17:00:12 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
17:00:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar  3 17:00:12 2016 UTC.  The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:12 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
17:00:12 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
17:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:18 <mbooth> Hi
17:00:24 <tibbs> Howdy.
17:00:25 <geppetto> #chair mbooth
17:00:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth
17:00:27 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
17:00:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth tibbs
17:00:54 * limburgher is here for the first time in months
17:01:00 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
17:01:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth tibbs
17:01:04 <tibbs> !!!
17:01:10 <limburgher> I know, right?
17:01:13 <mbooth> limburgher: Welcome back!
17:01:31 <limburgher> Thanks!  Sorry for the absence, life has been very full.
17:01:41 <limburgher> Still is, but it's a slow day.  Knock on wood.
17:02:14 <geppetto> Cool
17:03:30 <geppetto> Well orionp is around, so that should make 5
17:03:41 <geppetto> Just have to wait for him to join :)
17:03:50 <limburgher> Good, I was afraid I come back and we'd not have quorum. :)
17:04:04 <geppetto> It's always possible ;)
17:04:35 <limburgher> He should show up, I'm working on a BZ he filed. . .that's been known to summon people before.
17:04:54 <geppetto> ha
17:05:06 <limburgher> ./configure ; make ; make salt-circle
17:05:19 <geppetto> Ahh, you trap them
17:05:30 <limburgher> Ideally.
17:07:20 <geppetto> #chair tomspur
17:07:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth tibbs tomspur
17:07:27 <tomspur> Hi, sorry for being late
17:07:31 <geppetto> Well you aren't orionp … but you'll do ;)
17:07:36 <limburgher> Hey tompsur, have you had a chance to think about agg?
17:08:14 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
17:08:17 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CBDHISBYD6ABTHLOMAEOHYJFKTWFSTSQ/
17:08:25 <geppetto> #topic #600 %systemd_requires macro
17:08:27 <geppetto> .fpc 600
17:08:28 <zodbot> geppetto: #600 (%systemd_requires macro) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/600
17:08:33 <tomspur> limburgher: Sounds fine to me. I just haven't had the time to use the bundled agg...
17:09:23 <limburgher> Ok.  Let me know in 1310465 when you have, so I can retire it without causing a potential FTBFS.
17:09:33 <limburgher> Or broken dep for that matter.
17:11:00 <tomspur> limburgher: Will do so. Thanks!
17:11:19 <geppetto> I can't remember what the difference is between Requires and Requires(post): / etc.
17:11:27 <geppetto> So I'm happy to allow this now.
17:11:33 <tomspur> limburgher: It's quite bad, that there are changes to the bundled agg and upstream seems to have disappeared (last time I looked at least)
17:11:46 <geppetto> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
17:11:52 <limburgher> My only concern would be if upstream were to change the macro for some reason.
17:12:05 <geppetto> To add more requires?
17:12:13 <limburgher> Or remove.
17:12:24 <tomspur> Where does toshio came up with the note to have %post/%preun not in the macro? It's not stated (yet) in the proposal like that
17:13:09 <geppetto> tomspur: We've generally not allowed having sections in macros, because it doesn't scale and make everything harder
17:13:14 <geppetto> Well, some things
17:14:20 <tibbs> In the past I think the prevailing opinion was that we have to be careful with hiding things behind macros.
17:14:51 <tibbs> Personally I'm past that.  For a basic daemon I'd hide all of the systemd interaction behind one macro.
17:15:06 <tibbs> But... that's not actually easy to do.
17:15:08 <geppetto> yeh, if we could
17:15:34 <tibbs> More magical things have happened.  There's probably a way to do it.
17:15:41 <limburgher> And it's such a living project, I'd be hesitant.  It's not like sysv, which didn't change much for ages.
17:15:56 <tibbs> But for now, upstream actually provides this macro.  We just have this thing which says "don't use it".
17:15:58 <limburgher> I doubt these Requires: would change but you never know.
17:16:25 <tibbs> Actually, they have just recently changed.
17:16:39 <tibbs> And that wouldn't be a big deal if people were using the macro.
17:16:43 <limburgher> I would hope that upstream would update the macro on in ways that would work with that version of systemd.  If they did, it's possible that we might need mass rebuilds due to a systemd update.
17:17:44 <geppetto> Well if the requires change in that way we'd need the mass rebuild anyway … just with the macro it could be automated, without it people need to change the specfiles requires as well
17:17:59 <limburgher> Right.
17:18:21 <limburgher> But this is all probably just me overthinking(whaaaaat?) and it's fine to allow this.
17:18:21 <mbooth> I'd be happy for people to use the %systemd_requires macro as is -- just remove the restriction from the guidelines
17:18:28 <limburgher> mbooth +1
17:18:37 <tibbs> +1
17:19:06 <geppetto> +1
17:19:35 <geppetto> tomspur: vote?
17:20:09 <tomspur> +1
17:20:41 <limburgher> Crap.  So, I have a hard stop in 10 minutes.  After that I'm happy to vote in tickets when I get back in a couple hours.  Had to open my mouth. . .
17:21:23 <geppetto> #action Don't ban systemd_requires macro, or other Requires(scriptlet) macros (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:21:35 <geppetto> #topic #601 Standard macro for RPM macro directory
17:21:39 <geppetto> .fpc 601
17:21:40 <zodbot> geppetto: #601 (Standard macro for RPM macro directory) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/601
17:21:58 <geppetto> Ok, anyone have a priority for 602 or 605?
17:22:23 <limburgher> 601 +1
17:22:33 <tibbs> I don't really think we need to go into 601 much; I just wanted to see if anyone had any objections.
17:22:37 <limburgher> I'd rather do 602
17:22:41 <geppetto> Seems trivial to me, +1
17:23:28 <tibbs> We have a number of bits of boilerplate and EPEL differences and such that can go away if I add a quick macro.
17:23:34 * geppetto nods
17:23:38 <limburgher> That would be loverly.
17:23:48 <mbooth> +1 # Thoroughly sensible suggestion
17:23:50 <geppetto> tomspur: mbooth: You want to vote quickly?
17:24:56 <geppetto> tomspur: ?
17:25:34 <geppetto> #chair orionp
17:25:34 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp tibbs tomspur
17:25:40 <geppetto> Let's come back to that in a min.
17:25:47 <geppetto> #topic #602 Mono packages must have ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches}
17:25:50 <geppetto> .fpc 602
17:25:53 <zodbot> geppetto: #602 (Mono packages must have ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches}) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/602
17:26:14 <limburgher> This also seems sensible. +1
17:26:50 <geppetto> I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't dealt with automatically via. requires
17:28:01 <geppetto> But I think I'm fine with it
17:28:39 <tibbs> I thought that there was some other problem with this, but I can't remember.
17:28:58 <tibbs> Are the momo packages noarch or something like that?
17:29:07 <tomspur> sorry, the phone doesn't stop ringing here...
17:29:10 <geppetto> The only thing I can think of is in some perfect future where it works on all arches
17:29:18 <geppetto> But I'm not going to hold my breath for that
17:29:22 <orionp> koji will build noarch packages on any arch
17:29:31 <mbooth> There was a problem with rpm, IIRC
17:29:38 <mbooth> But has been fixed upstream: http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=commit;h=d53499d1565dd7ba6d93939e552cc604b26dccd7
17:29:42 <orionp> regardless of ExclusiveArch/ExcludeArch
17:30:27 <mbooth> I assume it will be as orionp says until that commit gets into Fedora
17:30:27 * geppetto nods … we had that discussion with dennis about something else
17:30:40 <limburgher> If this isn't needed, that's great, but if it is, I'm still +1.  I'm off, please let me know if my vote is needed in anything.
17:30:43 <orionp> mbooth, no -that's for rpm, not koji
17:31:25 <mbooth> orionp: Did koji not require such a change in rpm? I forget the discussions now
17:31:40 <orionp> two separate issues really
17:31:45 <mbooth> Aha
17:32:49 <orionp> But yeah, mono packages should be excluded from architectures without mono
17:33:07 <orionp> Is there an actual draft here?
17:33:30 <geppetto> The second paragraph, I guess
17:33:49 <geppetto> Well, bits of that.
17:34:25 <dgilmore> orionp: mbooth: the rpm change is kinda pointless
17:34:37 <orionp> Also, even though we consider mono packages to be architecture independent, they must not be marked as "noarch". Although the assemblies are the same, the files may differ due to strings referring to the build architecture.
17:35:57 <orionp> So not even a concern here
17:36:15 <tibbs> Ah.
17:36:25 <orionp> (That's from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Mono)
17:36:42 <tibbs> I haven't kept up with what mono actually needs.
17:37:15 <geppetto> Ok, so everyone is happy to add this?
17:37:18 <geppetto> +1
17:37:20 <tibbs> But if they aren't noarch, this this is kind of a no-brainer as long as I can figure out what in that ticket actually goes into the guidelines.
17:37:22 <tibbs> +1
17:37:22 <RaphGro> hi, I'm the requester for that mono change.
17:37:30 <RaphGro> sorry, been away
17:38:15 <RaphGro> noarch is not possible for mono
17:39:27 <orionp> RaphGro, do you have actual proposed text for the guidelines?
17:40:22 <RaphGro> well, it's confusing currently in the guidelines at several places.
17:41:28 <tibbs> Then.... list out those places, and tell us in the ticket how they should be cyhanged to make them not confusing.
17:41:50 <RaphGro> maybe "As we do not have mono working on all supported architectures, e.g. especially secondary arches, packages for mono must actually have ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches}"
17:42:16 <RaphGro> tibbs, links are listed in the ticket. sorry, if I did it wrongly.
17:42:19 <geppetto> s/actually//
17:42:37 <geppetto> Seems fine to me. +1
17:42:47 * geppetto is going to assume limburgher is +1
17:43:34 <mbooth> RaphGro: I don't think it's confusing, this part should direct you to the mono-specific guidelines "Sometimes a language runtime you are packaging for will provide a macro for the arches it's available on, for instance, %{nodejs_arches}. .... Take a look at the Guidelines for the language to see if such a macro exists."
17:43:57 <RaphGro> mbooth, +1
17:44:06 <RaphGro> simply add mono as another sample
17:44:35 <RaphGro> but I still insist on mentioning it on the mono page, explicitly.
17:45:30 <mbooth> Sure, I'm just saying the main guidelines don't necessarily need changing
17:45:44 <RaphGro> well, we can not go through all that with every new package. the mono page should have all specifics.
17:46:37 <RaphGro> although, I managed to have a general spec template. maybe I can provide that sometimes for publicity.
17:46:43 <RaphGro> for mono *
17:49:10 <mbooth> RaphGro: If you have more stuff to add, can you draft the changes you'd like to see for the mono-specific page?
17:49:25 <RaphGro> nothing else currently
17:50:10 <mbooth> Okay, so if the proposal is to add "As we do not have mono working on all supported architectures, e.g. especially secondary arches, packages for mono must have ExclusiveArch: %{mono_arches}" to the mono page
17:50:15 <mbooth> I can +1 that
17:50:18 <RaphGro> we have bigger problem currently with upstream refusal to support newer dotNET version, but that's offtopic here.
17:50:48 <RaphGro> +1
17:52:22 <geppetto> tibbs: tomspur: orionp: vote?
17:52:39 <tibbs> Sorry, I was +1 above.
17:53:18 <geppetto> Ok, that's +4 … need one more to pass
17:53:51 <RaphGro> come on, let's go
17:54:37 <RaphGro> s|go|pass it|
17:55:50 * tomspur catches up sorry
17:57:12 <tomspur> +1
17:58:01 <geppetto> #action Add exclusive arch, via mono_arches macro, to all mono packages (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:58:06 <geppetto> Ok, done.
17:58:12 <geppetto> Let's go back to 601
17:58:20 <geppetto> #topic #601 Standard macro for RPM macro directory
17:58:24 <geppetto> .fpc 601
17:58:26 <zodbot> geppetto: #601 (Standard macro for RPM macro directory) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/601
17:59:07 <geppetto> I believe we have +1s from me, limburgher, mbooth
17:59:08 <tomspur> +1 as well
17:59:21 <tibbs> +1 from me, obviously
17:59:40 <geppetto> Ahh, that's right tiibs proposed it, I thought we were closer :)
17:59:48 <geppetto> #action Standard macro for RPM macro dir. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:59:59 <geppetto> #topic #605 Bootstrapping exception for GPRbuild
18:00:02 <tibbs> Thanks.  Looks like I have some work to do now.
18:00:04 <geppetto> .fpc 605
18:00:06 <zodbot> geppetto: #605 (Bootstrapping exception for GPRbuild) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/605
18:00:13 <tibbs> Was +1 to 605 in the ticket
18:00:18 <Rombobeorn> I'm here in case anyone has questions.
18:00:41 * geppetto nods … seems fine
18:00:47 <geppetto> +1
18:00:52 <mbooth> +1
18:01:06 <mbooth> Rombobeorn: This is a standard situation :-)
18:01:13 <tomspur> Cannot the package be untaged in case 2?
18:02:00 <geppetto> It can, but I think it's faster to not?
18:02:15 <mbooth> Yeah, but that doesn't change this still needs approval for case 1
18:02:17 <Rombobeorn> Case 2 already happened once, and I was told that untagging wasn't possible:
18:02:19 <Rombobeorn> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6335
18:02:41 <geppetto> #info Untagging not possible to solve case 2: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6335
18:03:04 <tomspur> Rombobeorn: Interesting, thanks for that info
18:03:05 <mbooth> Ah, you'd pushed an update to the mirrors -- of course cannot be untagged in that case
18:03:46 <tomspur> yeah
18:03:46 <tomspur> +1
18:03:47 <Rombobeorn> It was Rawhide. Push to mirrors happens automatically.
18:03:47 <geppetto> #info Case 2 happens after pushes to mirrors.
18:04:16 <geppetto> #action Bootstrap exception for GPRbuild (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
18:04:20 <geppetto> Ok
18:04:29 <Rombobeorn> Thanks guys.
18:04:33 <geppetto> That's all the new tickets
18:04:42 <geppetto> And we're over an hour
18:04:48 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
18:04:51 <mjw> This might be the wrong meeting, but I was wondering if someone wanted to look at and maybe provide some feedback on https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/G77B5C4U47YLO6Q5DIP72Y2ST3D2F56T/
18:04:55 <mjw> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ParallelInstallableDebuginfo
18:05:06 <mbooth> Rombobeorn: Rawhide push to mirrors happen daily -- you can still test rebuilding itself before that happens and untag if necessary
18:05:07 <mjw> Or where I should ask for feedback
18:05:22 <RaphGro> mjw, TBH I do not understand your intention
18:05:45 <mjw> I am fairly confident about the actual changes needed for DWARF producers and consumers and can create patches upstream for that.
18:06:03 <tibbs> mjw: I don't think that impacts packaging in any particular way; debuginfo packages are generated magically by RPM.
18:06:12 <mjw> But maybe I am overlooking something on the packaging side
18:06:23 <tibbs> I assume any necessary changes will go into the macros which generate the debuginfo subpackages.
18:06:42 <mjw> RaphGro, where/how should I better document that?
18:07:11 <mjw> tibbs, well, the rpm debugedit program, find-debuginfo.sh script, etc. yeah
18:07:33 <mjw> I tried to document the needed changes in the Detailed Description
18:08:00 <mjw> But I haven't actually written the patches yet. Maybe more is needed if I missed some details. I think it is complete though.
18:09:34 <tibbs> Anyway, as far as FPC is concerned, I don't think there's anyhing to do.
18:09:47 <mjw> Note I am fairly new to this fedora feature request thing. Feel free to just point me towards a forum that can help me get all the bureaucratics right.
18:09:50 <geppetto> Yeh
18:10:04 <tibbs> Unless there are situations where packagers will need to make changes to their packages, or examples in the guidelines that are invalidated by the changes.
18:10:12 <mbooth> mjw: "causing lots of confusion" -- this has bit me before, I appreciate seeing this change :-)
18:11:05 <mjw> tibbs, If I tought everything through, then no changes (except to the upstream DWARF producers and rmp debugedit/find-debuginfo.sh scripts) should be needed.
18:11:25 <mjw> I might have missed some detail of course. Which is why I am asking for feedback :)
18:13:03 <tomspur> "There should be no changes necessary to ... abrt" -> I'd ask for feedback on this from those package maintainers to have a quick look?
18:13:51 <mbooth> mjw: It looks okay to me at first blush, and you posted to devel@, so I would take lack of dissent as silent assent ;-)
18:14:10 <mjw> ok, so this is mostly one-on-one between packagers. Can do of course.
18:14:40 <mjw> mbooth, grin. OK. I hope I don't break anything. But I am sure people will tell me when I do :)
18:14:45 <tomspur> mjw: Maybe it is completely fine as is and you haven't heard anything yet because of that ;)
18:15:17 <mjw> Thanks. I'll contact the packages/upstreams mentioned and start hacking then.
18:15:58 <mbooth> mjw: Oh would this necessitate a mass rebuild?
18:16:13 <mbooth> Probably worth noting on the proposal if so
18:16:49 <mjw> mbooth, not necessarily. But of course the feature won't work for any package not rebuild.
18:20:16 <geppetto> Ok, anything else?
18:20:58 <geppetto> mjw: One minor question … are you planning on "dnf upgrade" doing the same thing if someone has debuginfo packages installed? Or will it start multi installing them?
18:20:59 <tibbs> Nothing from me, and I have to head out soon anyway.
18:21:03 * geppetto nods
18:21:43 <geppetto> Ok, I'll close in a couple of minutes or so then.
18:23:24 <mjw> geppetto, good question. I need to discuss with the dnf hackers. I am assuming people will manage their debuginfo packages with the dnf debuginf-install plugin and that I only need to make sure that has a flag for parallel installable versions.
18:23:53 * geppetto nods
18:24:05 <geppetto> #endmeeting