15:59:39 <spot> #startmeeting fedora packaging committee 15:59:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 10 15:59:39 2013 UTC. The chair is spot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:59:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:59:43 <spot> #meetingname fpc 15:59:43 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 15:59:47 <spot> #chair spot 15:59:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: spot 16:00:05 <spot> #topic Roll Call 16:00:10 * limburgher here 16:00:12 <abadger1999> tibbs|w: good luck with the resting 16:00:13 * RemiFedora here 16:00:20 * abadger1999 kinda here; kinda sick 16:00:24 <limburgher> :( 16:00:40 <geppetto2> here 16:00:46 <geppetto2> mostly, anyway 16:00:55 <geppetto2> remi can't make it today and next week 16:00:57 <limburgher> Transporter accident? 16:01:03 <geppetto2> and I can't make it next week 16:01:14 <geppetto2> limburgher, more like many disk failures :( 16:01:24 * spot will be away for the next two weeks as well. 16:01:32 <limburgher> geppetto2: Eek. 16:02:11 <abadger1999> ouch 16:02:14 <spot> i count five people here 16:02:29 <spot> SmootherFrOgZ: ping 16:03:43 <spot> i've been a bit out of touch lately, due to moving and conferences, so please bear with me. :) 16:04:51 * SmootherFrOgZ is sort of here 16:04:58 <spot> #topic Software Collections in Fedora - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 16:05:24 <spot> I don't know what the status on this one is, to be honest. 16:05:31 <spot> It's marked as "deferred" in the agenda/. 16:05:50 <RemiFedora> still set as DEFERRED in the FPC schedule ;) 16:06:00 <geppetto2> yeh 16:06:04 <spot> what is it waiting on? 16:06:30 <geppetto2> more talking, having some idea what the goals are etc. 16:06:48 <limburgher> General making the waterfowl colinear. 16:06:51 <RemiFedora> I think we should wait for next meeting, a internal meeting is plan to review the guidelines and the remaining question 16:07:15 <spot> RemiFedora: okay then. easy enough. 16:07:52 <spot> #topic Minetest - jthread bundle - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/347 16:08:11 <abadger1999> RemiFedora: Note -- there's a lot of changes needed on that. 16:08:48 <abadger1999> so the internal meeting should also talk about what they're willing to change in a "worst case" scenario for them. 16:09:04 <limburgher> So this one is one of my sponsorees working on it on behalf of another of my sponsorees. 16:09:05 <geppetto2> abadger1999, you should be invited to it :) 16:09:16 <limburgher> I also tried to unbundle this myself, and couldn't make it work. 16:09:31 <geppetto2> Yeh, this looks more like a fork than a bundle 16:09:45 <limburgher> Yeah, and they plan to get rid of it altogether when they can. 16:09:46 * abadger1999 ah , sees he was this morning 16:09:46 <RemiFedora> yep, a fork 16:09:48 <geppetto2> I guess we could ask to split it ... but it seems like they want to remove it anyway, so meh 16:09:51 <spot> I think I'm okay with an exception based on this. +1 16:10:00 <geppetto2> +1 16:10:06 <limburgher> Me too. +1 16:10:09 <RemiFedora> +1 16:10:23 <limburgher> My only reservation is that this game is a massive timesuck, but that's not jthread's fault. 16:10:48 <abadger1999> I'd like a timeline but I'd be willing to +1 if we could get that. 16:11:21 <spot> okay, so I think that's a +4 (with a possible future +1 from abadger1999). 16:11:48 <limburgher> So we put the +4 in the ticket, ask for the timeline, and then abadger1999 can +1 in the ticket once we get it? 16:12:06 <spot> limburgher: unless SmootherFrOgZ wants to +1, thats the way we'll have to go. 16:12:17 <abadger1999> limburgher: yeah -- and FPC members not present could also vote _1. 16:12:25 <abadger1999> s/_1/+1/ 16:12:37 <limburgher> Is that like a really vehement rejection? :) 16:12:42 <abadger1999> hah :-) 16:13:49 <spot> #action ticket updated with +4 and request for unbundling timeline 16:14:17 <spot> #topic LangPacks Naming Guideline - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/348 16:14:43 <spot> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LangPack is the draft 16:15:02 <spot> seems pretty logical to me 16:15:10 <limburgher> Me too. 16:15:20 <limburgher> And I just discovered I have a hard stop in 15. :( 16:15:39 <spot> I might reword it a bit though 16:16:38 <spot> "Packages that exist solely to contain additional language translations must be named in the syntax <pkgname>-<langcode>, where langcode is a valid language code from /usr/share/xml/iso-codes/iso_639_3.xml or from /usr/share/i18n/locales." 16:17:04 <limburgher> I like that. 16:17:40 <RemiFedora> it seems unclear to me, example welcome ;) 16:17:52 <RemiFedora> shoudl it be foo-fr or foo-fr_FR ? 16:18:18 <spot> geppetto2: which one does yum-langpacks expect? 16:18:19 <paragan> RemiFedora, foo-fr 16:18:43 <RemiFedora> paragan, yes, I know, but looking in /usr/share/i18n/locales this is not obvious ;) 16:18:59 <geppetto2> spot, paragan is the guy you want to ask questions :) 16:19:34 <abadger1999> paragan: where region matters, would it be foo-pt_BR and foo-pt_PT ? 16:19:45 <paragan> abadger1999, yes 16:19:50 <limburgher> Or would foo-pt include both? 16:20:10 <paragan> that is reason I kept path /usr/share/i18n/locales as a reference 16:20:59 <paragan> limburgher, here we need to check what upstream translations are providing 16:21:15 <limburgher> paragan: Logical. 16:22:27 <spot> so, the answer seems to be "either two letter or full locales with region specifiers" ? 16:22:37 <spot> is that accurate? 16:22:43 <paragan> I am not sure how to word it 16:22:58 <paragan> the priority is like first two letter 16:23:14 <paragan> for some languages where region matters we need fill locale 16:23:24 <paragan> like zh_CN, zh_TW, pt_BR 16:23:40 <paragan> s/fill/full/ 16:23:57 <spot> perhaps we should mandate full locale for everything to avoid confusion? 16:24:17 <abadger1999> spot: the problem would be that in some languages, fr would be fine for all regions. 16:24:26 <spot> otherwise, we have a state machine of "when it matters" that isn't always obvious. 16:24:40 <spot> especially if the packager doesn't speak the languages being subpackaged. 16:24:52 <abadger1999> if you had locale that included region always, then you'd have to duplicate the same translation files there. 16:25:04 <spot> abadger1999: hm. 16:25:21 <abadger1999> paragan: would we be able to depend on upstream's filesystem locations? 16:25:24 <spot> is there a list of the locales where region "matters" 16:25:49 <paragan> abadger1999, filesystem location? 16:26:04 <paragan> spot, pt and zh 16:26:23 <spot> paragan: he means "where the files live on the disk, e.g. /usr/share/foo/bar/pt_BR and /usr/share/foo/bar/fr/" 16:26:28 <limburgher> Ok, have to go AFK, will check back and read if you're still meeting at in 35. 16:26:33 <SmootherFrOgZ> sorry, got distracted at dayjob. +1 for the record. 16:27:33 <abadger1999> paragan: like /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/foo.mo <= langcode == fr ;; /usr/share/locale/pt_BR/LC_MESSAGES/foo.mo <= langcode == pt_BR 16:27:51 <paragan> abadger1999, right 16:27:57 <abadger1999> paragan: or do some packages have their own filesystem locations and not use the correct langcode? 16:28:04 <abadger1999> (in the filesystem location) 16:28:35 <spot> if pt and zh are the only ones where region matters, lets just call them out as needing to use region and let everything else use the two letter lang code 16:29:02 <paragan> packages use standard filesystem locations like one you specified above 16:29:52 <RemiFedora> T dont think 16:30:29 <geppetto2> ? 16:30:52 <RemiFedora> ex => /usr/share/pear-data/Horde_Perms/locale/bs/LC_MESSAGES/Horde_Perms.mo 16:30:53 <paragan> abadger1999, but here we need guidelines for yum-langpacks plugin that just parses package names in the repo and decides which packages are available for any language 16:30:59 * spot looks in /usr/share/locale and sees lots of other region specific translations 16:32:12 <spot> Perhaps this could be as simple: "The langcode value used in the package name must match the langcode identifier used in the directory path by upstream for the language translation files." 16:32:14 <paragan> so yum-langpacks is not actually looking for say fr if translations are really available/getting installed in /usr/share/locale/fr/LC_MESSAGES/ 16:32:45 <paragan> it just looks for packages like aspell-fr or hunspell-fr or hyphen-fr and installs them 16:33:11 <abadger1999> spot: that wording and concept seems right to me. paragan, do you agree? 16:33:52 <paragan> this one "Packages that exist solely to contain additional language translations must be named in the syntax <pkgname>-<langcode>, where langcode is a valid language code from /usr/share/xml/iso-codes/iso_639_3.xml or from /usr/share/i18n/locales." 16:35:20 <paragan> above looks good 16:36:40 <spot> how about this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LangPack2 16:37:30 <abadger1999> I think having a little of the justifiction might be good. Maybe something like: "tools such as yum-langpacks depend on the rpm name ending in -<langcode> in order to find requested language packages." 16:37:31 <paragan> looks good 16:37:51 <RemiFedora> spot, clear 16:37:53 <abadger1999> +1 with or without justification addition. 16:38:26 <paragan> if we can add justification that will be more helpful for people who are not aware of yum-langpacks plugin 16:38:36 <spot> okay, i just added some justification wording 16:38:38 <geppetto2> so /usr/share/i18n/locales is supposed to be a directory, right? 16:38:40 <spot> reload https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/LangPack2 16:38:42 <geppetto2> Assuming that +1 16:38:58 <spot> geppetto2: yeah 16:39:00 <SmootherFrOgZ> +1 from me 16:39:03 <spot> i can add a trailing / there 16:39:29 <spot> +1 from me 16:39:31 <spot> i see +4 16:39:32 <geppetto2> additional wording seems great, +1 still :) 16:39:34 <abadger1999> +1 16:39:36 <RemiFedora> +1 16:39:39 * abadger1999 edits grammar 16:39:53 <spot> abadger1999: suehle would be proud of you. ;) 16:40:05 <abadger1999> heh :-) 16:40:26 * spot ninja corrects those "shoulds" to "musts" in the examples 16:40:36 <spot> okay, i see +5 on this 16:41:05 <spot> #action LangPack2 draft approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 16:41:15 <paragan> thank you all for having this discussion and voting 16:41:34 <spot> paragan: thanks for your help 16:42:13 <spot> #topic Bundling exception for LINPACK && DQRDC2 - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/349 16:42:26 <RemiFedora> this one is my fault. 16:43:07 <spot> I think given the circumstances, we should treat LINPACK and DQRDC2 as copylibs 16:43:24 <spot> Unless anyone is really eager to be a new upstream for 30 year old fortran code. 16:43:26 <RemiFedora> besser82 was trying to create a shared library, I think abadger1999 have comment the review 16:43:37 <geppetto2> spot, lol 16:43:51 <RemiFedora> but, this is not possible, because of incompatible license 16:44:33 <RemiFedora> and R already bundled this code, and yes for copylibs (upstream haven't even a build system, only piece of code) 16:44:49 <abadger1999> RemiFedora: do you have that link? I don't recall what I might have said and why ;-) 16:45:08 <geppetto2> I'm going to +1 and try to forget about this, I think 16:45:41 <spot> +1 to treat these as copylibs 16:45:46 <RemiFedora> +1 for copylibs 16:46:00 <SmootherFrOgZ> +1 as well 16:46:29 <geppetto2> +1 16:47:02 <spot> okay, we're at +4 here. 16:47:21 <abadger1999> RemiFedora: Do you have the link to where I commented? 16:47:27 <RemiFedora> abadger1999, sorry, comment was from raccor 16:47:35 <abadger1999> ah okay :-) 16:47:38 <abadger1999> +1 copylib 16:47:45 <RemiFedora> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000829 16:48:47 <spot> #action LINPACK && DQRDC2 are copylibs, exception approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 16:49:39 <RemiFedora> note: the first comment from ralf was about "quick review" (<1h between submit and approval) which is really a problem 16:49:51 <RemiFedora> s/quick/fast/ 16:50:37 <spot> #topic Bundled library exception for codimension-parser - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/350 16:50:53 <abadger1999> Ugh :-( "Any proof for this package being BSD-licensed? The license file contained in this package is added by Björn, but I can't find any upstream evidence linpack is actually licensed BSD." 16:51:01 <abadger1999> sorry, that was about linpack. 16:51:17 * abadger1999 context switches to codimension-parser 16:51:56 <spot> looks like a case of a fork to me. 16:53:01 <RemiFedora> yes 16:54:35 * spot has a hard stop in 5 minutes 16:55:06 <spot> but I'm +1 for this exception (as a static lib only for codimension-parser), maintained fork with no real chance of upstream merge. 16:56:42 <geppetto2> +1 16:56:54 <SmootherFrOgZ> +1 16:56:55 <RemiFedora> +1 fork 16:57:20 <spot> we're at +4 on this 16:58:18 <spot> abadger1999, limburgher ? 16:58:29 * abadger1999 is just trying to find out if the fact they're based on antlr-3.2 instead of 3.5 has any bearing. 16:58:47 <spot> abadger1999: i did a quick search for CVE history and there is none i could see 16:58:51 <abadger1999> but I haven't found an antlr changelog online yet. 17:00:18 <abadger1999> Do we know what they're parsing here? 17:00:21 <spot> abadger1999: i'm going to put the +4 in the ticket, and leave it for you (or any other FPC folks) to vote as needed. 17:00:26 <abadger1999> <nod> wfm 17:02:11 <spot> okay, i think we're done for today. 17:02:13 <spot> thanks everyone. 17:02:19 <spot> #endmeeting