| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| dwmw2_gone | brb. reboot | |
|---|---|---|
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren | |
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * warren back | ||
| nirik is here. | ||
| jeremy is here | ||
| caillon | ||
| notting is here | ||
| * bpepple wonders if poelcat is about, if so we could start off with Features. | ||
| * spot is here | ||
| jwb is here | ||
| c4chris is here | ||
| poelcat here | ||
| f13 | ||
| tibbs-phone here | ||
| bpepple | ok, looks like most folks are here, so we can get started. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- New Features - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dashboard - poelcat | ||
| bpepple | poelcat: you want to lead? | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureXULRunner | ||
| poelcat | sure :) | |
| * tibbs-phone is without power. | ||
| notting | +1, it's already in | |
| bpepple | +1 here also, but I do have a question. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | and even seems to be working | |
| +1 | ||
| caillon | bpepple, yes? | |
| * dgilmore is here | ||
| nirik | +1 | |
| bpepple | what do we do if some of the packages that depend on xulrunner aren't ported over by F9? | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| caillon | bpepple, drop them? we've got pretty much all of them done. the list needs to be updated. | |
| jeremy | bpepple: I suspect they have to be dropped | |
| jeremy | unless caillon wants to do compat-firefox ;-P | |
| warren | +1 | |
| * jeremy hides | ||
| jeremy | oh, and +1 | |
| bpepple | ok, just was wondering. thanks. | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| tibbs-phone | Couls someone echo the tpoic changes to me? My client isn't showing them to me. | |
| caillon | 0 from me, btw. | |
| * poelcat notes the +1s have it | ||
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecurityAudit | ||
| poelcat | tibbs-phone: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecurityAudit | |
| f13 | tibbs-phone: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecurityAudit | |
| * nirik waits for the wiki. | ||
| spot | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1. | |
| notting | nirik: could be here a while then | |
| caillon | +1 | |
| nirik | +1, this needs more publicity. ;) | |
| f13 | +1, but what makes this different from the hundreds of other new packages we have? | |
| and is there a plan to install this by default ? | ||
| c4chris | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | f13: I could ask that of many 'features'. I've always been a little confused about the process | |
| notting | +1. would like to see some sample reports to make sure they're not espousing crack | |
| * caillon echoes dwmw2 | ||
| poelcat | notting: can you add that to the feature page? | |
| dgilmore | id like to get a better idea of how this works | |
| caillon | but security gets people's attention | |
| poelcat | f13: it is "new" ? | |
| warren | +1 | |
| tibbs-phone | +1 | |
| f13 | poelcat: I'm assuming so. | |
| dwmw2 | 0 | |
| f13 | first build 2008-01-23 09:58:49 | |
| nirik | http://www.scrye.com/pastebin/27 | |
| tibbs-phone | The wiki looks bad on a Treo, BTW. | |
| f13 | maybe if this was featured in say a security spin, that might make it a feature? | |
| dwmw2 | hm. ff3 refuses to show me the sectool page because of an invalid cert | |
| poelcat | is this teh 'first' package of its kind in Fedora? | |
| f13 | poelcat: doubtful. | |
| chkrootkit | ||
| nirik | there are not many tests. | |
| rkhunter | ||
| tibbs-phone | Didn't we have rkhunter? | |
| nirik | yes, rkhunter is back... I revived it. | |
| * poelcat notes the +1s have it--please add any questions or comments to the feature page | ||
| dgilmore | tibbs-phone: we have rkhunter aide etc | |
| nirik | sample output: http://www.scrye.com/pastebin/28 | |
| poelcat | anything else on this one? | |
| dwmw2 | what makes this a 'feature'? | |
| * nirik is reconsidering his +1, but perhaps it's too late? | ||
| jwb | it's never too late | |
| * notting backs down to 0 | ||
| f13 | ugh, that output is not so good | |
| looks like it's bitching about thigns we do by default. | ||
| nirik | yeah. ;( | |
| notting | and just wrong in some places | |
| * f13 backs down to a 0 as well | ||
| dgilmore | me is 0 | |
| tibbs-phone | I like the idea of a well integrated tool. | |
| caillon | nirik, which mode is that in? paranoid? | |
| nirik | rkhunter has a bunch more tests... but it's specific for looking for rootkits | |
| caillon | there are 5 modes of increasing level of bitchiness | |
| nirik | caillon: -L 5 (so all tests I guess), unclear if thats paranoid. | |
| tibbs-phone | But it does need to be correct, and shouldn't complain about the default install. | |
| * nirik would like to go to 0 | ||
| dwmw2 | we should make this kind of tool complain about over-paranoia too. | |
| WARNING: Your SSH _PUBLIC_ keys are not publicly readable. | ||
| nirik | the gui is kinda pretty. | |
| poelcat | dwmw2: re: your question about "is it a feature": http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#definition | |
| dwmw2 | does it meet any of those 5 criteria? | |
| poelcat | dwmw2: that's up to you all to decide :) | |
| dwmw2 | heh | |
| caillon | (because marketing can't decide this) | |
| dwmw2 | thanks for the link. IS that new? I don't remember seeing it last time I was confused :) | |
| caillon | it seems that it meets 3a. | |
| and/or 5 | ||
| poelcat | dwmw2: no FESCo voted on it before F9 feature process started :) | |
| bpepple | poelcat: correct. | |
| f13 | well | |
| jeremy | dwmw2: I think we voted on it when you were in mongolia :-) | |
| dwmw2 | heh | |
| f13 | the feature doesn't have to be perfect for us to accept it | |
| nirik | If it was more integrated or had some super fedora related feature it would be 5, but I don't think this is. | |
| * bpepple sticks with his | ||
| f13 | it's in a testible state, we could potentially get it fixed before the final release. | |
| notting | no, but it worries me if it's enough un-perfect | |
| * dwmw2 remains ambivalent | ||
| jeremy thinks sectool could be a cool feature, but it should be well-integrated and on by default if we're going to say it's a feature | ||
| f13 +1's jeremy | ||
| nirik nods at jeremy. agree | ||
| jeremy | as it stands right now, I don't see anything that makes me think that's the case | |
| f13 | so lets let it get it's bugs worked out in F9, to make it a "FEATURE" in F10 | |
| tibbs-phone | On by default carries its own issues. | |
| dwmw2 | yeah. I don't think we're ready for that. Carry the package by all means, but I don't think it's a feature | |
| dwmw2 | not for f9, at least | |
| * dwmw2 revises to -1 | ||
| nirik | +1 for 'come back in f10 with cool integration and more features' | |
| dwmw2 | that too | |
| * nirik also goes for -1 for the feature now. | ||
| c4chris | ok, what jeremy said seems fair enough | |
| jeremy | can we also add the feedback of "it'd be nice if you'd blog about what you're working on some too"? :) | |
| notting | -1, come back in f10. | |
| warren | OK, -1 | |
| * warren behaves like sheep. | ||
| f13 | baaaaaa | |
| * dwmw2 doesn't envy bpepple counting the votes for this one | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: yeah, let's get another count of hands. | |
| c4chris | meh, that's why we pay him... oh wait... | |
| dwmw2 | -1 | |
| nirik | -1 | |
| c4chris | -1 | |
| caillon | +1 because it meets our definition of a feature, IMO | |
| spot | 0 | |
| caillon | our definition may be dumb, but it's our definition. | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| notting | -1 | |
| f13 | -1 | |
| dwmw2 | caillon: not _all_ work that fedora people happen to do upstream meets 3a. | |
| f13 | caillon: that's our definition of 'can it be proposed' IMHO | |
| not 'should it be approved' | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see five '-1', one '0', and two '+1'. anyone else? | |
| * poelcat notes that after a 'recount' this feature is NOT accepted | ||
| jeremy | poelcat: did you miss any hanging chads? :) | |
| jwb | 0 | |
| dgilmore | 0 | |
| poelcat | please add your concerns to the feature page to help guide the owner | |
| to greatness for F10 | ||
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManager-MobileBroadband | ||
| dwmw2 | tibbs-phone: topic changed to mobile broadband in NM | |
| caillon | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | does this include Bluetooth support? | |
| who'd want to connect their phone to their computer with a wire in this day and age? | ||
| dgilmore | +1 i use it frequently | |
| jwb | dwmw2, we already have "improved bluetooth support" as a separate feature | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I don't see any mention of bluetooth support on the feature page. | |
| * dwmw2 uses modemlights_applet instead | ||
| notting | dwmw2: it's supposed to | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: and one of the major missing parts of that was the NM bit :) | |
| tibbs-phone | +1 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: i have a mobile card built into my laptop | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| caillon | dwmw2, bluetooth has it's own feature page and bluetooth is a component of "MoreNM" | |
| dwmw2 | +1 either way, I suppose | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: it also covers pcmcia and pcexpress cards | |
| bpepple | ok, that's eleven '+1'. | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFirefox3 | ||
| jwb | tibbs-phone, FF3 | |
| notting | +1 | |
| spot | +1 | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| caillon | 0 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| jwb | though it renders tracks all funky | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: and with a usb cable and a .fdi file will work for phones.. and im sure bluetooth also | |
| jeremy | +1 | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| f13 | +1 | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| tibbs-phone | +1 gots to have it. | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| bpepple | yeah, there's eleven '+1', and one '0'. | |
| --- poelcat has changed the topic to: vote http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GlobalMenu | ||
| dwmw2 | tibbs-phone: global menu | |
| notting | bpepple: and the '0' is more of 'my feature, abstain', anyway | |
| bpepple | -1, for the reasons mclasen noted. | |
| warren | -1 | |
| jwb | -1 | |
| warren | This needed to happen upstream a long time ago | |
| dwmw2 | -1 | |
| * tibbs-phone has power now, but in fsck hell. | ||
| warren | consider for F10 if it becomes more mature and accepted upstream | |
| notting | -1. no not-a-chance-of-upstream features, plz | |
| f13 | -1 | |
| c4chris | -1 | |
| nirik | -1 | |
| caillon | -1 | |
| jwb | also, benefit's shouldn't start with "It's just nice." | |
| tibbs-phone | 0 just not familiar enough with the issue. | |
| warren | Have we ever had such a negative vote before? =) | |
| jwb | no | |
| jeremy | -1 given upstream resistance | |
| bpepple | ok, I see nine '-1', and one '0'. | |
| dgilmore | 0 | |
| warren | jwb, you are so negative. | |
| dgilmore, you are so neutral. | ||
| * nirik chants the upstream mantra. | ||
| dwmw2 | not that upstream resistance is always sane, in gnome. But still... | |
| notting | warren: i'm not sure we've ever had a feature proposed where the upstream maintainer of the package that is being patched explicitly said 'no' before | |
| dgilmore | i personally dont much care what gnome does | |
| jwb | warren, i am | |
| nirik | shall we move on? | |
| poelcat | that's all i've got for voting | |
| * poelcat notes that http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Dashboard#novote are not part of the "accepted" feature list. Should any of them be tuned up for Fedora 9 acceptance and voted on by Tuesday (Feature Freeze)? | ||
| dgilmore | warren: i was for FF3 and NM-mobile | |
| notting | poelcat: afaik, voluemcontrol isn't happening | |
| jeremy | I've actually got something that I haven't had a chance to write up yet | |
| dwmw2 | poelcat: want to have a vote on the ppc64 build page size? I'm buggered if I know which is best. | |
| jeremy | but which we should probably do as a feature | |
| jwb | dwmw2, that's not a feature | |
| dwmw2, it's a separate topic | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: that's next on the agenda after features. | |
| jeremy | livecd persistence | |
| notting | probably need to harass clumens & pjones about firstboot and efi | |
| jeremy | (well, liveusb persistence) | |
| dgilmore | jeremy: its not a feature if you dont propose it | |
| notting | jeremy: surely that's liveusb persistence | |
| jeremy | notting: yeah | |
| poelcat | also a sanity check of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/FeatureList to make sure everything is there that should be | |
| f13 | if propose you do not, feature it is not. | |
| jeremy | notting: I know peter's working on feverishly getting the efi stuff _working_ right now | |
| f13 | (: | |
| notting | jeremy: -EBIOS? | |
| * poelcat has tried to stay on top of everything, but could ahve missed one | ||
| nirik | so, vote by email if submitted before tuesday? | |
| f13 | that said, I think we could have a special meeting on Monday to approve any last minute features | |
| dgilmore | Buetooth 0% done? | |
| jeremy | f13: probably wise | |
| nirik | or that. | |
| f13 | since the freeze will be late monday night | |
| so that tuesday's rawhide == frozen content | ||
| tibbs-phone | I have no problem with an extra meeting. | |
| bpepple | f13: I'm fine with having a meeting for any last minute features on Monday. | |
| notting | as long as it's not 1PM | |
| * nirik is fine with that. | ||
| bpepple | what time would work best for people? | |
| dgilmore | afternoon | |
| dwmw2 | it may shock you to learn that I won't be around next week. | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: sking doesnt count | |
| dwmw2 | heh | |
| notting | so, is | |
| warren | poelcat, K12Linux is at 75% or so | |
| tibbs-phone | something +-2 hrs of this meeting is fine with me. | |
| notting | so, is is the 'where in the world is dwmw2' game a f10 feature? | |
| dgilmore | the amount of low completion right now scares me some | |
| bpepple | how about after the rel-eng meeting on monday? | |
| wwoods | here's a question: if I want to get system-summary (the "About This Computer" dialog) added to the default System menu.. does that require a Feature? | |
| dgilmore | bpepple: sounds sane | |
| dwmw2 | notting: heh. For that we have dopplr.com | |
| c4chris | bpepple: what time is releng meeting? | |
| bpepple | which would be 19:00 utc. | |
| tibbs-phone | dgilmore: scares you in a good or bad way? | |
| bpepple | c4chris: 18:00 | |
| notting | dwmw2: but that doesn't have rockapella | |
| dgilmore | tibbs-phone: in a bad way | |
| dwmw2 | notting: now that _is_ a feature | |
| * c4chris might be able to make it at 19:00 utc | ||
| bpepple | wwoods: not necessarily. | |
| notting | i'd give a half-hour/hour cushion to the rel-eng meeting, as meeting-on-freeze day could run long | |
| bpepple | notting: sounds reasonable. let's plan on having it at 19:30 on Monday. | |
| anything else we need to discuss in regard to features? | ||
| f13 | wwoods: I don't think so. | |
| wwoods: just make it happen. | ||
| poelcat | bpepple: that's all from my side | |
| bpepple | poelcat: great. thanks! | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Page size on PPC/PPC64 builders - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-March/msg00072.html - dwmw2 | ||
| poelcat | you're welcome | |
| dwmw2 | not sure what to say that wasn't already in the above-linked mail | |
| * nirik is happy to defer to the ppc SIG/team on this. ;) | ||
| dwmw2 | jwb? | |
| nirik: I'm in two minds. | ||
| jwb | does anyone need a paraphrase, or did we all read it? | |
| notting | are we discussing or voting? | |
| dwmw2 | there are reasonable arguments on both sides | |
| f13 | my arguments are to leave the builders on the RHEL5 kernel. Builds that fail due to /kernel/ need to be fixed, and I"m working on having a ppc64 box with the RHEL5 kernel available here in the next week or so. | |
| jwb | notting, both | |
| dwmw2 | I'm probably with f13 but could be swayed with a feather | |
| f13 | going to a differnet kernel for the builders will be an ongoing maint headache, and provide a 'gotcha' to maintainers when their packages get built for RHEL | |
| tibbs-phone | I don't think that the extra testing is a bad thing. | |
| notting | my opinion is that it is failing builds in a way that users can't test with fedora is bad | |
| warren | I'm for 64KiB | |
| jwb | notting, that's my primary concern | |
| nirik | is there any idea if rhel6 or ongoing rhel will keep that pagesize? | |
| f13 | notting: I agree, and that's why I want to provide the test box | |
| warren | How many packages were found to be broken by this? | |
| * spot abstains | ||
| dwmw2 | nirik: rhel6 will almost certainly keep it 64KIB | |
| tibbs-phone | but it means that one platform that almost nobody has shows the difficult bugs. | |
| nirik | warren: 2 I think | |
| jwb | notting, as f13 said, we're working on getting a RHEL5 ppc64 box FASized | |
| f13 | notting: it's sitting here, waiting for me to figure out wtf is going on with selinux, before I drag it to olpc. | |
| warren | 2 out of how many? | |
| build fails or runtime fails? | ||
| dwmw2 | warren: not many, and it was _generic_ bugs which were found | |
| c4chris | could someone clarify: 1 - the build fails ? or 2 - teh built package does not work ? | |
| f13 | the build failed. | |
| jwb | also, i'm questioning glibc's behavior to being with in the mysql fail | |
| nirik | build failure | |
| notting | there are plenty of ways to check for bugs (MALLOC_CHECK_, MALLOC_PERTURB_, umask, etc.) that we don't do in the buildsystem; i don't see why page size should be special-cased | |
| jwb | f13, mysql was actually a test fail | |
| f13 | jwb: as part of the build. | |
| warren | and a fix for mysql was found? suitable for upstream? | |
| f13 | the build /task/ failed. | |
| jwb | well, yes. but it wasn't a _compile_ fail is my point | |
| dwmw2 | notting: also there are plenty of things we do which _are_ only relevant at build time, not run time. | |
| tibbs-phone | finally out of fsck. | |
| dgilmore | f13: it cant live at the OLPC office most likely | |
| f13 | dgilmore: bwah?! | |
| jwb | wtf? | |
| notting | need the extra space for negroponte's replacement? :) | |
| jwb | ok, let's get back to that | |
| c4chris | can a package built on 64KiB pages then mysteriously fail when deployed on a 4KiB page machine ? | |
| dwmw2 | I agree with the argument about consistency with what Fedora ships. | |
| dgilmore | f13: they seem to be cracking down on non olpc owned hardware permanently hosted in the office | |
| jwb | c4chris, typically not | |
| nirik | as long as a super fast link isn't needed, you're welcome to ship it here. ;) | |
| notting | c4chris: if it's dumb, yes. (a dumb package can also fail on 64kb when built on 4kb) | |
| dwmw2 | although I'm also inclined to consider consistency with what RHEL will ship, and that's more relevant because building on 64KiB apges and running on 4KiB pages works much better than vice versa | |
| warren | dwmw2, Fedora's kernel isn't 64KiB page sizes? why not? | |
| jwb | warren, because it makes no sense | |
| dwmw2 | warren: because that would be stupid. IBM want it for their workload on their machines. | |
| notting | warren: Really Bad Idea on lowmem machines (ps3, etc) | |
| warren | ooh | |
| jwb | warren, i sent an email about that in the thread | |
| dwmw2 | bad idea on most machines, really. | |
| tibbs | Finally. | |
| warren | PS3 is barely usable anyway, but I digress... | |
| dwmw2 | it makes me shudder to think that we switch back to 4KiB _just_ because it's finding generic bugs and making us have to fix them :) | |
| c4chris | I tend to like having bugs shaken out of packages | |
| dwmw2 | yeah, I like that too. I just wish we could do it on x86_64 so people stop bitching about ppc :) | |
| warren | How difficult will it be to provide a host for people to do test builds on and fix their software? If we can provide that to FAS cvsextras auth, then I think it is feasible to stick with 64KiB. | |
| dwmw2 | s/stop/reduce their/ :) | |
| we will definitely provide such a host | ||
| dgilmore | dwmw2: is it just the mismatch in page size that found the bugs or was it that its not 4KiB | |
| jwb | warren, have you not been paying attention? | |
| notting | i don't see 'it finds a bug' as a valid reason for building in a non-reproducible-on-fedora way | |
| jwb | we've already said we were working on that like three times | |
| f13 | warren: we probably can't FAS it, due to security problems, but we can provide a machine. | |
| notting | by that logic, we should push every build through coverity | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: it's mostly the latter. | |
| f13 | notting: I don't see "it broke one package" to create an on going maint headache by having a custom kernel for our RHEL5 install | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: so we will find such things sparc has a minimum page size of 8KiB | |
| f13 | notting: because unless we create full virtual machines for each and every build, they won't match the "fedora" they're building for | |
| nirik | did this sort of thing ever happen back in the past with internal buildsys? | |
| jwb | nirik, no those are rhel4 | |
| dwmw2 | it happened around the FC6 time | |
| f13 | nirik: yes, around FC6 time | |
| dwmw2 | and we fixed all the packages back then. | |
| jwb | oh, i wasn't aware of that | |
| f13 | nirik: internal builders were RHEL4, external were 64KiB | |
| notting | nirik: it affects what we can do with glibc | |
| dwmw2 | mostly, the work is _done_ now | |
| nirik | yeah, so lets just do that again... fix packages and go on. | |
| notting | f13: maintenance load is a separate argument | |
| nirik | really this only affected 2 packages and they are both already fixed aren't they? | |
| notting | f13: *cough* TUX | |
| f13 | notting: that's fixed in RHEL proper | |
| notting: we're running fully stock RHEL kernels. | ||
| jwb | notting, yeah. different issue | |
| dwmw2 | nirik: 2 packages since December when we changed, yes. And they were both real bugs. | |
| notting | f13: it's still an issue causedfrom the same source | |
| f13 | notting: yes, and /fixed/ in the same source, instead of just going "LALALALA" and waiting for a customer to find it. | |
| dwmw2 | in fact, they may both have been the _same_ bug, if we consider it a bug that glibc's pthread_attr_setstacksize() doesn't actually set the damn stack size to the number you ask for ;) | |
| jwb | dwmw2, i asked jakub about that in the bug. he's ignoring me so far | |
| dwmw2 | I'm not going there :) | |
| c4chris | so, do we vote ? | |
| dwmw2 | I'm inclined to go with 64KiB pages. If it turns out to be a pain for packages, the workload mostly falls on me anyway as I trawl the FE-ExcludeArch-ppc{64,} bugs | |
| f13 | +64 | |
| dwmw2 | and we can always reconsider if it _really_ turns out to be a pain (which it hasn't so far) | |
| +64 | ||
| warren | +64 | |
| c4chris | +64 | |
| bpepple | +64 | |
| nirik | +64 | |
| notting | -64 | |
| tibbs | +1 for 64k pages. We can always revisit this in the future. | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| * dwmw2 kicks dgilmore | ||
| warren | If everyone gets 64 votes, then people voting for +4 automatically lose... | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: not nice | |
| jwb | it's passed | |
| bpepple | warren: ;) | |
| ok, anything else? Or should we move on? | ||
| jwb | abstain | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: was that a serious vote? What for? | |
| tibbs | notting: Your argument about reproducibility is interesting, though. | |
| jwb | yes | |
| tibbs | How impossible would it be to occasionally build 64k page Fedora kernels for ppc64 so that people can reproduce if they want to? | |
| dwmw2 | tibbs: it's certainly a concern. But since I also removed PAGE_SIZE from <asm/page.h> (and in fact also now removed <asm/page.h>, we're _forcing_ people to use getpagesize() instead of hard-coding a constant now :) | |
| tibbs: not hard at all. | ||
| jwb | tibbs, not hard. yet ew | |
| dwmw2 | and we'll definitely be providing build/test hosts. | |
| tibbs | It's just a config tweak and a koji scratch build. | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: it was a vote for 64KiB | |
| notting | dwmw2: oh, they can still hardcode a constant if they try hard enough | |
| spot | +0 | |
| dwmw2 | notting: yes, but then we would be justified in visiting them in the wee hours and promoting an attitude of violence | |
| jwb | i would like to point out that sparc requires 8KiB | |
| bpepple | ok, I see eight '+1', one '-1', and two '0'. | |
| dwmw2 | dgilmore: oh, ok -- I thought you were just being silly. | |
| f13 | tibbs: the thing is, the people complaining about this, don't have a ppc machien to run said kernel on to begin with | |
| jwb | but then again, fedora will run like that too | |
| tibbs | f13: Then the reproducability argument doesn't make much sense; you could extend it to anything but x86. | |
| f13 | tibbs: thats some of the argument. | |
| tibbs | The people who will be complaining about sparc and arm builds won't have those machines either. | |
| dwmw2 | they should have access to such machines. | |
| dgilmore | f13: the people complaning about it were RH employees who i believe you said they had access to internal RH machines to do the testing | |
| f13 | dgilmore: the internal machines weren't working | |
| dgilmore: because to use them, you had to install Fedora, which wasn't installable | ||
| dgilmore | f13: oh i did not hear that | |
| f13 | granted, there were ways to work around it, if the person actually /tried/ | |
| or engaged anybody beyond a single email every few days to public lists | ||
| dgilmore | tibbs: there will be a sparc machine for testing builds on | |
| dwmw2 | jlaska gave me a F8 host auto-installed. | |
| * bpepple looks at the time, and thinks we need to move on. | ||
| jwb | yes, 64KiB pages passed | |
| f13 | dwmw2: but that's neither A) rawhide, nor B) 64KiB | |
| c4chris | bpepple: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | f13: we installed a special kernel on it. | |
| and I was using it to fix rawhide installation :) | ||
| f13 | dwmw2: right, as I said, it could be worked around with some effort. none was applied. | |
| dwmw2 | which ought to work as soon as we have the 64-bit install image back again | |
| f13 | bpepple: what's next? | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- Proposal to make tags in CVS "immutable" - f13 | ||
| f13 | ah right. | |
| dgilmore | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | I don't like this. Mostly because I'm stupid | |
| f13 | this is for our long term goal of being able to take the nvr of a package and get back to the cvs tag used to create it, and be confident that it's the same content | |
| dwmw2 | I often make one-line changes to patches and retag them, or add the forgotten patch and retag | |
| f13 | so that we can have a web tool for people to regenerate srpms on demand. | |
| tibbs | If only we could make them immutable after a successful build against them. | |
| warren | This means force-tag wont work anymore? | |
| f13 | let me finish | |
| *BEFORE* this would go into effect, we would investigate the most common uses of force-tag, and create ways of mitigating the problem leading up to a force-tag call, as to eliminate the need for force-tag. | ||
| dwmw2 | is there any realistic prospect of us moving to another scm? | |
| jwb | no | |
| dwmw2 | my concern is that it's hard to mitigate my stupidity. I've spent over three decades trying | |
| f13 | dwmw2: maybe. | |
| notting | not in the very near future, no | |
| spot | i hear good things about bitkeeper. | |
| dwmw2 | haha | |
| tibbs | jwb: Ever, or just in the time frame that this problem needs to be solved? | |
| jwb | tibbs, within this timeframe | |
| dwmw2 | tags in git are dead easy to keep :) | |
| jwb | never say never | |
| nirik | adding more checking logic to 'make tag' might fix most of the cases. | |
| f13 | nirik: that's my intial suspicion | |
| this change won't be thrown over night | ||
| nirik | ie, 'you didn't cvs-add a file' 'or you have unchecked in changes to this' | |
| f13 | we're coming to FESCo to ask that if we /can/ mitigate the need, can we make tags immutable. Can we spend the effort? | |
| bpepple | +1 to f13's proposal. | |
| tibbs | +1 to that. | |
| nirik | or 'your source doesn't match, you didn't update sources and upload new tar.gz' | |
| c4chris | +1 | |
| nirik | +1 | |
| warren | +1 if we make make tag smarter | |
| dgilmore | warren: thats a given | |
| dwmw2 | +1 | |
| warren | how does the server enforce immutable? | |
| appendonly or something? | ||
| tibbs | CVS has a hook that can check this. | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| it passed | ||
| tibbs | taginfo, I think. | |
| bpepple | ok, I see eight '+1', so f13's proposal has passed. | |
| f13 | rock. | |
| bpepple | moving on....... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| f13 | it'll probably take a while to impliment, and will be brought back to FESCo before we throw the switch | |
| bpepple | anything else that needs to be discussed today? | |
| * jeremy has another meeting to go to | ||
| bpepple | f13: cool. thanks. | |
| c4chris | nothing here | |
| dgilmore | nothing from me | |
| bpepple | oh, one quick note. | |
| tibbs | Actually making tags immutable is absolutely trivial, BTW. | |
| nirik | yeah, making 'make tag' smart is the hard part. | |
| bpepple | stickster asked us to define our role better, so that was the reason for my note to the fesco-mailing list. Right now it's just caillon and me working on it, so if anyone else wants to help just contact me. | |
| tibbs | I saw that and would like to help, but I'm swamped with work at the moment. | |
| jwb | bpepple, i saw that. i'd be happy to review/comment on what you have | |
| bpepple | jwb: cool, once we have something I'll forward it to you to look at. | |
| jwb | k | |
| bpepple | ok, if there's nothing else, I think we can wrap up for this week. | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| caillon | oops, got distracted | |
| * 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!