime. | |
| bpepple | nirik: thanks! | |
| alright onto the next item. | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/liblvm | ||
| bpepple | This one seems to not had the % completed in awhile. | |
| dgilmore | f13: one quick question. is this a blocking freeze? | |
| f13 | yes | |
| dgilmore | thought so | |
| notting | stickster just said that the relnotes don't freeze at the normal string freeze | |
| bpepple | notting: when do the relnotes freeze? | |
| dgilmore | we should have that added to the schedule | |
| notting | <stickster> notting: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-11/f-11-docs-and-trans-tasks.html | |
| (final freeze date, looks like) | ||
| * stickster points Sparks at above conversation ^^^^ | ||
| bpepple | ok, so based on the info Kristian doesn't need to scramble to get the docs ready by Monday, correct? | |
| * nirik already sent mail asking him to update by monday. Oh well. ;( | ||
| jwb | i have to drop for a real life meeting | |
| stickster | Sparks may disagree, but I would take 2009-04-01 as a target date for release notes completion | |
| That's when the wiki is snapshotted for translation for F11 PR | ||
| stickster StillBob | ||
| bpepple | stickster: ok, thanks for the info. | |
| alright, so back to liblvm. It looks like the feature page needs to update the % completed. Or am I missing something else? | ||
| notting | it really needs updating, there's no way to say what's there at all | |
| sharkcz | there is nothing like liblvm in koji ... | |
| bpepple | hmm, so maybe the % completed is actually accurate then? | |
| nirik | yeah, so likely this needs to be dropped... | |
| * dgilmore agrees | ||
| dgilmore | its not testable punt to F-12 | |
| sharkcz | and nothing even in bugzilla | |
| bpepple | dgilmore: yeah, I tend to agree. Is deepthot about? | |
| dgilmore | http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5646 | |
| looks like maybe its called llvm | ||
| notting | llvm is a compiler | |
| dgilmore | never mind me | |
| pulling at strings | ||
| http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=package&terms=*lvm* | ||
| shows llvm lvm2 lvm2-cluster and system-config-lvm | ||
| sharkcz | I was searching for "liblvm" | |
| notting | but yeah, +1 to punting it | |
| bpepple | +1 to punting. | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| ddumas | liblvm - they were plannign to move page to f12 - sorry, thought that had happened | |
| bpepple | ok, that's six '+1' to pushing liblvm to F12. | |
| ddumas: np. | ||
| alright, let's move on then... | ||
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MultiplePAMStacksInGDM | ||
| notting | halfline: ? | |
| * nirik saw code land on that. | ||
| bpepple | I believe poelcat flagged this feature since it's missing docs. | |
| jds2001 | so same thing, give them more time for docs? | |
| notting | works for me | |
| bpepple | jds2001: I believe so. | |
| * jds2001 sorry, got to the office and my deks was occupied by a very talkative person from out of town :) | ||
| bpepple | alright, onto the last feature item then.... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemtapStaticProbes | ||
| mjw | Hi, feature owner here. We are at 30% atm (but the most important package that everything else depends on is in). | |
| bpepple | is this feature testable? | |
| mjw | My fault, I mis-advised the team about the 100% goal date, thinking it was April 14th. | |
| We have a TODO list (7 items roughly 10% each) that we will hit before that date (given cooperation by affected package maintainers). | ||
| mjw mjung | ||
| bpepple | mjw: I believe it doesn't need to be 100%, just in a testable state for the Beta. | |
| mjw | In our defense we did make a video showing how cool the feature is and how to test it (if you rebuild your own package...) | |
| jds2001 | :) | |
| mjw | http://people.redhat.com/wcohen/postgresql_example.ogv | |
| jds2001 | if i can do that today, we're all good. | |
| mjw | But yeah, there are still a couple of package patches to push. We really missed the fact it should have been ready and testable today. | |
| We would have pushed a bit more aggressively if we had know earlier. Sorry about that. | ||
| bpepple | are any of the packages in a testable state? If not, we should probably push this to F12. | |
| mjw | It is testable if you build your own package. The main systemtap-sdt-devel package is in. But none of the packages depending on it have been patched and build in the repo yet. Only on our own test machines. | |
| jds2001 | so you mean like postgres, etc? The targets of the probes? | |
| mjw | right | |
| notting | can we get one or two in by beta, if the patches are already odne? | |
| mjw | So, not testable for people not doing packaging themselves atm. | |
| Yes, we expect to have those 5 listed done before beta. | ||
| http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemtapStaticProbes#TODO | ||
| jds2001 | just to be clear, that's tuesday, right? | |
| tuesday is beta freeze. | ||
| mjw | O, then I guess not. | |
| sigh. This was really pilot error. We misinterpreted the deadline date. | ||
| * dgilmore viotes that it gets punted to F12 | ||
| jds2001 | that's OK, sounds liek a great feature for F12 :) | |
| dgilmore | votes | |
| bpepple | yeah, sorta sucks, but I think we need to kick it to F12. | |
| jds2001 | but continue the work and it should be really easy for F12 :D | |
| dgilmore | +1 to punting to F-12 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| mjw | yeah, ok, we definitely will try to get more work done. We have most of the patches ready. | |
| notting | 0 | |
| j-rod | +1 -> f12 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| bpepple | alright, so I see six "+1", and one "0" to pushing this feature to F12. | |
| anyone have anything else to add, or should we move on.... | ||
| ok, I believe that is everything regarding Features (finally). | ||
| jds2001: you want to take over? | ||
| LetoTo | I had added DNSSEC as feature? | |
| in trac? | ||
| jds2001 | bpepple: if you want me to, I was just gonna go grab a cup of coffee :D | |
| bpepple | LetoTo: must not have had the meeting tag so I didn't pick it up. :( One moment, and I grab it. | |
| jds2001 | and I'm not rightly sure we're we're at. | |
| bpepple | .fesco 98 | |
| zodbot | bpepple: #98 (DNS maintainers would like input from Fesco on enabling DNSSEC for recursors for F-11) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/98 | |
| bpepple | jds2001: np, I continue to lead, I didn't want to step on you toes as Chair. ;) | |
| notting | how could this break end-user installs , and if it does, how would the user know and be able to fix it? | |
| jds2001 | np :) | |
| LetoTo | it has no relation to enduser installs | |
| only those who are installing a recursive nameserver specifically | ||
| For f-12 I'll go break enduser installs with it :) | ||
| jds2001 | lol | |
| nirik | so this is pretty much all in, just needs the switch flipped. | |
| (aside from the NM support I guess) | ||
| LetoTo | correct | |
| jds2001 | so how doees it break nameservers? | |
| LetoTo | and system-config-dnssec | |
| it could fail to start if dnssec key files are referenced but missing | ||
| (should not happen based on rpm dependancies) | ||
| or it could break if we screw up dnssec keys and the user/nameserver could not do key updates | ||
| nirik | and if this causes widespread issues in beta we could disable again easily? | |
| LetoTo | but key updates happen via RFC5011 (autotrust package) and fedora updates | |
| yes | ||
| /etc/sysconfig/bind with DNSSEC=yes|no | ||
| (same for /etc/sysconfig/unbound) | ||
| LetoTo | due to DLV possible containing old keys put in my people, I prefer to leave that disabled for now | |
| nirik | users can enable it if they want tho right, all the support is there? | |
| LetoTo | (DLV is for putting subdomain.com DNSSEC keys in a special registry, as long as .com is unsigned) | |
| yup | ||
| via above mentioned settings, and via dnssec-conf package manually | ||
| (commandline only. still working on system-config-dnssec. core is there, packaging needs some work) | ||
| nirik | what old keys are in DLV? just things people haven't touched in too long? or broken because implementation changed? | |
| LetoTo | people who got interested in DLV a year ago, put in their key, then 6 months later re-did their DNS, dropped the key from the zone | |
| if we then use DLV, we claim they're being spoofed :) | ||
| nirik | ah, I see. Thats anoying. ;( | |
| LetoTo | I'll contact Paul Vixie to do a health check on the DLC contents | |
| and after talking to him decide on enabling it per default later on (Prob F-12) | ||
| * nirik would love to see DLV, as .com/net are so slow to move. | ||
| nirik | anyhow, I am +1 for the feature... | |
| LetoTo | it's still simply changing DLV=dlv.isc.org in /etc/sysconfig/bind|unbound | |
| notting | +1 from me | |
| bpepple | +1 here also. | |
| j-rod | +1 | |
| sharkcz | +1 | |
| jds2001 | +1 | |
| bpepple | alright, that's 6 '+1', and no objections, so we've approved DNSSEC. | |
| LetoTo | (+1 if I'm allowed to vote too :) | |
| cool! | ||
| bpepple | alright, we've got about 10 minutes left. What items do we *have* to cover today? provenpackager reseed? | |
| * nirik would like to get that out of the way finally. it's been stalled so long. | ||
| bpepple | nirik: I agree. Is abadger1999 around? | |
| abadger1999 | yep | |
| bpepple | .fesco 70 | |
| zodbot | bpepple: #70 (provenpackager guidelines & reseed) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/70 | |
| nirik | so I posted to the list 3 proposals on who will add people to the new provenpackager group. | |
| the only one who commented on the list was abadger1999. ;) | ||
| abadger1999 | heh | |
| bpepple | nice. | |
| bpepple | truthfully, I just want this finished. we've been dragging our feet on this for a couple of months now. | |
| nirik | https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02277.html | |
| * jds2001 rules out FESCo as an approval board for that - I don't think we need to be involved there unless it becomes a problem. | ||
| notting likes provenpackager sponsors == packager sponsors | ||
| jds2001 | I am in favor of FESCo having power to remove, though | |
| nirik | I don't care too much which solution it is. Any of the ones I proposed is fine with me. | |
| * jds2001 agrees with notting | ||
| bpepple | notting: +1 | |
| sharkcz | notting: +1 | |
| bpepple | though, I wonder why we even need the provenpackager sponsors group then. | |
| abadger1999 | :-) | |
| dgilmore | notting: +1 | |
| abadger1999 | f13: Does that sound good or too broad? | |
| * jds2001 agreed at FUDCon to draft up a mail. If I know what to draft I can pound out something this weekend. | ||
| f13 | I don't think so. | |
| nirik | bpepple: what do you mean? | |
| f13 | doesn't seem to broad | |
| bpepple | if packagers sponsors == provenpackager sponsors, why even have the provenpackager sponsors group? | |
| nirik | rsc_ didn't like it, as it only requires one person to approve into prorovenpackagerer. | |
| jds2001 | provenpackager sponsors needn't exist | |
| just admins | ||
| bpepple | ah ok. | |
| nirik | due to the way fas groups work, I think we would have to sync them... abadger1999 ? | |
| jds2001 | for the initial seed, yeah | |
| j-rod | new sponsors are vetted through the sponsors list, then voted on here | |
| why not just do the same thing for provenpackager? | ||
| jds2001 | but after that, when i approve someone in packager for sponsor, i do the same in provenpackager. | |
| nirik | j-rod: that was option B | |
| abadger1999 | nirik: yea, I don't think I have any code that does that off-hand but I could write some. | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: what code? | |
| abadger1999 | Or FESCo could approve someone as a sponsor of both provenpackager and pakcager when they approve a sponsor | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: that's what I was thinking. | |
| sharkcz | abadger1999: is some group ownership (or access to) of package possible? | |
| j-rod | nirik: is it? | |
| abadger1999 | sharkcz: not at this time. It's on the wishlist but that's a mile long. | |
| nirik | https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02277.html | |
| j-rod | I guess its implied that new folks are voted on by the list before fesco votes | |
| sharkcz | abadger1999: because that could solve some of the cases where people ask for provenpackager ... | |
| abadger1999 | sharkcz: <nod> I'll gladly accept patches for that ;-) | |
| nirik | j-rod: thats option B, others are liking option C, which just needs anyone in provenpackager sponsors to approve them. | |
| jds2001 | i think j-rod was talking sponsor votes, but im not sure. | |
| i.e. packager sponsors | ||
| abadger1999 | groups as owners is a change that touches a lot of code... good to achieve but will be painful to implement. | |
| j-rod | yeah, I was meaning 'first the name is floated on the sponsors list, folks give their input there, then fesco votes, guided by the input from the sponsors list' | |
| jds2001 | j-rod: that's sounding like B | |
| nirik | j-rod: I see that as option B of my choices. | |
| j-rod | so if on the sponsors list, there was 2 +1 and 5 -1, we'd vote no | |
| ok | ||
| jds2001 | I'm not opposed to any of the choices :) | |
| nirik | option C has anyone in the sponsors list for provenpackager to see the request and approve them. | |
| jds2001 | option A seems a little heavy-handed, though. | |
| j-rod | the sponsors giving +/- feedback part wasn't spelled out | |
| * notting would be ok with B as well | ||
| j-rod | C seems slightly lax | |
| nirik | jds2001: yeah, it's a much smaller pool of people is why I suggested it. | |
| j-rod | with C, I'd say "needs to be seconded by another sponsor" or something | |
| nirik | how about we approve B and revisit if we get too many requests, etc? | |
| jds2001 | yeah, that's hard/impossible to do in FAS as it exists. | |
| sounds good to me | ||
| +1 to option B | ||
| nirik | +1 for B? | |
| j-rod | +1 for B | |
| bpepple | nirik: +1 (just so we can resolve this) | |
| * nirik nods. | ||
| notting | +1 | |
| sharkcz | ok, +1 for B | |
| bpepple | ok, so I see six '+1' for option B. | |
| * jds2001 will draft and circulate mail tonight/tomorrow. | ||
| nirik | hurray. So, we wipe provenpackager, populate it with packager sponsors as sponsors (fesco folks as admins?) and then moving foward people are commented on by sponsors and fesco votes on them at meetings? | |
| jds2001 | nope | |
| jds2001 | we wipe provenpackager, fesco becomes admins | |
| jds2001 | everyone else is user | |
| abadger1999 | <nod> | |
| jds2001 | and we discuss on packager-sponsors | |
| nirik | ah, right, sorry... brain disconnect with typing. ;) | |
| jds2001 | :) | |
| notting | well, we wipe it and populate it with the sponsors as users, yes? | |
| jds2001 | yeah | |
| * nirik predicts there will be a pretty big pile of requests at first... but we will see. | ||
| bpepple | jds2001: phew, I though you were saying we were only going to populate it with FESCo. ;) | |
| jds2001 | yeah, im sure there will be. | |
| jds2001 | bpepple: nah, I'm not a glutton for that much punishment :D | |
| abadger1999 | You guys want to announce before I do this? | |
| We're going into an infrastructure freeze for the beta on Tuesday. | ||
| jds2001 | yeah, I'll draft something tonight/tomorrow | |
| abadger1999 | So I'd love to do it... today. | |
| jds2001 | lets do it monday if we can. | |
| abadger1999 | Okay. | |
| jds2001 | or over the weekends. | |
| nirik | do we also want to mail provenpackager-members and note why they could be dropped out? | |
| jds2001 | er weekend. | |
| yeah | ||
| bpepple | alright, anything else about provenpackagers? | |
| if not, I think we can put a fork in this meeting. | ||
| ok.... | ||
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| bpepple will end the meeting in 30 | ||
| bpepple will end the meeting in 15 | ||
| bpepple | -- MARK -- Meeting End | |
| Thanks, everyone! | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.5 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!