16:03:54 #startmeeting fpc 16:03:54 Meeting started Thu May 12 16:03:54 2016 UTC. The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:03:54 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:03:54 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:03:54 #meetingname fpc 16:03:54 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:03:54 #topic Roll Call 16:04:08 bah, other meeting was way over again 16:05:14 Howdy. 16:05:19 o/ 16:05:24 Hi 16:06:03 #chair tibbs 16:06:03 Current chairs: geppetto tibbs 16:06:05 #chair Rathann|Mobile 16:06:05 Current chairs: Rathann|Mobile geppetto tibbs 16:06:09 #chair racor 16:06:09 Current chairs: Rathann|Mobile geppetto racor tibbs 16:06:31 Hey 16:06:41 hello 16:06:43 #chair mbooth 16:06:43 Current chairs: Rathann|Mobile geppetto mbooth racor tibbs 16:06:45 #chair orionp 16:06:45 Current chairs: Rathann|Mobile geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs 16:09:48 * tomspur is here, but I might leave early again... 16:09:56 #chair tomspur 16:09:56 Current chairs: Rathann|Mobile geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs tomspur 16:10:08 Ok, that's 6 … let's see what happens. 16:10:25 #topic Schedule 16:10:29 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LSNMDKQ7T35KHDW4UNNK5WFAFR2YPXDB/ 16:10:40 #topic #623 FHS 3.0 (from 2015) DOES now mention libexecdir and /run 16:10:45 .fpc 623 16:10:47 geppetto: #623 (FHS 3.0 (from 2015) DOES now mention libexecdir and /run) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/623 16:11:32 We should definitely update to reflect reality. 16:12:02 yeh, the change seemed fine to me 16:12:07 Unfortunately the draft isn't diffable. We can't see what was changed. 16:12:30 I mean, we can do a visual comparison. 16:13:04 the only thing I was slightly worrid about was that AFAIK we don't have anyone on FHS … and not good things had been said about it in the past, so how much do we want to point to it? 16:13:08 * geppetto nods 16:13:40 I'd prefer a non-versioned link, perhaps http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml ? 16:14:27 seems fine to me 16:14:37 +1 and we can do s/unlike previous versions/starting from version 3.0/ in the Libexecdir section 16:14:58 either way, I'm +1 16:15:29 Other than that I'm +1 16:15:41 I wonder, can we just say that we follow FHS and not say much else? 16:16:10 At least, do we really still need the libexecdir section? 16:16:21 probably not 16:16:27 tibbs|w: I don't think we can 16:16:40 but the /usr/target mention should stay 16:17:01 Yes, so /usr/target needs to be there. 16:17:25 Did FHS 3 clear up the issue in the admon|note block? 16:17:34 "Some interpretations of the FHS say...." 16:17:52 tibbs|w: Too much of the FHS is optional, which IMO means we should "fill" with more specific contents 16:18:11 But I'm just asking about the text as presented. 16:18:32 "Distributions should not create new directories in the root hierarchy without extremely careful consideration of the consequences including for application portability." 16:19:12 "Large software packages must not use a direct subdirectory under the /usr hierarchy." 16:19:55 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard_Version_3.0_%282015%29 removes the version-specific link and the libexec section. 16:20:27 +1 16:20:38 More edits in progress. 16:21:55 Saved, but someone is at the door. 16:24:28 Seems good to me 16:24:31 Not this? "Fedora does not allow new directories under / or /usr without FPC approval." 16:24:48 Did you intentionally lose the ban on new dirs in the root? 16:26:10 OK, back. 16:26:10 Well, the FHS does pretty strongly discourage both (see wording above). But I'd be fine with "/ or /usr" 16:26:30 Does FHS not already ban new dirs in the root? 16:26:52 I can make it explicit, sure. 16:27:39 Edited. Added "directly" because someone would argue. 16:27:59 :) 16:28:48 seems fine to me 16:29:09 and only slightly worried that the fhs 3.1 will do something stupid we don't like ;) 16:29:53 We can make it version-specific if we really want. 16:30:17 But... I certainly haven't reviewed 3.0 to see if it does something we don't like. 16:30:23 * geppetto nods 16:30:51 This draft looks fine to me, short and to the point :-) 16:30:52 +1 16:31:04 +1 16:31:40 +1 16:31:51 +1 16:32:02 tomspur: orionp: racor: Rathann|Mobile: vote? 16:32:07 +1 16:32:14 +1 16:32:15 +1 16:32:29 ok 16:33:05 #action Adopt FHS3, apart from /usr/target and top level dirs. new page from tibbs (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) 16:33:15 #topic #610 Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures 16:33:18 .fpc 610 16:33:21 geppetto: #610 (Packaging guidelines: Check upstream tarball signatures) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/610 16:33:43 Well, I an pretty much done with the macro, modulo people testing it for bugs. 16:34:18 so you want us to vote on putting it in? 16:34:22 The last issue in that ticket was only a problem with the sample spec (put BuildArch: in the wrong place), not the macro itself. 16:34:50 * geppetto nods … I didn't expect order to matter that much 16:34:54 Well, I don't know who has tested it. But if we can agree that adding and documenting that macro is the way to go, then we can do that. 16:35:17 geppetto: You wouldn't, but BuildArch: can trigger a complete spec reparse which makes for fun. 16:35:36 Ahh 16:36:09 Nuts. That's what you get for peeking behind the curtain 16:36:25 I guess I enjoy the pain. 16:37:08 In any case, I'm +1 for adding and documenting the %gpg_verify macro. But I think FPC will want to see a draft before an actual vote. And another week of testing won't hurt. 16:37:49 Isn't it automatic now … so what would the draft say? 16:38:10 Well, automatic only with %autosetup, I guess … and you need to put the keys and signature in Source 16:38:37 Doing this within %autosetup is pretty much another topic. 16:39:41 As implemented, it has the potential to break package builds, because it makes signature verification mandatory but has no way to auto-buildrequire gpg2. 16:40:29 Well, and the fact that there's no choice but to hang some things on filenames, because un-armored sigs and keys have no file format at all. They're just binary data with no identifying metadata. 16:41:02 So I'll draft up %gpg_verify now and we can discuss %autosetup after I've had a chance to prep every package in Fedora to find breakage. 16:41:10 ok 16:42:38 So I'll get to drafting that. 16:43:00 Cool 16:43:03 #topic Open Floor 16:43:07 Anyuthing else? 16:43:16 One new thing came in, I think. 16:43:33 .fpc 624 16:43:34 tibbs|w: #624 (Drop references to /bin and /sbin) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/624 16:43:37 Looks easy. 16:44:00 I think we can just remove that one-line section. 16:44:04 #topic #624 Drop references to /bin and /sbin 16:44:17 +1 16:44:22 +1 16:44:41 +1 16:45:07 * tomspur needs to leave. See you next week 16:45:14 We could probably also remove the "Effect of the UsrMove Fedora Feature" section. 16:45:26 It's been a done deal for a long time now. 16:45:36 +1 16:46:08 But maybe not, if the dependency implications haven't been worked out. 16:46:15 I don't know if that's still a thing. 16:46:37 Deps are still an issue I'm pretty sure 16:46:51 +1 to #624 16:47:03 +1 to #624 16:47:10 +1 16:47:17 Still +1. 16:47:30 I'll leave the "Effect of the Usermove" section alone. 16:48:16 Ok 16:48:51 I think, the ""Effects of the UsrMov" have not fully settled ;) 16:49:14 I think we've just learned to live with the remaining problems. 16:49:15 #action Drop references to /bin and /sbin not linking to /usr/lib* (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) 16:49:26 #topic Open Floor 16:49:37 There was one other thing which is getting discussion. 16:49:44 yeh? 16:49:58 .fpc 558 16:50:00 tibbs|w: #558 (Application/Library distinction and package splitting) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 16:50:12 I've lost track of the real issue here. 16:50:39 People keep saying the python spec is wrong, but I don't see how it is wrong (modulo a timing bug in setuptools we have to work around in the macros). 16:52:09 I think at this point orionp understands the python stuff far better than I do. 16:52:21 But if I actually need to change something there, I'm just not sure what it is. 16:53:49 I'll try to take a look at this again, but I don't have anything at the moment. Looks like python people have been doing some work lately.. 16:54:14 Well, people are complaining and snarking about the guidelines still being wrong. 16:54:43 But as far as I can tell, that just stems from confusion about what "python3 as default" really means. 16:54:51 That phrasing has been confusing since day 1. 16:55:28 yeh, blame upstream for making a different and incompatible language 16:56:09 true, but then blame us for saying "python3 is default" while /usr/bin/python is going to stay python2 for ages. 16:58:44 Anyway, I guess I'm just lost there. 16:59:22 So *I'll leave it alone. But if someone knows what the real problem is there, please let me know. 16:59:37 I guess I still owe a draft on the difference between an application and a library/module. 17:00:33 So, lots of drafting. 17:00:52 :( 17:01:07 There are two tickets in writeup waiting on me; one requires that I cook up another macro. The other requires that I actually push updates to redhat-rpm-config. 17:01:34 Those will get written up once the updates worm their ways through the system. 17:02:31 sounds fair 17:02:48 anything else, or I'll close in a couple of minutes? 17:02:59 Just keeping everyone apprised of the progress, or lack thereof. 17:03:27 * geppetto nods … lots of updates/progress :) 17:03:51 I would really like to clear my list. 17:04:11 If I could just finish these two pending package reviews that have been stalled on me forever, I could move on to other fun things. 17:04:12 I've looked at the "macro" behind the gpg_verify stuff … lots of sacrificed chickens there ;) 17:04:26 It's not that bad. 17:04:51 * geppetto nods … just lots of work. 17:04:56 Lua is just really verbose. 17:05:16 There are plenty of WFT moments, though. 17:05:36 Like why the first line of lua output doesn't make it into the RPM. 17:05:45 But only in some circumstances. 17:06:00 There is another thing I cooked up which should be useful, and I need to draft it. 17:06:02 ? :-o 17:06:08 Cool 17:06:27 orionp pointed out that you can't use %autosetup if you have conditionally applied patches. 17:06:40 ahh 17:06:52 I did? 17:07:02 So I cooked up something which removes a patch from autosetup. 17:07:08 :) 17:07:11 orionp: I'm wrong, it was gholms. 17:08:01 You can do it in plain lua easily enough but you have to number your patches consecutively from 0. 17:08:29 https://pagure.io/misc-rpm-macros 17:08:37 * geppetto nods … I looked at that 17:09:28 Ok, time for lunch 17:09:37 #endmeeting