13:12:41 <stickster> #startmeeting Workstation WG 13:12:42 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May 21 13:12:41 2018 UTC. 13:12:42 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 13:12:42 <zodbot> The chair is stickster. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:12:42 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 13:12:42 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation_wg' 13:12:44 <stickster> #meetingname workstation 13:12:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'workstation' 13:12:54 <mclasen> .hello mclasen 13:12:55 <zodbot> mclasen: mclasen 'Matthias Clasen' <mclasen@redhat.com> 13:12:57 <stickster> #chair cschalle otaylor kalev ryanlerch mclasen juhp 13:12:57 <zodbot> Current chairs: cschalle juhp kalev mclasen otaylor ryanlerch stickster 13:13:00 <ryanlerch> .hello ryanlerch 13:13:01 <zodbot> ryanlerch: ryanlerch 'Ryan Lerch' <rlerch@redhat.com> 13:13:05 <stickster> .hello pfrields 13:13:06 <zodbot> stickster: pfrields 'Paul W. Frields' <stickster@gmail.com> 13:13:06 <juhp> hi 13:13:11 * stickster hands gavel to cschalle 13:13:16 <cschalle> thank you 13:13:38 <cschalle> ok, so looking at the agenda it seems we have 3 open tickets today 13:13:53 <cschalle> first one is regarding the PyCharm repo 13:14:32 <cschalle> ticket was opened by cantazaro, but he is not here it seems 13:15:16 <cschalle> so this is actually a repo we carried for quite a while as it came in when the Copr repos where allowed, which precedes the general 3rd party stuff by at least a year 13:15:23 * mclasen pings mcatanzaro 13:15:36 <stickster> phracek says in the ticket that he wasn't consulted (afresh?) about having his repo added, and therefore the package(s) for PyCharm weren't ready for F28. 13:15:52 <stickster> But apparently it is now? 13:16:22 * mclasen just can't work well at this speed, with years between initial effort and final merge 13:16:59 <stickster> yeah, this took a long time to get done. It would probably have been a good idea to resync with the repo owners, but yay 20/20 hindsight 13:17:05 <otaylor_> well, hopefully that part is over for 3rd party repos... 13:17:24 <cschalle> stickster, yeah he updated it, and I have an email thread with him from 2015 when his repo was added, but I guess the general 3rd party stuff brought new attention to it. Also I think hughsie changed the GNOME Software requirements since 2015 which is probably why it feel out (due to not having proper metadata in the yum repo) 13:17:31 <stickster> OMG 2015. 13:17:42 <kalev> gnome-software side should be pretty solid now 13:17:51 <stickster> Perhaps it should be a timed TODO on the WG at Beta time to check freshness of included 3rd party repos. 13:18:09 <stickster> The program manager could put this on the schedule as a readiness item. 13:18:26 <cschalle> mclasen, well in this case it wasn't that it was slow to get merged, but that we checked it when we merged it, but then GNOME Software became strickter in the meantime and we forgot to re-check 13:18:39 <cschalle> stickster, agreed 13:18:44 <otaylor_> Is it better if we remove the repo at beta time, and the package isn't there for that reason, rather than if it's not there because it's not there? 13:18:50 <stickster> #action stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item for this 13:18:53 <stickster> #undo 13:18:53 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by stickster at 13:18:50 : stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item for this 13:19:13 <kalev> I think it makes sense for someone to check repos before release, yep 13:19:14 <stickster> #action stickster email jkurik and ask for a schedule item at Beta to check freshness of 3rd party repos and readiness for GA 13:19:24 <cschalle> otaylor, the package was always there (although not in latest version) the problem here was that he hadn't run the commands to add the metadata to the yum repo 13:19:44 <cschalle> and thus GNOMe software ignored it 13:19:47 <kalev> I think this is incorrect 13:20:07 <kalev> the copr missed F28 repo, so gnome-software didn't see it because of that 13:20:08 <mcatanzaro> .hello catanzaro 13:20:09 <zodbot> mcatanzaro: catanzaro 'Michael Catanzaro' <mcatanzaro@gnome.org> 13:20:18 <cschalle> ah ok 13:20:19 <kalev> it's not that gnome-software got stricter, it's just that the package was missing. full stop :) 13:20:24 <stickster> kalev++ 13:20:24 <zodbot> stickster: Karma for kalev changed to 1 (for the f28 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 13:20:26 <otaylor> A schedule item to check on all the repos sounds good - but it's "check with the intent to fix problems" not "check with the intent to remove" 13:20:55 <juhp> Also copr can not auto create new branches 13:21:04 <juhp> erm can _now_ 13:21:40 <juhp> I should say populate 13:21:48 <juhp> if so configured 13:22:09 <juhp> That might help to avoid this kind problem a bit 13:22:14 <juhp> of 13:23:07 <juhp> If that makes sense - I think it might not be the default config 13:23:17 <juhp> for repos 13:23:57 <cschalle> ok, so I think we resolved this issue then, with maintainer having updated his repo and with now planning to check for these kinds of issues as part of our release process going forward 13:24:07 * kalev agrees. 13:24:51 <cschalle> ok, so next item. Adding VS Code as a 3rd party app 13:25:00 <cschalle> https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/52 13:25:25 <aday> that's already available through flathub, fwiw 13:25:30 <cschalle> I haven't had a chance to test the 3rd MS is offering to verify its readiness for inclusion 13:25:59 <cschalle> aday, yeah, we need to take another look at how we can enhance flathub to make it useful for Fedora 13:26:25 <mcatanzaro> It's a weird request because it is open source. Couldn't it be packaged for Fedora? Do we want to use third-party repos for software that could be packaged in Fedora? 13:26:30 <mclasen> it is useful for fedora already... 13:26:34 <aday> software is performing really well with flathub enabled 13:26:46 <aday> it's great to see a stream of new apps popping up 13:26:47 <cschalle> mcatanzaro, I would think that using the official MS RPM isn't a bad idea 13:26:48 <juhp> mcatanzaro: yeah I asked that 13:27:21 * stickster hasn't looked at vscode at all. I wonder how much effort an official package in Fedora involves. My bet is a *lot* due to unbundling concerns. 13:27:23 <otaylor> Though - how does vscode in *particular* work as a flatpak - IDE's tend to have issues with the sandboxing - not having access to host tools 13:27:26 <kalev> I'd like to enable some kind of flatpak repo for F29 just to test this out a bit from gnome-software perspective, doesn't really matter which 13:27:40 <otaylor> If vscode is electron (isn't it?) it's basically impossible to package within Fedora 13:27:42 <juhp> cschalle: yes the requester also suggested it would reduce maintenance burden 13:27:48 <aday> otaylor: yep, electron 13:28:01 <ryanlerch> otaylor: yes, it is electron IIRC 13:28:14 <juhp> otaylor: right - I think tools is an issue - there is ticket about it 13:28:45 <mclasen> kalev: it would be good to test with both flathub and an oci registry 13:28:56 * kalev nods. 13:29:14 <cschalle> ok, so my suggestion is that before we can process this proposal someone needs to test and verify the repo works properly, ie. got all the appstream metadata included especially verify that it is included in the yum repo metadata so GNOME Softare will display it 13:29:15 * mclasen doubts we'll ever see that oci registry, at this point :-( 13:29:39 <stickster> msg ryanlerch Thanks for the audacity article. I'll get it social'd if it's not already 13:30:01 <cschalle> we should also see if we can get someone from MS to 'own' the inclusion of it if possible 13:30:02 <stickster> oops, sorry :-) 13:30:44 <cschalle> I am happy to take an action item to do the two items above. 13:31:01 <cschalle> everyone fine with that approach? 13:31:13 <cschalle> then we can bring it up again in our next meeting 13:31:19 <ryanlerch> i'm +1 forstartingthe processto add it 13:31:59 * stickster likes it too. cschalle, what about similar for Atom? 13:32:11 * stickster would think the Github folks could manage as well 13:32:23 <aday> there are a lot of good developer-focused electron apps 13:32:30 <cschalle> stickster, yeah, I talked to the github guys a long time ago, we should reach out again now 13:32:58 <cschalle> stickster, you and I need to sync up to decide what we are doing with the 3rd party repo dev docs 13:33:01 <aday> github desktop, gitkraken, design tools like figma. there's even a snazzy terminal app 13:34:10 <aday> https://electronjs.org/apps?category=developer-tools 13:34:40 <cschalle> btw, anyone here should feel free to approach 3rd parties and encourage them to propose their app for Fedora 13:34:56 <stickster> cschalle: despairing. 13:35:06 <otaylor> cschalle: Is there something in the 3rd party repo dev docs that can be extracted as a checklist for approviing the request? 13:35:16 <cschalle> otaylor, yes 13:35:38 <cschalle> otaylor, which is partly why I want it up, to have a clear list of 3rd party repo expectations to point to 13:36:03 <cschalle> stickster, IMHO we should just plop it onto the wiki and forget about the fedora developer site 13:36:23 <cschalle> anyway, I think we have a path forward here for item 2. So lets move to item 3 13:36:48 <cschalle> Item 3 is a request for a page with further information on 3rd party software for end users 13:36:55 <cschalle> https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/41 13:37:07 * FranciscoD is here to answer any questions about this one/make clarifications 13:37:12 <cschalle> there is a draft already that I see that Owen and Kalev have looked at at least 13:37:17 <cschalle> thank you FranciscoD 13:37:43 <stickster> cschalle: At this point I'm inclined to agree -- although we could maneuver it to the official docs.fp.o site soon using Asciidoc/Antora when that's ready 13:38:07 <cschalle> so to me our course of action here should be to a) cover any last minute comments or questions and b) if people are mostly fine with it, we should formally approve it 13:38:08 <stickster> That would put it under git control but also available for PRs 13:38:15 <juhp> I think it is already Live on the wiki 13:38:16 <cschalle> stickster, nod 13:38:26 <FranciscoD> cschalle: the wg agreed to move my draft to the workstation's wiki space 13:38:31 <FranciscoD> (which I've done) 13:38:43 <juhp> FranciscoD: thanks 13:38:47 <cschalle> ah ok, so are we basically done with this ticket then and just need to close it? 13:38:49 <FranciscoD> A few minor kinks now: otaylor suggested a summary, which I've added 13:39:03 <FranciscoD> b) should this be moved to the docs website as originally planned? 13:39:15 <FranciscoD> c) What does the WG think of the video? 13:39:56 <FranciscoD> (the last 3 comments on the ticket) 13:40:28 <cschalle> trying to look at that video now, but the FSF website seems to be dog slow 13:40:49 <juhp> FranciscoD: I watched the FSF video 13:41:31 * mclasen not convinced about putting fsf videos up 13:41:47 <juhp> while I am sympathetic, I am not sure either how well it fits 13:42:08 <FranciscoD> I'd prefer if we made a Fedora specific video too, but I can't promise a time line on that 13:42:11 <otaylor> FranciscoD: I think the summary helps - thanks! (comma before 'in it's out of box configuration', out-of-the-box, not out-of-box :-) 13:42:17 * FranciscoD is not really a video person 13:42:55 <juhp> FranciscoD: sure that's big job potentially 13:43:06 <mcatanzaro> I'm not sure a video is necessary. I think it's OK since it's just a wiki page. But isn't there enough information on the page already? 13:43:13 <cschalle> well I have no comment on the specific video not having seen it, but the fact that my system is still stuck on Waiting for www.fsf.org is probably a disqualification in itself 13:43:17 <kalev> I wonder if it would make sense to swap the first two sentences, so that the very first sentence says what the third party repos are? 13:43:22 <juhp> unless mattdm wants to make something :) 13:43:42 <FranciscoD> otaylor: fixed, thanks :) 13:44:26 <otaylor> I don't think a video makes sense unless we have something that we think is fully on-message for Fedora 13:44:31 <cschalle> as for moving the page to the docs site I have no objection, although I assume that is a decision for mattdm? 13:44:39 <juhp> I am confused: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Software_Repositories says there no text? 13:44:51 <FranciscoD> juhp: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories is the link 13:44:52 <ryanlerch> juhp: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories 13:45:06 <juhp> ah 13:45:15 <juhp> right, thanks 13:45:15 <FranciscoD> (that's where gnome-software points to) 13:45:25 <juhp> my bad 13:45:58 <ryanlerch> juhp: there is a link in the ticket to that broken link you posted here, FWIW 13:46:09 <cschalle> I suggest that we drop/skip video and that FranciscoD will check in with mattdm if he wants the page where it is or wants to move it. 13:46:24 <juhp> ryanlerch: yep nod - I just fixed it ;) 13:46:31 <FranciscoD> Sounds good. I can handle the move and the redirection etc 13:46:32 <juhp> ryanlerch: hehe 13:46:52 <kalev> I'll note that we'll need to maintain the wiki page until F28 is EOL, as the GA gnome-software is going to keep pointing to that 13:47:13 <FranciscoD> kalev: I was thinking infra could set up a re-direct (I expect that can be done) 13:47:16 <kalev> but we can definitely set up a new page, just need to maybe occasionally sync things back to the wiki page 13:47:20 <kalev> ahh, perfect 13:47:52 <FranciscoD> that way none of the current links break - we have posts on the magazine etc that use the link to the wiki 13:48:12 * kalev nods. 13:48:47 <FranciscoD> Great. I'll work on that then. cschalle can you please drop a comment on the ticket, and I'll go hound mattdm when I can :) 13:48:56 <FranciscoD> Thanks everyone 13:49:04 <cschalle> FranciscoD, will do, and thanks again for your work on this page, really appreciated 13:49:15 <FranciscoD> hth :) 13:49:21 <cschalle> ok, so open floor, anyone got any items they want to bring up? 13:49:22 <juhp> kalev: I also thinking swapping the paragraphs might be clearer 13:49:47 <FranciscoD> cschalle: just a query. Are these pages current? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies 13:50:01 <FranciscoD> they pop up on my searches, so I was wondering 13:50:12 <cschalle> FranciscoD, yes they should be 13:50:53 <cschalle> although ideally one could say they too should get moved somewhere else as they also cover non-workstation specific stuff 13:50:59 <cschalle> like moby images 13:51:15 <FranciscoD> cschalle: and this one: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_Party_Repository_Policy 13:51:47 <cschalle> FranciscoD, no, that is the old one that the one you just linked to above replaced 13:52:21 <cschalle> so this last link should be dropped/replaced with the one above 13:52:49 <FranciscoD> ah, yes, that would be good. A little confusing otherwise :) 13:53:48 <cschalle> ok, I take an action item to look at resolving that 13:54:00 * stickster notes that almost no #action or #info used in this meeting, makes logs/minutes almost useless :-( 13:54:02 <cschalle> ok, anything else or should we close this meeting? 13:54:16 <cschalle> stickster, oops sorry, I am a IRC meeting n00b 13:54:36 <cschalle> #action cschalle to follow-up on MS Code inclusion ticket 13:54:36 <stickster> If anyone took a specific action, please do: #action <nick> <thing you're doing> 13:55:00 <cschalle> #action cschalle try to resolve 3rd party policy pages on Fedora 13:55:17 <cschalle> #action stickster and cschalle to get 3rd party docs online somewhere 13:55:31 * mclasen ponders if a useless meeting can ever have useful logs 13:55:36 * mclasen goes to stand in the corner 13:55:39 <cschalle> #action FranciscoD to follow up with mattdm about where to put 3rd party end user page 13:55:50 <cschalle> ok, I think that covers it 13:55:59 <cschalle> what is the command to end meeting again? 13:56:08 <stickster> #endmeeting