16:25:11 #startmeeting fpc 16:25:11 Meeting started Thu Jul 25 16:25:11 2013 UTC. The chair is abadger1999. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:25:11 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:25:18 #topic Roll Call 16:25:32 * RemiFedora is here 16:25:36 * limburgher here 16:25:38 Howdy. 16:25:47 Rathann: You still here? 16:25:59 He said he was wandering away. 16:26:10 yeah... 16:26:17 Missed it by that much. 16:26:25 I'm hoping he just meant until 30 after when limburgher said he'd be back. 16:26:38 I can leave again if you think that'll help. 16:26:45 * abadger1999 pulls up the open tickets to see if there's things to discuss before he comes back.:-P 16:26:50 Maybe you're really the same person. 16:27:23 We need to prioritize anything that's actually easy. 16:27:24 Not so far as i know. 16:27:32 Just to get the ticket count down a bit. 16:28:40 * abadger1999 looks for easy 16:28:53 The two things about conflicts, maybe. 16:30:07 #topic Clarify the spirit of the Conflicts Guidelines https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/315 16:30:35 This is a change to this Guideline: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts 16:32:07 I like this change. 16:32:35 I guess I don't really object to the sentiment.it just adds a sentence to the beginning saying that the object is for people to not have to worry about what's already installed. 16:33:09 Seemed kind of obvious to me before, but I guess there's a call for more explanation. 16:33:26 Yeah. 16:33:42 Let's have everyone who's here vote and then we'll call for additional votes in ticket. 16:33:44 +1 16:33:45 I'll +1 it. 16:34:00 +1 16:34:38 limburgher: You'd make four. 16:34:47 +1 16:36:21 SmootherFrOgZ: btw, are you here? 16:36:33 Okay, recorded in ticket that we just need one more vote. 16:36:55 #topic Allow conflicts when packages are split https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/316 16:38:17 this could make sense, but the new package can also have Requires: original-package > NEVR_BEFORE_SPLIT (in which case, Conflicts is not needed/wanted) 16:38:31 truthfully I thought this was already allowed. 16:38:44 but on reading the current guidelines it looks like it isn't. 16:38:46 RemiFedora: Good point. 16:38:58 What RemiFedora said. I assumed that if the Requires were done right this wasn't an issue. 16:38:59 * abadger1999 looks at how to edit that in. 16:39:12 Right, I also thought this was entirely doable with dependencies. 16:39:34 I seem to recall the list discussion went that way as well. 16:45:36 So.... 16:46:05 Okay -- updated draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/Conflicts_Splitting_Draft 16:46:11 Does that look good? 16:46:58 ok 16:47:00 Yeah. 16:47:26 Alright, let's vote: 16:47:28 +1 16:47:30 +1 16:47:56 +1 Still think it's spurious, but meh. 16:48:01 +1 16:49:08 okay, that's a vote from everyone present. 16:50:30 anyone have a ticket they'd like to discuss and vote on today? 16:51:37 there is the itk one... 16:52:04 but seems an awfull one... 16:52:07 I was just thinking that. 16:52:13 I thought we kind of shot that down. 16:52:27 Right, so what now, have it blocked? 16:53:03 itk 2.2.22 is in the repo (but probably broken as httpd 2.4 is there) 16:54:09 RemiFedora: So the way I'm seeing it implemented technically, 16:54:26 no... it currently present, with the full httpd 2.2 sources + patch + itk 16:54:28 the httpd-itk package creates a new MPM that it then runs explicitly in the httpd-itk.service file. 16:54:38 yes 16:54:42 So it doesn't depend on the system apache in that manner. 16:54:53 It does use the apache config from the httpd package. 16:55:10 So I suppose if there were an incompatible config syntax change, that would break the package. 16:55:13 which is incompatible (2.2/2.4) 16:57:26 Anyhow... yeah --I don't see this going anywhere but asking fesco to block the package. 16:57:58 abadger1999, the ticket already comes from fesco... 16:58:17 We could tlak to hubbittus for awhile longer in the ticket to try to explain why that's the case (I think he's still unclear about that) but I don't see any information which would change that. 16:58:54 #action toshio will try to explain why we're still convinced that blocking is the right choiuce. Toshio will either update or open a new ticket for fesco to block the package. 16:59:10 #undo 16:59:10 Removing item from minutes: 16:59:20 #topic httpd-itk https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/310 16:59:26 #action toshio will try to explain why we're still convinced that blocking is the right choiuce. Toshio will either update or open a new ticket for fesco to block the package. 17:00:20 #topic Bundling exception for nodejs-dateformat https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/319 17:00:26 This looks like it might be easy-ish 17:00:30 It looks like a fork to me. 17:01:24 If others agree that it's a fork, then I think we could vote pretty easily. If not, then we'll need to discuss. 17:01:50 It does seem like a true fork. 17:02:17 I'm guessing the modules don't conflict if both are installed. 17:02:37 Or are they both imported the same way? I know nothing about node.js. 17:02:46 Hmm.. 17:03:03 tchol or jamielinux: ping, are you around by chance? 17:03:48 I'm pretty sure that node.js imports things differently but I admit to not knowing much about it. 17:03:56 * tchol reads scrollback 17:04:14 dunno what's going on with this one in particular. let me check the ticket real quick 17:04:51 okay this is browser js adapted to work with node so it couldn't possibly conflict if both were installed 17:05:39 Cool. 17:06:03 Given the info we have, I'd +1 this. 17:06:06 +1 17:07:59 limburgher, RemiFedora: You still around to vote on this one? 17:08:06 Bundling exception for nodejs-dateformat 17:08:38 not overriding the JS internal date format for unrelated is a damn good reason for forking all by itself IMHO ;-) 17:09:01 Okay then. I'll record what we have and why and ask for additional votes on ticket. 17:09:17 +1 17:09:29 #topic Problem with lack of quorum -- Proposal for next meeting 17:09:33 sorry for late vote 17:10:05 Okay, so we've been having issues achieving quorum for the past few weeks -- I think this happens every summer as people have vacations, conferences, and other travel plans. 17:10:43 I'd suggest that we meet every week and people that are present can discuss things that they think are problematic in any particular ticket. 17:10:59 so that things happen quicker than by replying in the tickets. 17:11:19 Voting can be done in IRC and finished i nthe ticket. 17:11:29 Yes, even if we don't have quorum there is still value in talking about things. 17:12:02 * RemiFedora agree 17:12:21 Cool. Unless we miraculously have more people next week (I doubt it -- it's a travel day for people who are going to flock) that'll the plan for next week then. 17:12:31 And with this much piling up, we can't afford to waste whatever time we can get. 17:12:56 Sorry got called away, reading back. 17:13:04 Speaking of flock -- I will be travelling so I might not be present to ru nthe meeting. I don't know what time spot is travelling so he might not be either. 17:13:06 abadger1999: thats one more week out. ;) not next week 17:13:11 oh 17:13:14 well then :-) 17:13:21 never mind that :-) 17:13:37 * abadger1999 pushes more flock stuff to the back burner 17:14:03 Still need a vote from me for nj-dateformat? 17:14:19 limburgher: Sure -- Then I'll record it in the ticket. 17:14:21 +1 17:14:25 Excellent. 17:14:29 #topic Open Floor 17:14:35 Anyone have anything to add? 17:14:43 If not, I'll close the meeting in a minute 17:14:55 Nothing here, sorry for being so flaky. 17:15:14 No problem, you still managed to get your vote in for everything we discussed :-) 17:15:28 Barely. 17:17:13 #endmeeting