16:22:07 #startmeeting Fedora Packaging Meeting 16:22:07 Meeting started Wed Jun 13 16:22:07 2012 UTC. The chair is abadger1999. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:22:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:22:15 #meetingname fpc 16:22:15 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:22:25 #topic Roll Call 16:22:29 Who's here? 16:22:30 * limburgher here 16:22:40 #chair limburgher rdieter tibbs 16:22:40 Current chairs: abadger1999 limburgher rdieter tibbs 16:23:06 #chair geppetto spot SmootherFrOgZ 16:23:06 Current chairs: SmootherFrOgZ abadger1999 geppetto limburgher rdieter spot tibbs 16:24:05 Five of us spoke up in pre-meeting chat so that would be enough to give us quorum. 16:24:37 I'm still around. 16:25:24 geppetto, rdieter: I'm going to assume you're still here as well. If you aren't this'll be a short meeting ;-) 16:25:26 yo 16:25:53 * rdieter reload-ed coffee 16:25:54 #topic add debuginfo package hint https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/186 16:26:37 Seems reasonable to me, though to be honest I'd prefer that this kind of "hints for packagers" stuff be moved out of the guidelines. 16:26:42 Maybe just state that you need that, though IIRC you get it with fedora-packager? 16:26:44 This one actually looks done to me: "The discussion on this page assumes that the redhat-rpm-config package is installed." 16:27:01 Durr.. 16:27:11 16:27:13 OK, next, I guess. 16:27:21 Talk about your EASYFIX. 16:27:25 win 16:27:30 I'll turn that into an info box so it's easier to see. 16:27:32 Maybe we can add "things won't work right if you don't have it". 16:27:37 16:27:42 I'll add that too. 16:27:45 abadger1999: Good idea. Maybe with a tag. 16:27:53 Ooohh.. :-) 16:27:54 Do we even need to vote on that :) 16:28:01 just do it 16:28:12 I'm moving it to clarification and will just fix it after the meeting. 16:28:17 yeh, but without blink :p 16:28:22 * geppetto nods 16:28:41 #topic PHP Library must not requires Apache https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/185 16:28:54 Outside of grammar concerns, I agree with this. 16:28:56 geppetto: Oh, you're no fun anymore. :) 16:29:09 So do I. 16:29:41 But absolute prohibitions like that always run afoul of the odd cases when the thing being prohibited is actually important. 16:30:02 agreed, s/must/should/ then 16:30:14 "Must not unless specifically required for operation?" 16:30:21 Also I think saying that php-common is what should be Require'd instead should be in there. 16:30:25 Well, maybe. I mean, there's always the implicit exception. 16:30:30 though "should" is probably enough. 16:30:48 And, yes, if php-common is the thing, then great. 16:31:04 He just didn't tell us in his draft what something like php-Smarty is actually supposed to depend on. 16:31:44 I gathered that from his replies on the mailing list. 16:31:46 Yeah, he gave me a good set of things to Require for it, but php-common really should Work, and at least on EL-5, it doesn't. 16:32:11 Anything EL-5 needs can go off to the EPEL guidelines, though. 16:32:51 Right, if that's a special case. 16:33:01 I think I'd like for him to actually flesh out a draft that at minimum addresses the concerns brought up on the list. 16:33:22 He just sort of threw this over the wall at us. 16:33:33 * rdieter is ok with the draft as-is, it's certainly better than the status-quo (could be better of course) 16:34:11 rdieter: modulo grammar 16:34:22 tibbs: Agreed. 16:34:28 grammar/typos are always easily fixable 16:34:37 Like, if something in php needs to be fixed, there should be a plan. 16:35:07 Okay, so things to change * Something like "unless specifically required for operation" ie: something that gives php access to the apache API. 16:35:30 * What requires to use in place of requires on php (php-common) 16:36:07 * If php-common doesn't work on some releases of Fedora or EPEL so we can add a note to the relevant places 16:36:18 abadger1999: ok that goes a little further than "Only a PHP web application, which provide httpd configuration, should requires php and httpd." 16:37:04 rdieter: Hmm... is that where we want to draw the line? I'm unsure. 16:37:43 just adding "or is specifically required for operation..." is enough for me 16:38:13 it seems logical to me to say that something which requires apache is better categorized as a "web app" than a "php app". 16:38:15 ie, 'Only a PHP web application, which provide httpd configuration or specifically needs it for operation, should require php and httpd.' 16:38:28 * rdieter used needs instead requires to avoid overloading it 16:40:29 I'm not picky, I'm ok with either version or wording, still consider that an improvement 16:42:47 Okay, I'm adding this feedback to the ticket. We can revisit and vote next week. 16:42:53 Excellent. 16:43:58 #topic What to do with "~" in versions https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/178 16:44:11 spot asked me to draft something, so I did. 16:44:40 Which is just to say that you can't use '~' in Version: in Fedora. 16:45:16 That seems fine for now, although I guess we might want to start using it for "it's intended purpose" in a release or two? 16:45:38 I personally wouldn't. 16:45:48 We already have a proper and relatively sane way for dealing with this. 16:46:31 * geppetto nods … fair enough. ".0." is probably easier to understand for most people anyway, if maybe a little uglier. 16:46:35 I don't think I want to revist just to revisit but I'd be fine to revisit if people start clamoring to be able to use it. 16:46:43 * geppetto nods 16:46:53 +1 16:46:57 +1 to draft w/ rationale 16:47:07 +1 16:47:52 I would prefer it without rationale, honestly, but I provided two rationales there. 16:48:00 16:48:02 trac just ate the formatting. 16:48:24 Tonight on FOX: When webapps attack. 16:48:42 Anyway, +1 to my own draft. If others think rationale is necessary, I won't object. 16:49:12 rdieter: You're the deciding vote today :-) 16:49:25 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/178#comment:1 16:49:52 sorry, got pulled away for a bit 16:50:09 +1 16:51:23 #action Decided not to permit use of Debian-style "~" in versions for now. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 16:51:44 #topic Open floor 16:51:56 Anyone have something to bring up or a ticket that I've missed? 16:52:09 Not that I can think of. 16:52:19 We're sort of sitting on a bunch of tickets. 16:52:43 I guess we dealt with 172 but it's still open. 16:53:28 I guess 161 is waiting on the submitter. 16:53:53 126 as well. 16:54:16 Maybe I'll go through and ping on these and if any are ready for us to actually look at them I'll note that. 16:55:34 Thank you. 16:56:46 tibbs: Thanks. Looks like just needs some responses 16:57:04 Okay, if that's all I'll close the meeting 16:57:14 Just in time. 16:57:42 #endmeeting