16:00:17 #startmeeting Fedora Packaging Committee 16:00:17 Meeting started Wed May 30 16:00:17 2012 UTC. The chair is spot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:23 #meetingname fpc 16:00:23 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:28 * abadger1999 here 16:00:35 #topic Roll Call 16:00:56 Howdy. 16:01:18 here 16:02:34 rdieter_work, SmootherFrOgZ: ping? 16:03:35 yo 16:03:52 okay, with rdieter we barely hit quorum. :) 16:03:58 so much for my early lunch. ;) 16:04:18 #topic ~ in version - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/178 16:04:36 there is no draft here, just a very odd batmanchu. :) 16:04:54 it would be nice if someone would volunteer to draft something, could probably lift big chunks of it from debian 16:06:20 I'd be tempted to simply continue to say "don't do it" in fedora packaging 16:06:23 Actually, what I intended was simply that we ban the thing in Fedora. 16:06:35 then draft that up. 16:06:46 i think suse is the only consumer of it currently 16:07:00 we'll revisit this when a draft appears 16:07:09 Well, I wanted to get a general sentiment first. 16:07:10 I think our current Naming guidelines already cover this (or in particular, doesn't allow for this sort of thing) 16:07:31 rdieter: agreed, but i think it is worth clarifying explicitly 16:07:39 abadger1999: Error: The command "whois" is available in the Internet and Network plugins. Please specify the plugin whose command you wish to call by using its name as a command before "whois". 16:07:55 wow, thats some bot lag. 16:07:57 We would have loads of compatibility problems if we allowed it now, certainly. 16:08:20 How many more years of EL6 will probably never get the capability? 16:08:29 so, draft up a little subsection explaining that it is not okay, and the reasoning 16:08:58 Sure. 16:09:02 #topic libresample bundling library for pjproject - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/179 16:09:16 I didn't see nearly enough info to make a decision. 16:09:28 so pjproject is using an older "libresample" that is not at all the same as the current "libresample" which is in Fedora 16:09:39 So package up the older one? 16:09:45 they share a loose history, but its sortof "dinosaurs" and "birds" 16:10:18 okay. i'll give that a shot, should be doable. 16:10:32 bundling is probably ok here, I doubt anyone else would be consumers of something packaged separately 16:10:42 rdieter: yeah, that is also my thought 16:10:52 * spot doesn't mind packaging it to avoid the paperwork though 16:10:53 I don't really know, but "package it up separately" is one of our usual answers in this situation. 16:12:22 16:12:29 * abadger1999 agrees with tibbs 16:12:39 okay, thats easy enough. 16:12:47 #action spot will make a package to resolve this need 16:12:52 #topic Open Floor 16:13:16 there are some writeups that need doing 16:13:26 Occasionally I wonder about the rpm collections thing and when we can start thinking about looking into whether we want to adopt it. 16:13:38 they're on my todo list, but at a low priority, which means it gets bumped 16:14:08 tibbs: i really don't think we want to encourage pseudo-silo packaging 16:14:21 tibbs: what are rpm collections? 16:14:36 google is not very helpful :( 16:14:43 It's a feature added to rpm 4.9 that basically lets us get rid of a lot of scriptlets. 16:14:55 At least according to the very limited info I was able to find. 16:15:01 oh? i think we're thinking of something different 16:15:17 Basically you declare that your package installs a shared lib and rpm runs the ldconfig stuff automatically. 16:15:36 * rdieter likes that idea 16:15:46 Or you declare that it installs gconf schemas and it takes care of that. 16:16:20 * SmootherFrOgZ here 16:16:28 That would be nice to use. 16:16:39 craps, loos like I'm too late. 16:16:43 looks* 16:16:45 4.9 is in every supported Fedora release by this point. 16:16:57 EXPERIMENTAL support for package "collections" which are sort of like named triggers that only run once within a transaction. This can be used for example to avoid redundant calls for cache updates etc. (XXX add link to documentation once it exists) 16:17:02 hm 16:17:10 tibbs: i don't think its turned on yet. 16:17:28 because iirc, it would make the rpm format incompatible with older versions 16:17:29 nothing else since 4.9.0 in the release notes 16:17:29 I don't know; I saw something from Panu talking about it. 16:17:52 but yes, we should make an effort to implement it when it is ready 16:18:07 It sounds like something we really should pursue but I was hoping that something further would happen with it. 16:18:21 I guess I should jump on the rpm-maint list and ask. 16:18:27 they are working on all sorts of things, some progress was made on my %license ticket 16:18:52 so in the future, it should be possible to use "%license FOO" in the same sort of way as %doc, but not counted as a doc 16:19:07 That would be nice as well. 16:19:28 we're talking about having rpm do auto-hardlinking across licenses to minimize duplicates 16:19:44 Always nice to save a few K. 16:20:00 i'm not sure it would be even that much, but on things like the XO, i know it matters 16:20:08 With the collections thing, I just want to get the often-screwed-up scriptlets out of the spec files. 16:20:15 tibbs: indeed. 16:20:40 well, if there is nothing else, it looks like i get an early lunch after all 16:20:46 * spot will give it, oh, 2 minutes 16:21:00 Announcement from my owner (mdomsch): Fedora Town Hall at 1700 UTC (1pm US-Eastern) with the FESCo candidates. Visit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections#IRC_Town_Halls for information on how to participate and pose questions to the candidates. 16:21:28 Nothing else from me. Still working on the sponsorship thing. 16:24:16 thanks everyone 16:24:19 #endmeeting