16:00:12 #startmeeting fpc 16:00:12 Meeting started Thu May 5 16:00:12 2016 UTC. The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:13 #meetingname fpc 16:00:13 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:13 #topic Roll Call 16:00:17 #chair tibbs 16:00:17 Current chairs: geppetto tibbs 16:00:18 #chair mbooth 16:00:18 Current chairs: geppetto mbooth tibbs 16:00:20 hello 16:00:22 hey 16:00:24 #chair orionp 16:00:24 Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs 16:00:27 hi 16:00:31 * contyk is lurking 16:00:35 Hi 16:00:45 #chair tomspur 16:00:45 Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs tomspur 16:00:51 contyk: that's ok :) 16:00:52 Quickest Quorum eva 16:00:58 probably :) 16:01:21 for some reason I thought a few people said they couldn't make it this week 16:01:22 * ppisar ready for Perl 16:01:47 There is a holiday in Germany 16:01:51 Ahh 16:02:00 so no racor rathan then, I guess? 16:02:00 * tomspur found the time anyway ;) 16:02:24 Cool :) 16:02:33 Well, might as well start then 16:02:52 #topic Schedule 16:03:04 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/AL2GD7TG6WS7N77KADOYIS2LYHRDCP3W/ 16:03:18 #chair Rathann 16:03:18 Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs tomspur 16:03:30 #topic #622 improve description of /run 16:03:34 .fpc 622 16:03:36 geppetto: #622 (improve description of /run) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/622 16:04:06 I think we have sufficient votes, given the two +1s in the ticket. 16:04:13 So with the votes in the ticket I think we are at +6 now … any objects or anything? 16:05:09 I'm fine with it 16:05:19 yup 16:05:25 #action improve description of /run (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 16:05:33 #topic #620 Perl Build-Requires Packaging guidelines update 16:05:39 .fpc 620 16:05:40 geppetto: #620 (Perl Build-Requires Packaging guidelines update) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/620 16:06:01 I have to leave early today, probably in about 30 minutes 16:06:08 Rathann: ok 16:06:15 ppisar: You are up :) 16:06:24 ppisar: Thanks for having a plan to monitor changes 16:06:46 I'm satisfied with the explanations and proposed (build)dependency requirements 16:06:59 so +1 from me 16:07:24 though I thought perl-devel required perl anyway 16:07:30 So do you want perl-generators or perl-build package? 16:07:52 perl-build does make a lot more sense as a name. To me at least. 16:07:56 Rathann: Yes. It's so. Internal details because of some scripts. 16:08:31 so it's enough to BR: perl-devel perl-generators in case 3, right? 16:08:36 I'm happy with this either way. 16:09:23 There is no consistent naming for these packages at the moment, so I'm okay with it remaining inconsistent for now 16:09:32 Though it would be nice to have a scheme 16:09:36 I don't seem the harm in being explicit with the build deps, but if it works without having to list perl explicitly then someone will eventually try to do it. 16:09:48 well, I'm not entirely happy with the name, but I don't think it's worth the effort to rename at this point 16:09:49 Rathann: If guidlines will define it, then perl-devel will guarnatee dependency on perl. 16:10:13 Is there any reason at all that perl-devel wouldn't want to require perl in the future? 16:10:20 Yeh, I think that's pretty normal/reasonable 16:10:26 requiring perl-devel doesn't necessarily bring the perl interpreter to the buildroot 16:10:30 unless you define it that way, yeah 16:10:37 ppisar: I don't want to introduce artificial dependencies - if something in perl-devel requires perl, then it should be so 16:10:56 otherwise it should be BR'd explicitly if necessary 16:11:11 I'm happy to just make it explicit in the guidelines. If packagers do something different and it breaks later, then... they'll have to deal. 16:11:38 though the majority of other -devel packages do require their base package 16:12:21 that's probably because most of the are libraries 16:12:23 perl-devel delivers /usr/bin/h2xs and /usr/bin/perlivp scripts. These have #!/usr/bin/perl, so it pulls perl. But that does not have to be true forever. 16:12:35 ppisar: understood 16:12:37 I would assume that perl-devel pulls in perl-libs 16:12:41 * mbooth shrugs 16:12:49 mbooth: oh, right 16:12:51 But I don't think it matters much 16:12:54 I forgot about perl-libs 16:13:13 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages doesn't specify any kind of dependency from *-devel to the base package. 16:13:47 fair enough 16:13:48 I think we should just let the perl folks decide which dependencies they want to guarantee, and let the guidelines specify build deps accordingly. 16:14:00 tibbs|w: +1 16:14:00 +1 then 16:14:02 mbooth: perl-devel requires "/usr/bin/perl" found by shell bang scanner. 16:14:23 Yeah, I really don't have objections to this as currently drafted 16:14:35 well, the guidelines say you don't have to BR: anything that's pulled in by something else you BR: 16:14:38 I'm +1 16:14:47 I'm +1 too 16:14:49 I'm rather for explicit dependency on perl, especially if the spec files execute perl explicitely. 16:14:54 Ok, +4 now 16:14:57 +1 to the current draft. 16:15:36 And done … tomspur want to vote for the record? 16:16:06 +1 for letting the perl folks decide about the dependencies too :) 16:16:13 #action Perl Build-Requires Packaging guidelines update (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 16:16:18 Ok, cool. 16:16:22 ppisar: Happy sed'ing 16:16:24 Great. 16:16:29 #topic #619 Need a statically reserved uid and gid for heketi 16:16:33 .fpc 619 16:16:34 geppetto: #619 (Need a statically reserved uid and gid for heketi) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/619 16:16:50 Guess I'll go and fix up my perl packages. 16:17:03 Nothing seems to have happened here 16:17:24 Nothing changed, looks like 16:18:07 Which bz 13069154 is mentioned there? 16:18:09 I think we should just stick it in needinfo and pretend it doesn't exist until it's ping time. 16:18:20 * geppetto nods 16:18:26 612 also doesn't seem to have changed 16:18:26 Doesn't seem to be the normal bz. 16:18:29 so … 16:18:33 #topic #610 Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures 16:18:38 .fpc 610 16:18:40 geppetto: #610 (Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/610 16:18:52 Lots of discussion on this, but I don't think anything is ready for a vote. 16:19:11 tibbs: ok, wasn't sure if you had anything … as it seemed like you were pretty close to something 16:19:15 Feel free to try https://pagure.io/gpg-macros 16:19:40 I mean, it's there and there's documentation in the actual macro file. I'll stick that on the main pagure page so you don't have to dig. 16:19:40 #info Please try the signature checking macros: https://pagure.io/gpg-macros 16:19:57 If you check out that repo, you can fedpkg prep or fedpkg mockbuild directly in there. 16:20:45 Feel free to look at https://pagure.io/misc-rpm-macros as well, which formalizes the lua stuff I've been working on. 16:21:05 ok, cool 16:21:15 Cool, I will try the gpg one later 16:21:36 I still have one big feature to implement. 16:21:43 But two things concern me: 16:21:57 Nice, it seems you like working with lua these days :) 16:21:58 If you think the arguments are terrible, please let me know. 16:22:26 And if anyone thinks that actually making a macro for this is a bad idea, please do say so before I spend much more time on it. 16:22:37 (where "this" is the gpg thing). 16:22:48 tomspur: "like" is rather a strong word. 16:23:14 Programming in Lua feels like working on a Commodore 64. There's a language there, but... 16:23:31 Basic ftw ?;) 16:24:23 Really it's just verbose, which makes it looks like I've written some horribly bloated thing when it doesn't do all that much. 16:24:31 tibbs: So what where the two things that concerned you? 16:24:43 As above. 16:24:49 If you think the arguments are terrible, please let me know. 16:24:54 And if anyone thinks that actually making a macro for this is a bad idea, please do say so before I spend much more time on it. 16:24:58 Oh, the arguments and using a macro? 16:25:06 I'm just not sold on how the args work. 16:25:08 Both of those seem fine to me 16:25:26 I mean, doing things by number means that if you renumber your sources, you have to change the macro. 16:26:03 But doing it by filename (which I can actually do) means that if you rename your sources, you have to adjust the macro call, too. 16:26:17 yeah, that's not very convenient 16:26:48 Even if you did it manually, you'd have to include a filename in %prep somewhere, so I don't think it's much worse. 16:27:07 I wonder if you can enumerate the sources to find the one that has .asc or .gpg extensions and use them by default 16:27:09 I would be happy with using a fixed name for the keyring, and using .asc for the signature … which leaves only a single arg. 16:27:09 I think the majority of the setups will just work with no arguments at all, or maybe just -k. 16:27:15 mbooth: I do. 16:27:19 But you way will probably make people happier 16:27:44 Cool 16:27:47 I will probably just do both, because fun, and if someone says that's too much then I can scale it back. 16:28:20 :) 16:28:22 Anyway, will hopefully be done with that today, and can try and mock up a page for the guidelines. 16:28:51 Next step: Get upstreams to sign their sources :-p 16:28:55 But again, I am not really familiar with gpg (still) so someone may need to write or rewrite it. 16:29:00 Oh, and one other thing. 16:29:02 %autosetup. 16:29:16 yeh? 16:29:22 I would like autosetup to accept -G or something, which will call %gpg_verify. 16:29:34 But %autosetup is defined in rpm itself, not redhat-rpm-config. 16:29:56 Can you just do an %autosetup_g ? 16:30:08 I'd prefer not, honestly, but I can. 16:30:19 Now, I can override the definition of %autosetup. Easily. 16:30:29 ha 16:30:31 But I have no idea if that would cause "problems". 16:30:39 yeh, I've no idea 16:30:43 As in, pissing off the rpm people. 16:30:50 ask Panu/Florian? ;) 16:30:56 yeh, email florian, I guess 16:31:00 I wouldn't be too concerned about that to be honest -- it's only trivial jump from writing "-G" to "gpg_verify" 16:31:05 Or having people complain that Fedora RPM is deviating from real RPM. 16:31:24 You're right, of course, but... maybe eventually... just do it without anyone doing anything. 16:31:27 seems worthwhile to get it into rpm upstream 16:31:30 I.e call it unconditionally. 16:31:51 Long term plan? Sure 16:32:02 But if what you have works right now... 16:32:04 And, yes, all of this may be nice to just include upstream, but I really don't want to wait for that to happen. 16:32:29 Anyway, yes, I'll mock up what having it done in %autosetup would look like just for lulz. 16:33:38 I'm done, but if anyone has suggestions... 16:34:03 No, that seems cool 16:34:30 And feel free to file issues in pagure. 16:35:04 it's good enough as it is - automatically detecting the signature for a given source would be nice to have, but it's fine without that, too 16:35:32 It does automatically detect them. It just doesn't actually do anything with them yet. 16:35:42 oh ok 16:35:54 Hopefully later today. 16:36:24 Awesome 16:36:30 #topic Open floor 16:36:42 Fortunately my schedule today appears to be clear. 16:36:46 ok, that's pretty much it … anyone else have anything they'd like to bring up? 16:36:54 nothing from me, thanks 16:37:02 and I have to go anyway 16:37:08 * geppetto nods 16:37:15 thanks for the meeting and take care 16:37:21 Wow, we're really done? 16:37:23 Bye Rathann 16:37:46 20 open tickets. 16:38:15 I never heard back from the pascal guy; I think that his macro package is in F23 now so I should make the update there. 16:38:39 Can we just close 612? 16:38:52 I'm not sure 16:38:58 I think so though 16:39:18 It sort of went off into something else. It's obvious that sphinx has the problem here. 16:39:32 I'd say close it and if someone gets pissed they can just reopen it. 16:39:39 * geppetto nods 16:40:10 #action geppetto Close 612, if anything else is wanted/needed then just reopen and ask. 16:41:03 I should ping the needinfos. 16:41:18 And I need to re-establish context on a couple of my tickets. 16:41:33 And I think I have, now, three writeups to do. 16:42:17 I also need to get back to that removal of useless %defattr thing. 16:42:26 Was supposed to do that after branching, and then I forgot. 16:42:56 So I guess I have plenty to do today. 16:43:32 I wish we could get 591 done, though. 16:44:33 .fpc 591 16:44:34 geppetto: #591 (Description of filtering macros in Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering#Perl is outdated) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/591 16:45:47 It turned into sort of a mess, and I'm not even clear on whether the current guidelines are OK or not. 16:45:52 who needs to be pinged here? zbyszek? 16:46:02 Or ppisar. 16:46:06 And we had him around today. 16:46:14 * geppetto nods 16:47:09 I wrote my opinion in comment #6. 16:47:29 Right, but I just don't know where we go from here. 16:48:17 I can try to bang out a draft based on that comment and then ping in the ticket. 16:49:12 I just wasn't really sure on how much the draft in comment 5 differs from what ppisar suggest in comment 6. I guess I'l try to dig into it. 16:50:03 The issue was with redefining the filters. 16:50:13 Right, you need to preserve the old value. 16:50:49 Is the current %perl_default_filter macro working properly? 16:51:33 I just want to make sure that if we change the guidelines, we're not out of step with reality. 16:52:01 Current perl_default_filter appends. 16:52:06 OK, cool. 16:52:41 I'm all out. 16:52:50 Ok, I'll close in a minute then 16:53:06 Enjoy lunch … and a "free" afternoon playing with lua some more 16:53:10 ;) 16:53:12 :D 16:53:34 See you next week then 16:53:41 * geppetto nods 16:53:48 Bye. 16:54:19 #endmeeting