| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process | ||
| bpepple | FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, dgilmore, dwmw2, jwb, notting, nirik, kick_, jds2001, j-rod | |
|---|---|---|
| Hi everybody; who's around? | ||
| * nirik is here. | ||
| Kick__ is here | ||
| jds2001 here | ||
| jwb is here | ||
| notting is here | ||
| rwmjones here | ||
| bpepple | ok, I see more than half of FESCo, so we can probably get started. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW - all | ||
| dgilmore | /me is here but has a $DAYJOB meeting also | |
| rwmjones | bpepple, https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/807#comment:20 might be a good place for everyone to start? | |
| rwmjones | or https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2008-oct-13 | |
| bpepple | Alright, rel-eng came back with an answer that they didn't feel the effort involved with setting up a seperate repo for MinGW was worth the benefit. | |
| * nirik nods. | ||
| jds2001 | that's fine with me, for this instance. | |
| rwmjones | also, FPC approved the package guidelines with one alteration which I've made (mingw -> mingw32 renamed everywhere) | |
| nirik | dwmw2: you aren't around? you were the one pushing for the seperate repo, right? | |
| jds2001 | however, it doesn't cover *other* cross-compile enivronments where the result might not be useful on the host. | |
| * dwmw2 awakes | ||
| dgilmore | jds2001: the level of work scales linerally | |
| jds2001 | dgilmore: yeah, i know :( | |
| * nirik never really saw the point of the seperate repo, unless just as a proof of concept for other things like this someday. | ||
| dwmw2 | why would the result not be useful on the host, for other cross-compile environments? | |
| jds2001 | but since the result can be used in Fedora, I'm fine with it. | |
| dgilmore | jds2001: so each time a new repo would be requested it adds significantly to work loads | |
| dwmw2 | one needs wine, the other needs qemu-arm. But I can run both just fine. | |
| abadger1999 | dgilmore: We could make one separate repo for all cross compiled environments vs one per cross compiled env. | |
| * jds2001 didn't know about qemu-arm. But would that not be more considered a secondary arch effort? | ||
| dwmw2 | If releng don't want the separate repo, then let's drop it for now. When we end up getting other cross-compilers working I'm fairly sure we'll realise we _do_ want separate repos, but if we don't want to look ahead right now, so be it. | |
| abadger1999 | Then the scaling would be different. | |
| dgilmore | abadger1999: we could | |
| dwmw2 | jds2001: actually I don't use qemu-arm | |
| I _do_ use qemu-i386 :) | ||
| jds2001 | :) | |
| dwmw2 | on my shinybook I can build and run i386 binaries. | |
| I even just about got the flash player running in i386 nspluginwrapper once | ||
| rwmjones | so from mingw p.o.v we feel that we've now crossed all barriers to getting the packaging guidelines approved, so we can begin package reviews. Is that right? | |
| jwb | ok, so go forth and conquer then? | |
| bpepple | ok, so is everyone fine with dropping the seperate repo requirement for now, with the option to revisit down the road when we work with other cross-compilers? | |
| nirik | +1 here | |
| jds2001 | +1 here | |
| jwb | +1 | |
| Kick__ | +1 | |
| bpepple | +1 | |
| dwmw2 | 0 | |
| bpepple | notting, dgilmore: any options? | |
| notting | +1 | |
| bpepple | alright, I see 6 '+1', and one '0' to dropping the separate repo requirement. | |
| so, it's been passed. | ||
| rwmjones | and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGW can become a real packaging guideline? | |
| jds2001 | I thought we approved that earlier. | |
| rwmjones | jds2001, FPC approved it with that change of mingw -> mingw32 | |
| rwmjones | not sure if FESCo actually said yay | |
| jwb | so if it's approved by FPC, you're done | |
| jds2001 | right, and we approved the FPC report from that week. | |
| rwmjones | ok, fair nuff | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: I believe we had no objections to the FPC approval. | |
| rwmjones: anything else regarding MinGW we need to discuss? | ||
| rwmjones | not from our point of view ... does the wiki page need to be renamed under the official packaging space? (I can't do that) | |
| danpb_ltop | bpepple: don't think so - the separate repo & packaging standards were only thing we were waiting for | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: can you talk care of that? | |
| danpb_ltop | both are addressed, so I think we're all set to proceed | |
| jds2001 | take* | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: Yeah, someone from FPC should be able to move it for you. | |
| rwmjones | ok, I'll mail someone from FPC | |
| bpepple | danpb_ltop: great. Thanks for all the work rwmjones and you have done on this. | |
| rwmjones | it certainly has been a long journey | |
| jds2001 | thanks for sticking with it through all this, too. It's really appreicated. | |
| bpepple | rwmjones: yeah, definitely. | |
| abadger1999 | rwmjones, jds2001: Will do | |
| bpepple | alright, if there's nothing else we can move on. | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pertusus/Draft_keeping_infra_open_for_EOL - all | ||
| bpepple | Patrice wanted us to consider his proposal. | |
| dwmw2 | I think it's a bad idea to promote the _illusion_ of having updates, when critical flaws may go unpatched | |
| notting | i think this is a profoundly bad idea | |
| jds2001 | i think that notting summed it up the best. | |
| nirik | I'm worried that putting the Fedora name on something thats not maintained up to our standards. | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: yeah, that's my concern also. | |
| dwmw2 | seriously, just use CentOS | |
| dgilmore | dwmw2: i agree | |
| jds2001 | yep. | |
| dwmw2 | by the time you've actually worked out what people want that's actually _achievable_, it's CentOS | |
| jds2001 | I'm not surte what need this would meet that's not solved by CentOS/RHEL, personally. | |
| dwmw2 | "Pick a Fedora release every 18 months or so, and keep doing updates for it" | |
| it would be nicer if you could easily update from a given Fedora release to a given 'matching' CentOS release | ||
| dgilmore | there is no detail in that proposal on how to manage the transition to a EOL product. no mention of how packages will be signed and pushed | |
| dwmw2 | but that could be just a matter of documentation | |
| notting | if there is a concrete desire to have a (somewhat, not 3-5 years) longer support term, that's probably an idea that needs to go by the board level | |
| nirik | also, there is no mention of when it ends... | |
| dgilmore | there is way to little detail for it to be seriously considered | |
| dwmw2 | notting: true | |
| notting | which would be a much better way to accomplish this | |
| jwb | ignoring all that (which is a lot), there is the issue of just keeping the infrastructure active for this. and that itself is not small | |
| dwmw2 | I also think we should stop being so discouraging about FedoraN->FedoraN+1 upgrades | |
| notting | but if you want 3-5 years of support (which was mentioned in the mail thread)... use RHEL or CentOS. seriously. | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: how are we discouraging that? | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: I noticed you were active on this thread. anything you want to add? | |
| dwmw2 | fsvo 'we' | |
| nirik | I propose we add our concerns to the discussion page and ask the Board to discuss this? since it's a high level long term goal, not a tech detail... | |
| dwmw2 | talk about it on #fedora, you'll get a handful of muppets saying "upgrades don't work; just reinstall" | |
| * jds2001 actually does do reinstalls, but nothing says I must | ||
| dgilmore | nirik: +1 | |
| dwmw2 | I do upgrades. With yum. On remote, headless boxes. | |
| nirik | dwmw2: I try and correct them as I see them... I can also get the ops to do so | |
| dwmw2 | at weekends | |
| dgilmore | i do remote yum upgrades | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: that works too :) | |
| bpepple | +1 to nirik's proposal. | |
| wwoods | preupgrade is actually sensible now | |
| abadger1999 | bpepple: Not really. I like a Legacy idea but I think they're putting the cart before the horse. | |
| dwmw2 | nirik: +1 | |
| nirik | I tend to point people at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistributionUpgrades , which perhaps could use some more work... | |
| jds2001 | nirik: +1 | |
| jwb | f13, you ran Fedora Legacy. any comments? | |
| bpepple | abadger1999: yeah, I don't see anything in the proposal that solves any of the problems that fedora-legacy had. | |
| notting | nirik: +1. the proposal speaks to infrastructure, use (more or less) of Fedora trademarks/brand, and project goals. which are all above the FESCo level of 'just open CVS' | |
| Kick__ | +1 to nirik's proposal | |
| notting | (if i inferred to patrice that he should bring it to fesco, i apologize) | |
| jds2001 | I would also like to add a derivative distro is more than welcome to setup their own infrastructure and maintain whatever they like. | |
| just not called Fedora. | ||
| f13 | There is truth to that a big part of LEgacy's failure was infrastructure | |
| however, it was also a very convenient excuse to not participate | ||
| bpepple | ok, could everyone add their comments to the discussion page, and I'll contact Patrice and the board. | |
| f13 | I also think that we have this argument/discussion in very predictable cycles. | |
| nirik | doing security backport updates is hard thankless work... | |
| notting | f13: but it's not FESCo's domain to authorize the use of infrastructure in this manner | |
| f13 | right about the time where the current RHEL release is getting a bit long in the tooth, and the next RHEL release is a little far off | |
| jwb | f13, yeah | |
| j-rod | I suck | |
| jds2001 | j-rod: spare us the details :) | |
| f13 | I expressed most hte concerns I have on the mailing list | |
| j-rod | heh | |
| bpepple | ok, is there anything else anybody wants to add on this? Or should we move on? | |
| * j-rod rethinking this "1pm is fine for me!" decision... | ||
| bpepple | ok, moving on then...... | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo-Meeting -- Do we really don't want Zope/Plone in Fedora? - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/8 | ||
| jwb | how many of us were on FESCo for this discussion when it came up the first time | |
| * notting waves | ||
| jwb | me, notting, bpepple ? | |
| nirik | last time we determined that the maintainer can decide he doesn't want a compat package. | |
| * nirik was here. | ||
| bpepple | I personnally don't think anything has changed since we decided on this a year and a half ago. | |
| f13 | I was | |
| jwb | the only thing that has changed is that we have new FESCo members | |
| jds2001 | jeremy has made it quite clear that he doesn't want a compat package. | |
| f13 | the proposal has been tweaked slightly | |
| jds2001 | and there are good reasons for that. | |
| f13 | oh wait, that proposal. Sorry | |
| abadger1999 | I have a thought on this... but I don't know that it's appropriate for Fedora... | |
| jwb | thoughts are welcome | |
| abadger1999 | Is RHEL 6 going to support zope/plone installs on top of it? | |
| notting | that is... a rhel 6 issue | |
| jds2001 | unlikely if they get a new python. | |
| abadger1999 | If so Fedora should be figuring out how to do this... maybe by looking at what Debian does. | |
| jwb | abadger1999, s/Fedora/Red Hat/ | |
| jeremy | abadger1999: with my red hat hat on, I would even more vehemently oppose it there | |
| nirik | they ship a compat python | |
| abadger1999 | notting: Right... why I said it wasn't necessarily an appropriate thought for here :-/ | |
| nirik: and they have support infrastructure so they only have to ship one version of modules. | ||
| abadger1999 | That would be an interesting thing for us to look at *if* we allow a compat-python in the first plae. | |
| nirik | they do? they have modules that work against any python version? how? | |
| abadger1999 | The source code itself works with multiple versions. Then they have a package that manages a symlink farm and compiled byte code somehow. | |
| notting | ew. | |
| abadger1999 | I haven't looked too closely as we don't have compat-python to worry about yet. | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: how do you gurantee source compatibility? | |
| jeremy | abadger1999: I have plenty of source code that won't work with multiple versions of python | |
| * Kick__ think allowing compat-python will open up a can of worms with lots of problems for our system-config-* tools if we aren't very, very careful | ||
| danpb_ltop | that's over-engineering a solution to a problem that should never be addressed - if zope community is unable to keep up2date with python it should be left to die a horrible death | |
| * Kick__ agrees | ||
| abadger1999 | jds2001: How do we guarantee that upgrading python versions now is going to work? | |
| jwb | ok, this is simple: is there anyone on FESCo that thinks this is a _good_ idea? | |
| jds2001 | abadger1999: we don't. | |
| jwb | anyone? | |
| jeremy | abadger1999: that's why upgrading python versions is done very early in the cycle and takes a whole lot of work on the part of the python maintainer | |
| bpepple | jwb: I don't think it's a good idea. | |
| notting | i don't. although i'm trying to think of if there's a similar analog that we *do* ship | |
| wwoods | multiple JREs. | |
| abadger1999 | jds2001: we forward port. debian is also sending patches upstream to keep backwards compat. | |
| notting | there's gtk1/gtk2 but there's no infrastructure around those | |
| wwoods: we don't ship that | ||
| abadger1999 | But like I say, this might not be for us :-) | |
| danpb_ltop | notting: that's different they're explicitly incompatible APIs | |
| wwoods | notting: I know. But the same brain-damaged worldview that thinks that's a good idea | |
| and keeps demanding the ability to do so | ||
| nirik | did we formalize the 'maintainer is allowed to block compat packages' guideline? | |
| wwoods | is at work here. | |
| jwb | nirik, i don't think so | |
| * jeremy thought that bpepple finished it up and we voted on it | ||
| bpepple | nirik: no. I think it was more of a case that we agreed with the maintainer. | |
| Kick__ | didn't the maintainer change in the meantime ? | |
| * abadger1999 notes that upstream python-distutils is working to add that brain damage to python. | ||
| notting | right now, we ship a pile of compat-* stuff. some of it even for development | |
| abadger1999 | But I'm hoping the other distro packagers and I are doing something to stop that. | |
| notting | so we don't necessarily forward-port things | |
| abadger1999 | Kick_: Yes. was jeremy, is now geppetto | |
| notting | mmm, a python puppet master | |
| Kick__ | did he voice his opinion ? | |
| * pjones beats his head against FIPS140 hoping for a concussion. | ||
| nirik | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple/DraftCompatPackages | |
| jds2001 | pkgdb lists it as James Antill | |
| * Kick__ suspects he won't support compat-python | ||
| wwoods | jds2001: /whois geppetto | |
| abadger1999 | I pinged him on #fedora-devel just now. | |
| bpepple | nirik: yeah, I brought that to the lists, and was met with significant push-back on the proposal, so I dropped it. | |
| nirik | ok, odd. It seems reasonable to me at a quick glance. | |
| bpepple | That's what I thought also, but some folks we pretty vocally opposed. | |
| jwb | the same folks that were advocating for compat-python? | |
| * nirik suspects so. | ||
| bpepple | jwb: possibly. I'd have to look at the mailing list archives to refresh my memory on who was opposed. | |
| abadger1999 | geppetto: This was brought up by Oliver Falks wish to maintain compat-python packages to get zope/plone in. | |
| pjones | compat-python sort of seems sensible, but actually isn't. | |
| abadger1999 | geppetto: Log of this discussion so far: http://fpaste.org/paste/7611 | |
| geppetto | abadger1999: Yeh, as I said on the mailing list ... if all we care about is Zope/Plone ... then I don't see a big problem in dumping a python24 into that package (in theory as a short term solution) ... as long as it isn't providing any of the python provides | |
| jds2001 | geppetto: would that not violate packaging guidelines, though? | |
| geppetto | But there is a significant worry that actually having a big pile of compat-python* packages could screw up the real python install | |
| danpb_ltop | geppetto: it wouldn't stop there though | |
| jds2001 | having a local copy of what should ostensibly be a system binary | |
| jeremy | geppetto: fundamentally, it's beyond a short-term solution at this point | |
| bpepple | geppetto: I don't think it would be a short term solution, since it's already been over a year and a half, and the problem still exists. | |
| danpb_ltop | geppetto: because you then have apps which build / extend zope/plone | |
| abadger1999 | spot: Your cue :-) | |
| geppetto | jeremy: True, that's why I said in theory | |
| danpb_ltop | geppetto: wanting more python compat add on modules | |
| pjones | jeremy: also, this happens to zope with *every* python release, for the entire history of zope. | |
| geppetto | jds2001: Well you could argue that, at this point, the Zope people have forked python and are using their own language ;) | |
| pjones | jeremy: it's an endemic problem | |
| jeremy | we moved to python 2.5 in december of _2006_ | |
| geppetto | danpb_ltop: Tell them Zope is it's own broken thing, and they need to get it in Zope, get Zope ported to the system python | |
| bpepple | alright, so it looks like no one is in favor of this proposal. Am I right in this assumption, if so we can probably move on. | |
| jds2001 | +1 to moving on | |
| bpepple | ok, moving on then........ | |
| --- bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora | ||
| dwmw2 | weren't we having this discussion a year ago? Just fix it, ffs. | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: +1 | |
| geppetto | dwmw2: indeed we were, big thread/flamewar then too | |
| jwb | massive | |
| bpepple | ok, that's all I had for the today's agenda. Anything else folks want to discuss? | |
| dwmw2 | yeah. | |
| what reviews have you done this week? :) | ||
| notting | none. sorry. | |
| * jds2001 has mentored ke4qqq :) | ||
| dgilmore | dwmw2: none | |
| dwmw2 | It _can_ be a rhetorical question | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456038 :) | |
| buggbot | Bug 456038: medium, low, ---, bdpepple@gmail.com, ASSIGNED, Review Request: DarkIce - Live Audio Streamer | |
| tibbs | I haven't done nearly enough. | |
| Kick__ | none, no time unfortunately | |
| dwmw2 | seriously though, do we want to undertake "FESCo members will _try_ to work on at least one review a week" ? | |
| tibbs | But there's still plenty of week left. | |
| jds2001 | dwmw2: I think it's a worthwhile goal. | |
| dwmw2 | I did one of the LXDE packages after last week's meeting; I should pick another one now | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I'm fine with doing that. I'm not 100% sold that we should check each week during meetings, though. | |
| j-rod | I'd rather not. I already have way too much going on to try to mix in a review a week. | |
| * nirik has been working on doing a few, but didn't finish any this week. | ||
| dwmw2 | bpepple: yeah, the concerns about that were sane. | |
| dwmw2 | j-rod: I did say _try_, and if you're busy, that's fair enough. | |
| j-rod | now, if $dayjob were Fedora-centric instead of RHEL-centric, it'd be different, but my own time for Fedora stuff is currently being spent on lirc. | |
| dwmw2 | if you ever find yourself at a loose end, though... :) | |
| in your Copious Spare Time | ||
| bpepple | I think the suggestion to review the weekly stats on reviews was good, also. I'm going to try to contact Christian to see if we can get those running again. | |
| jwb | dwmw2, i upgraded two packages and completed a u-boot-tools review | |
| j-rod | I have kids, there is no such thing | |
| dwmw2 | I need to train myself so that when I'm bored and pissed off with real work, I look at reviews | |
| heh | ||
| Kick__ | I don't think we few people will help with the massive backlog, It'll be better to get more maintainers to do reviews | |
| jwb | dwmw2, ironically, the two packages were yours | |
| dwmw2 | jwb: heh | |
| tibbs | I wouldn't suggest reviews as an antidote for being pissed off. | |
| dwmw2 | Kick__: I agree. I'm hoping to set an example... set a trend. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: ;) | |
| pjones | jwb: dwmw2: this would be the two reviews that I didn't finish last week, right? | |
| jwb | no? | |
| dwmw2 | pjones: heh. That would be cool. Although I might need someone to take on maintenance of those too, since I have IT muppetry going on and they want me to stop publishing that. | |
| pjones | ok, so I still need to finish those then. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: you mind if I try to set-up a reviewers meeting to talk about ways to make it easier to do reviews? | |
| dwmw2 | pjones: would be appreciated; when you do, please set the CVS request too? That way, I don't have to do it myself. And don't have to be shot for it. | |
| pjones | dwmw2: yeah, uh, I'll review things for you, but you don't want me maintaining more stuff ;) | |
| tibbs | bpepple: Please. | |
| dwmw2 | I know | |
| tibbs | My life is still a bit chaotic. | |
| dwmw2 | I'll cross that bridge when I come to it :) | |
| bpepple | tibbs: ok, I'll try to send an e-mail in the next day or so, to get the ball rolling on that. | |
| tibbs | I have a list of people who expressed interest in a package review sig. | |
| bpepple | tibbs: cool, could you forward that list to me, and I'll make sure to cc those folks. | |
| dwmw2 | do we need to vote on the proposal I made? | |
| jds2001 | i thought we already did? | |
| last week | ||
| bpepple | Does anyone object to dwmw2's proposal? | |
| dwmw2 | did we? | |
| jds2001 | +1 at any rate :) | |
| notting | which one? | |
| nirik | I'm not sure what good the proposal does... but whatever. | |
| jds2001 | try to do a review a week | |
| dwmw2 | just that we'll _try_ to do at least one review a week. | |
| in the hope that we set a trend :) | ||
| notting | hm, i suspect that it will just lead to channeling yoda | |
| dwmw2 | ? | |
| jwb | lol | |
| do or do not. there is no try | ||
| - yoda | ||
| dwmw2 | heh. | |
| We accept that some people _won't_ have time, and they have good reasons for that. | ||
| that's why I say 'try' | ||
| we could go for SHOULD, cf. RFC2119 | ||
| bpepple | dwmw2: +1 to having FESCo members try to do at least one review a week. | |
| dwmw2 | but that's just nit-picking | |
| notting | i am not against the concept of having FESCo members set good examples on this front. i just wonder how much codifying it matters | |
| * nirik agrees with notting | ||
| dwmw2 | not at all, really. | |
| dwmw2 | although if the idea is to set an example, part of that comes with _saying_ "FESCo has _agreed_ that we'll try to review at least one package weach, per week" | |
| nirik | How about fesco members try to read all devel mailing list posts, try to spend 8 hours in #fedora helping people, try to help old ladies accross the road. | |
| tibbs | I will note that significant progress has been made on the review queue recently. | |
| notting | nirik: sure, aaaugh, why not. in that order ;) | |
| bpepple | dwmw2: I'll add something to that affect in my meeting summary. | |
| tibbs | The queue of non-merge reviews is about 15% shorter than it was a week or so ago. | |
| nirik | Adding a bunch of 'tries' doesn't sound productive. ;) I think we can agree to try and do reviews, but making it a formal proposal and such doesn't seem needed to me. | |
| tibbs: it seems like influx has been down. I haven't seen that many new reviews coming in. | ||
| tibbs | There has been a reasonable number, I'd say. | |
| tibbs | We didn't get bombed, no, but it's still several per day. | |
| bpepple | ok, it looks like we're winding down here. Is there aything else we need to discuss? Or should we start to wrap-up for this week? | |
| notting | theoretically, there is a point at which new package requests *should* slow down | |
| tibbs | True, but I don't think we're there. | |
| tibbs | That point is probably somewhere around "more packages than Debian" which I don't think we're at yet. | |
| bpepple | ok, going to start the countdown..... | |
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 60 | ||
| nirik | tibbs / bpepple: has the owner of https://fedorahosted.org/review-o-matic/ talked with you guys? | |
| tibbs | Never heard of it. | |
| bpepple | me neither. | |
| * nirik just noticed the request to create it today | ||
| * bpepple will end the meeting in 30 | ||
| bpepple will give it a look over. | ||
| 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!