18:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-07-29) 18:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jul 29 18:00:01 2015 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco 18:00:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:02 <nirik> #chair ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh 18:00:02 <nirik> #topic init process 18:00:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza 18:00:19 <jwb> hello 18:00:26 * rishi is here 18:00:29 <thozza> hi all 18:00:31 <sgallagh> /me is here-ish 18:00:48 <paragan> hi 18:01:01 <dgilmore> hey 18:01:30 <jreznik_pp> /me is here from phone and dinner with my parents, semi available 18:01:35 <jreznik_pp> And hi :) 18:02:14 <nirik> ok. lets go ahead and dive in then. ;) 18:02:22 <nirik> #topic ticket #1427 List of release blocking deliverables 18:02:22 <nirik> .fesco 1427 18:02:24 <zodbot> nirik: #1427 (List of release blocking deliverables) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1427 18:02:28 <nirik> jreznik_pp: where are we with this? 18:02:57 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora23 18:03:15 <nirik> we need spins I guess and atomic/vagrant/whatever 18:03:24 <jreznik_pp> So there's wiki page, some initial idea of structure. I don't want to ask everyone to fill it in and then change 18:03:39 <jreznik_pp> So the first question what data do we want to gather? 18:04:25 <nirik> I think imagename/location/blocking or not is a good start 18:04:33 <jreznik_pp> It's a draft... But then we can put it into some json whatever for machine use or PDC 18:04:47 <nirik> we should also have liasons talk to each working group and actually confirm we have it right. 18:05:25 <jreznik_pp> Sure, that's the plan. As I said I was looking for a feedback not to do more than one round of reviews 18:05:55 <jreznik_pp> So I can finish it tomorrow/after tomorrow and ask for review/fixes 18:06:03 <nirik> sounds good to me. 18:06:23 <jreznik_pp> Sorry it took so long time... 18:07:18 <thozza> do we want to add some of the approved changes as well? 18:07:19 <nirik> anyone else have any thoughts on it? 18:07:21 <jreznik_pp> But with my transition, I didn't have much time for Fedora (and actually break for a few months was a nice thing;-) 18:07:58 <nirik> thozza: well, this is deliverables. Do any of them have specific deliverables? 18:08:18 <jreznik_pp> If yes, it will be an item on the list 18:08:30 <thozza> right, I think only the atomic stuff afaik 18:08:33 <jreznik_pp> But not change itself 18:08:48 <nirik> I suppose we could try and list size target too? 18:09:15 <jreznik_pp> nirik, maybe but I'm not that fan of size targets... 18:09:19 <rishi> nirik: That could be interesting for the Workstation live images. 18:09:20 <paragan> yes size information should be added 18:09:31 <jreznik_pp> Especially strictly enforced 18:09:53 <nirik> just a thought. we could leave it off for now, but it would help QA if there is a hard limit somewhere. 18:10:27 <jreznik_pp> nirik, we have the list so why not, just my personal opinion 18:10:31 <rishi> Hmm... on second thoughts, we did give up on the CD size limitation. 18:10:49 <jreznik_pp> That's what I'm talking about ;-)) 18:10:49 <rishi> So, I guess, not a big deal anymore. 18:11:10 <nirik> ok, anything else on this? or shall we move on? 18:11:15 <jreznik_pp> I'll take a look 18:11:33 <rishi> nirik: I don't have anything else. 18:11:50 <nirik> jreznik_pp: lets leave the ticket open and you can update it when ready and we can review. :) 18:11:55 <nirik> thanks for working on it. 18:12:01 <jreznik_pp> Sure, np 18:12:08 <nirik> #topic ticket #1455 F23 System Wide Change: Standardized Passphrase Policy 18:12:08 <nirik> .fesco 1455 18:12:12 <zodbot> nirik: #1455 (F23 System Wide Change: Standardized Passphrase Policy) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1455 18:12:15 <nirik> ok, this bit o fun... 18:12:45 <nirik> I put a proposal in, but if folks prefer I can start a devel list discussion for feedback first... 18:12:56 <nirik> or if it looks ok we can try it and adjust as we go. 18:13:14 <paragan> +1 to https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1455#comment:30 18:14:30 * nirik listens to the crickets chirp 18:14:56 * rishi is reading the ticket 18:15:00 <rishi> Still catching up after vacations. 18:15:18 <nirik> no worries. I understand if folks prefer more discussion... 18:16:15 <sgallagh> /me voted +1 in the ticket, but I'll do so again here 18:17:22 <thozza> nirik: +1 for your proposal 18:17:34 <jwb> hm 18:18:37 <nirik> thats +4 (I am also +1 to my own proposal) 18:18:39 <jwb> this really mostly depends on what libpasswdquality scores something as, right? 18:19:08 <nirik> well, not score, but if it returns an exception or not. 18:19:34 <sgallagh> jwb: Right, the major disconnect was that libpwquality doesn't intend for the score to be used in decision making 18:19:40 <nirik> score should be used only for indicatiors... 18:19:46 <sgallagh> It's a fuzzy value intended only for analog strength meters 18:19:56 <nirik> yeah 18:20:16 <jwb> hm 18:20:45 <jwb> i suppose +1. 18:20:53 <nirik> we can always revisit... 18:21:06 <rishi> nirik: Is https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1455#comment:12 the actual draft of the policy? 18:21:29 <nirik> note that I will file anaconda bugs to match the policy, but likely they won't land until beta 18:21:37 <dgilmore> i am +1 18:22:05 <nirik> rishi: or https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1455#comment:30 18:22:55 * nirik thinks workstation intends to override the policy for their product, but I guess we will see. 18:23:35 <sgallagh> I lost track of the thread on the WS mailing list 18:23:49 <sgallagh> stickster: You were going to summarize, I thought? :) 18:23:59 <nirik> well, they were talking about it before the policy even existed, which I thought was not too useful 18:24:05 <jwb> i think he's been rather busy and is still trying to get it done 18:24:38 <rishi> nirik: That looks sane to me. 18:24:38 <rishi> I was half-expecting something more verbose. Glad to see that it is just 4 bullet points. 18:24:58 <nirik> well, we can add to it, I just wanted something so we all started from the same place at least 18:25:09 <jwb> i'm worried that it hinges too much on pwdquality implementation, but not enough to not vote for it 18:25:30 <nirik> jwb: yeah, it's hard to otherwise quantify the set of passwords tho. ;( 18:25:39 <jwb> correct 18:25:44 <nirik> ok, thats +7 18:25:52 <rishi> Umm... isn't the libpwquality score dependent on minlen and dfiok too? 18:26:08 <nirik> no 18:26:19 <rishi> ok 18:26:30 <nirik> if you give it something too short or with too few different characters, it will just return an exception... 18:26:34 <nirik> saying why... 18:26:42 <nirik> there's no score in that case 18:27:26 <nirik> #agreed Change is accepted. (+7,0,0) 18:27:39 <nirik> #action nirik to file bugs on components to match policy 18:27:49 <nirik> #action nirik to write up wiki page with policy and announce it. 18:28:20 <nirik> #topic ticket #1463 upgrades for F23 and beyond 18:28:20 <nirik> .fesco 1463 18:28:21 <zodbot> nirik: #1463 (upgrades for F23 and beyond) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1463 18:28:43 <nirik> There's a change now here, but since our program manager is out we haven't announced/discussed it on list yet. 18:28:55 <nirik> do we want to vote on this change today? Or wait ? or 18:28:56 <sgallagh> So the conversation has begun, but it's not fully fleshed out yet 18:29:22 <nirik> sgallagh: you talked with packaging team on it? 18:29:35 <sgallagh> I have, and they're amenable to solving this. 18:29:40 <jreznik_pp> Jan didn't tell me to cover this for him... So I can't help here 18:30:00 <nirik> jreznik_pp: it happened after he was out I think. ;) 18:30:15 <sgallagh> They're not certain they want to implement this in dnf proper, but they're fine with it as a plugin that Fedora opts to ship by default 18:30:19 <jreznik_pp> Aha, so I missed it :( 18:30:35 <sgallagh> (It may move into the plugins-core or dnf itself after a probationary period) 18:30:59 <sgallagh> But the general sense here is that systemd's offline-updates approach makes sense and that it's ultimately a special-case of updates. 18:31:29 * nirik nods. 18:31:33 <sgallagh> We (FESCo) may want to make a ruling on whether we think distro-upgrades should do distro-sync or just the usual upgrade logic, but otherwise I think it's going to be pretty close to the PoC wwoods wrote. 18:31:42 <nirik> I am ok +1ing this change now, but we should still send it to the list to get wider attention... 18:32:30 <jwb> that seems backwards 18:33:10 * zbyszek wonders whether to submit dnf-plugins-core package for review, or to wait 18:33:12 <nirik> well, if we just approve this, other people who don't pay attention to fesco meetings may go "wha?" 18:33:32 <jwb> right. which is why i said approving and then announcing seems backwards 18:33:33 <nirik> we need to make it widely known that this is happening so docs, qa, etc, etc can all see it. 18:33:42 <sgallagh> zbyszek: Hold that thought for Open Floor, please? 18:33:48 <rishi> Wondering about https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1463#comment:4 ... 18:33:53 <nirik> well, we can hold off approving, but I don't see any alternative. 18:34:00 <nirik> I guess someone else could come up with one. 18:34:04 <rishi> How does this affect the plans to have system upgrade in PackageKit? 18:34:25 <nirik> rishi: for f22-f23 not at all. 18:34:25 <sgallagh> rishi: Richard Hughes has been part of the discussion I've been involved in 18:35:02 <rishi> sgallagh: Ok. That answers my question. :) 18:35:09 <jwb> sgallagh, it is wonderful that you are having these discussions. where are they being discussed? 18:35:13 <sgallagh> He's suggested resurrecting an older PackageKit function that got removed called UpgradeSystem() and implementing this there in the same manner. 18:35:34 <sgallagh> Unclear if he'd do that by calling out to DNF (in some appropriate wrapper) or reimplement 18:35:43 <sgallagh> But it looks like he plans to use the same logic and approach 18:36:21 <rishi> sgallagh: Ok. I will trust hughsie and the dnf guys to sort it out between themselves and do the right thing. 18:36:36 <nirik> proposal: send change to list for comment, revisit next week. 18:36:36 <rishi> I was just curious if the left hand knew what the right is doing. 18:36:41 <rishi> nirik: +1 18:36:42 <thozza> nirik: +1 18:36:42 <sgallagh> jwb: They've been private, but will be public within the next day or so 18:37:04 <jwb> sgallagh, disappointing that we're going to vote based on information that is not public. 18:37:08 <jwb> so -1 18:37:29 <paragan> I am okay with nirik proposal +1 18:37:36 <thozza> jwb: we are voting about postponing to next week 18:37:50 <paragan> there is some discussion happening on rpm-ecosystem list 18:38:01 <jwb> thozza, that isn't clear to me 18:38:01 <paragan> http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-ecosystem/Week-of-Mon-20150727/thread.html 18:38:13 <sgallagh> Oh ok. I knew it was headed there. DIdn't know it had startd. 18:38:16 <thozza> jwb: (20:36:35) nirik: proposal: send change to list for comment, revisit next week. 18:38:17 <jwb> oh, i see nirik's line now 18:38:21 <nirik> well, I put up that as a proposal, but whicheveer 18:38:31 <jwb> sure, i'll +1 deferring until discussion is actually public 18:38:39 <nirik> perhaps next week we will have good public info. ;) 18:38:54 <sgallagh> Ah, I thought I was subscribed there. I'm not. Whoops 18:39:21 <nirik> thats +5 for sending to list and revisitig next week 18:39:37 <nirik> any other votes? 18:39:43 <sgallagh> 0 18:39:56 <sgallagh> I don't see a lot of alternatives 18:39:59 <nirik> #agreed will send change proposal to list and revist next week (+5,0,0) 18:40:07 <dgilmore> +1 to nirik 18:40:10 <nirik> sgallagh: me either, but perhaps the collective is smarter than all of us. ;) 18:40:16 <nirik> #undo 18:40:16 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by nirik at 18:39:59 : will send change proposal to list and revist next week (+5,0,0) 18:40:20 <nirik> #agreed will send change proposal to list and revist next week (+6,0,0) 18:40:32 <nirik> jreznik_pp: can you send the change to devel-announce? or would you like me to? 18:40:57 <jreznik_pp> nirik, pls do it 18:41:05 <nirik> ok. can do 18:41:05 <jreznik_pp> I'm on phone now 18:41:15 <nirik> #action nirik to send proposed change to list to gather feedback 18:41:18 <nirik> #topic ticket #1466 non-responsive maintainer exception process for skottler 18:41:18 <nirik> .fesco 1466 18:41:19 <zodbot> nirik: #1466 (non-responsive maintainer exception process for skottler) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1466 18:42:05 <nirik> so, I don't think I have enough info here to say much... I would probibly support a mediator to talk to the concerned parties and recommend an action to us. 18:42:27 <dgilmore> the CVE's should be fixed 18:42:42 <nirik> that I can agree with. 18:42:44 <dgilmore> but I think there needs to be some mediation here 18:44:05 <swilkerson> may I add additional information here? 18:44:25 <nirik> swilkerson: sure if you like. 18:44:26 <rishi> I guess we need to reach out to skottler to resolve the "hostile takeover" issue. 18:44:32 <swilkerson> skottler has publicly stated "I’m not particuarly interested in working with Nagios Enterprises" which in my opinion is not in the best interest of the Fedora users. He currently is the maintainer for both nagios-plugins and nrpe packages where Nagios Enterprises is the upstream. I believe this is contrary to the responsibilities of a package mai 18:44:33 <swilkerson> ntainer, who should be close to upstream projects, working with the project to build a better user experience, expediting security fixes, etc. 18:44:38 <swilkerson> Additionally, skottler has also stated that once a different project he is working on is available he may orphan the nagios-plugins package, seemingly just because he doesn't like Nagios Enterprises, despite the fact that the nagios-plugins package is widely used in Fedora, CentOS and RHEL communities. 18:45:08 <jwb> great. then we can move on and skip all this crap 18:45:14 <jwb> i'll talk to sam 18:45:29 <dgilmore> jwb: cheers 18:46:05 <nirik> fine with me. If he intends to orphan it, someone else could take it over and get things updated. 18:46:32 <nirik> proposal: jwb to talk to maintainer and work out some mutially agreeable solution 18:46:34 <rishi> swilkerson: Is skottler opposed to having you as a co-maintainer? 18:46:40 <swilkerson> yes 18:46:47 <rishi> Oh. That is sad. 18:47:00 * nirik is +1 to the proposal. 18:47:00 <swilkerson> because he wants to push the package to his project 18:47:05 <swilkerson> monitoring-plugins 18:47:35 <swilkerson> I actually don't care who maintains the package, but don't want to see that happen 18:47:46 <swilkerson> and want to see the CVE's fixed 18:48:14 <swilkerson> so I offered to take it over when David Cafaro contacted me 18:48:38 <rishi> nirik: Yeah, I am +1 to the proposal too. 18:49:14 <rishi> swilkerson: What does "push the package to his project monitoring-plugins" mean? 18:49:26 <paragan> nirik, +1 18:49:30 <thozza> nirik: +1 18:49:39 <rishi> Is skottler planning to ship something else under the nagios-plugins package name? 18:49:53 <jwb> no 18:49:53 <swilkerson> rishi: yes 18:50:25 * nirik doesn't think getting into this without skottler here to speak for himself is going to be that productive. 18:51:29 <nirik> so thats +4 I think, any other votes? 18:51:36 <rishi> nirik: True, but I could not help clarifying this statement because it sounded too crazy at first. 18:51:40 <swilkerson> It was proposed somewhere in this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054340 18:51:55 <swilkerson> about a year ago 18:52:47 <dgilmore> +! 18:52:50 <dgilmore> +1 18:53:06 * nirik isn't going to comb thru 86 comments right now. ;) 18:53:47 <nirik> ok, thats 5 18:54:06 <nirik> #agreed jwb to talk to maintainer and work out some mutially agreeable solution (+5,0,0) 18:54:21 <nirik> jwb: keep the ticket posted? 18:54:25 <jwb> yeah 18:54:42 <nirik> #topic ticket #1467 F23 Changes - Progress at Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable) 18:54:43 <nirik> .fesco 1467 18:54:44 <zodbot> nirik: #1467 (F23 Changes - Progress at Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1467 18:54:50 <nirik> this came in after the agenda went out... 18:55:15 <nirik> btw, swilkerson, thanks for coming. :) 18:55:59 <swilkerson> np 18:56:04 <jreznik_pp> Yep, too late 18:56:28 <jreznik_pp> It's more reminder for some FESCo members to take a look on theirs changes 18:56:51 <nirik> do the change owners move the bugs to MODIFIED or ? 18:56:55 <jreznik_pp> And tomorrow I'll work with Jan to poke the rest of folks 18:57:14 <jreznik_pp> Yep, MODIFIED means it's testable and in correct state 18:57:42 <nirik> kushal: is cloud motd and cloud networkd ready to test? (I thought so, but they are on the list here) 18:58:17 <paragan> I will check "Glibc locale subpackaging" with my teammate 18:58:20 <kushal> nirik, I have an image with networkd (locally built one). motd is not ready to test yet (but will be in the coming weeks). 18:58:56 <nirik> looks like freeze crept up on lots of people. 18:59:12 <thozza> The default DNS resolver is testable to some extent, the changes agreed with GNOME and NM are still being worked on... We reached agreement kind of late :-/ 18:59:22 <dgilmore> nirik: this whole release has snuck up on folks 18:59:36 <jreznik_pp> Or less poking from me as I usually spent quite a lot of time hunting folks to update change bugs 19:00:14 <nirik> so, what do we want to do here? 19:00:26 <ajax> hi 19:00:29 <jreznik_pp> For the next meeting we will report final results 19:01:29 <nirik> ok, but sounds like some of these things didn't land, we let them land late? or allow them to be FE's? 19:02:20 <jreznik_pp> Sort it out case by case 19:02:24 <nirik> I guess many of them we just don't know. ok 19:02:29 <sgallagh> How are composes going right now? Are we likely to slip for infra/rel-eng stuff anyway? 19:02:39 <nirik> we got a tc2. ;) 19:02:45 <dgilmore> sgallagh: they are fine 19:02:47 <sgallagh> OK 19:02:57 <dgilmore> sgallagh: though atomic is completely busted 19:03:07 <sgallagh> /me sighs 19:03:18 <nirik> dgilmore: is that the 'cannot find package atomic' thing? 19:03:36 <sgallagh> Well, the policy is there to keep us on track. I think we allow them to propose FEs, but the blocker process folks don't have to take them 19:03:40 <dgilmore> but I think that is the same issue that was causing us updates pushing problems and has been dealt with 19:03:41 <kushal> dgilmore, Is there any way to get messages for any failed createImage task from koii? 19:03:45 <nirik> if so, I think it got sorted since we hit it with f22-updates-testing hell. 19:03:45 <dgilmore> nirik: yes 19:03:49 <nirik> right 19:03:57 <dgilmore> kushal: that is off topic for here 19:04:31 <nirik> so, move on? or anything else on these? 19:04:47 <kushal> dgilmore, Oh, sorry. (will ask in the right place). 19:05:27 <nirik> #topic Next weeks chair 19:05:29 <nirik> who wants it? 19:06:24 <rishi> Not me, because I would be too busy preparing for GUADEC next week. 19:06:25 <thozza> I may not be available next week, since I'll be traveling to US for Flock (little bit earlier) 19:07:29 <nirik> anyone? anyone? buller. I guess I could run it again, but would rather not. ;) 19:07:49 <paragan> I can then chair next week :) 19:07:57 <nirik> paragan: thanks! 19:08:07 <nirik> #action paragan to chair next week. 19:08:12 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 19:08:18 <nirik> anyone have things for open floor? 19:08:26 <swilkerson> jwb: One last bit of information on .1466 - Their is a ticket to change the upstream source from nagios-plugins to monitoring-plugins - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054340 19:09:46 <swilkerson> and Anitya for nagios-plugins already has been changed to look at Homepage: http://www.monitoring-plugins.org/download.html 19:10:36 <nirik> alright 19:10:46 <nirik> (well, not alright, but thanks for the info) 19:11:08 <nirik> if nothing else will close out in a minute here. 19:11:16 * zbyszek wonders whether to submit dnf-plugins-core package for review, or to wait 19:11:34 <sgallagh> zbyszek: Isn't there already a package for that 19:11:36 <sgallagh> ? 19:11:43 <paragan> zbyszek, that is already in Fedora 19:11:54 <thozza> it sure is 19:11:56 <sgallagh> zbyszek: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17599 19:11:56 <nirik> you mean the upgrade plugin? 19:12:01 <zbyszek> I meant dnf-plugin-fedup of course, sorry. 19:12:11 <nirik> right 19:12:17 <paragan> zbyszek, submit a pull request to upstream 19:12:35 <sgallagh> zbyszek: Yeah, I'd much rather see this as part of the upstream plugin packages 19:12:36 <nirik> well, I guess I would say hold off until you know what dnf folks prefer? 19:12:45 <sgallagh> ideally dnf-plugins-core 19:12:58 <zbyszek> OK. I will wait then. 19:13:02 <nirik> if they are willing to take it,, great, but it sounded like they wanted it to be standalone until it proved itself? 19:13:07 <thozza> I think some people may want to use it regardless of what will be decided and implemented in the end. 19:13:17 <zbyszek> nirik: yeah 19:13:32 <thozza> but yes, whatever DNF folks prefer 19:13:43 <sgallagh> nirik: I think they're willing to carry it in plugins-extras at minimum 19:13:48 <nirik> sgallagh: ok. 19:13:56 <nirik> yeah, just work that out with them. :) 19:14:14 <sgallagh> And we (Fedora) can always choose to force that plugin to be part of the standard install 19:15:34 <nirik> sure. 19:15:41 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone. 19:15:44 <nirik> #endmeeting