17:00:32 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
17:00:32 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Mar  9 17:00:32 2017 UTC.  The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:32 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:33 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
17:00:33 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:33 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
17:00:39 * limburgher here
17:00:39 <mbooth> hi
17:00:40 <tomspur> hi
17:00:42 <orionp> hello
17:00:44 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
17:00:44 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher
17:00:46 <geppetto> #chair mbooth
17:00:46 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth
17:00:49 <geppetto> #chair orionp
17:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp
17:00:52 <geppetto> #chair tomspur
17:00:52 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp tomspur
17:00:57 <mbooth> Might just make a cuppa tea though
17:01:07 <Rathann> hi
17:01:27 <tibbs> Howdy.
17:02:37 <Rathann> anyone else around?
17:03:01 <tomspur> Yes, we are in the Roll Call
17:04:50 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
17:04:50 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp tibbs tomspur
17:04:53 <geppetto> #chair Rathann
17:04:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp tibbs tomspur
17:04:53 * racor is here
17:05:18 <geppetto> #chair racor
17:05:18 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp racor tibbs tomspur
17:05:25 <geppetto> Ok, that's pretty much everyone
17:05:51 <tibbs> Sadly we just can't get Xavier these days.  His schedule is extremely variable.
17:05:51 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
17:05:53 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/W57X7QUN735RHJ4XJOCQKJLTIOEBT62U/
17:06:05 <geppetto> #topic #613 "provenpackagers" tag
17:06:08 <geppetto> .fpc 613
17:06:10 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #613: "provenpackagers" tag - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/613
17:06:15 <geppetto> So, this is the only thing on the schedule today
17:07:35 <tibbs> I think I've said all I can say about this one in the ticket.
17:08:38 <limburgher> I'm with tibbs.
17:08:51 <tibbs> Basically, if folks actually like the strawman draft I tossed up, we can go with it, but personally I'm still on the fence about how much we want to encourage this kind of thing.
17:08:52 <limburgher> Not, like physically, but. . .
17:08:54 <limburgher> like. . .
17:09:08 <orionp> So the question still out is whether or not to label the specs somehow?
17:09:33 <geppetto> yeh, do we want to label certain packages as being special …
17:09:41 <geppetto> And then how do we do that labeling
17:09:41 <limburgher> I think we shouldn't.  I prefer that we have this to point to when someone Does Bad Things.
17:09:45 <geppetto> Are the two things I see
17:10:15 <geppetto> I'm mostly happy saying "no special packages" and have everyone try to be nice to each other and co-operate
17:10:30 <Rathann> geppetto: +1
17:10:31 <geppetto> But I'll bet $5 on how well that doesn't work.
17:10:39 <limburgher> Most people are capable of Being Excellent.
17:10:44 <tibbs> Yes, most.
17:12:10 <orionp> adamw: Do you want to chime in?
17:12:30 <adamw> wassup?
17:13:05 <orionp> labelling special spec - you said you were in favor - we're not sure how big of an issue it is
17:13:52 <adamw> oh, whoops. i think that comment was meant for a different issue
17:13:54 <adamw> well
17:14:05 <adamw> the case i was commenting on was the 'spec file maintained in a different place' case
17:14:17 <orionp> ah, which we kiboshed :)
17:14:25 <adamw> i thought that had already been addressed by another ticket, though, right?
17:14:46 <adamw> ah yeah. so now you're on the other case, the 'package with special permissions' case?
17:14:54 <limburgher> I think it was addressed by tibbs' delete key. :)
17:15:32 <adamw> having 'special' packages marked would be handy, it is a bit annoying when you make some changes then find you can't commit or build...but it's not the end of the world, you can always turn them into a patch.
17:15:44 <orionp> In general, highlighting issues with packages in the spec seems like a good idea.  documentation = good
17:16:08 <orionp> But I don't know how formal we need to get
17:18:14 <tibbs> That's why I suggested spending a couple of lines at the very top of the spec, with additional explanation elsewhere.
17:18:31 <mbooth> We have in the guidelines, for example, that the packager must, "clearly document, as comments in the package specfile, instances where [the guidelines] cannot be followed."
17:18:43 <geppetto> Yeh, adding wording somewhere that says people should add a comment at the top if they think their spec is special, can't really hurt
17:18:44 <limburgher> mbooth: Nod
17:18:51 <Rathann> I think having a comment at the top of the spec file would be the best, too.
17:19:16 <geppetto> Which is a pretty good non-decision
17:19:19 <geppetto> ;)
17:19:51 <tibbs> And I'm not opposed in general.  I just don't want people thinking that it's OK to say "don't touch MY spec".
17:19:53 <limburgher> I love it when a plan goes away.
17:20:00 <mbooth> geppetto: It's not like we could enforce it either way :-)
17:20:01 <limburgher> tibbs: Right.
17:20:12 <tibbs> Which I guess we already did with the part we approved last week.
17:20:14 <limburgher> My favorite kind of How-To: Don't.
17:20:50 <geppetto> mboddu: It's true.
17:21:26 <geppetto> So do we want to vote on any new wording, or do people think the wording we have coveres that roughly enough already?
17:25:50 <limburgher> Existing is good for me.
17:26:21 <limburgher> That's a fun sentence, out of context.
17:26:40 <tibbs> I'm happy to do nothing.  One important thing to note is that if we have no formalized way to specify this kind of thing then tooling simply can't ignore such packages.
17:26:43 <orionp> I'm fine with what we have, and with an expectation of common sense
17:26:44 * geppetto . o O ( Existing is good )
17:27:07 <tomspur> save for me
17:27:43 <geppetto> tibbs: Do we need that? The auto rebuilds we have now operate on all special packages, right?
17:27:54 <tibbs> As far as I know, yes.
17:30:03 <geppetto> ok, I think we are done with this then
17:30:34 <geppetto> #topic #681 Allocating a static uid and gid for sssd user
17:30:39 <geppetto> .fpc 681
17:30:40 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #681: Allocating a static uid and gid for sssd user - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/681
17:30:45 <geppetto> So this ticket just turned up
17:31:37 <tibbs> As much as I prefer to avoid static UIDs, this is about as good a case as I've seen in a while.
17:31:46 <geppetto> Yeh
17:31:50 <limburgher> As a person generally irritated by static UIdDs, this is logical to me.
17:31:56 <limburgher> tibbs: GET OUT OF MY HEAD
17:31:59 <orionp> yeah, this seems reasonable +1
17:32:01 <Rathann> :)
17:32:02 <limburgher> +1
17:32:04 <tibbs> +1
17:32:07 <Rathann> +1 to sssd
17:33:25 <tomspur> +1
17:33:29 <racor> +1
17:34:25 <geppetto> Ok, that's +6 atm
17:34:27 <geppetto> #chair
17:34:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto limburgher mbooth orionp racor tibbs tomspur
17:34:34 <geppetto> And we have 8
17:34:54 <geppetto> missed orionp, so that's +7
17:35:14 <Rathann> mbooth hasn't voted
17:35:15 <geppetto> mbooth: You are the missing link ;)
17:35:20 <mbooth> +1
17:35:28 <geppetto> #action Allocate a static UID/GID for sssd (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0)
17:35:32 <geppetto> Ok, cool
17:35:36 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
17:35:58 <geppetto> Anything anyone wants to bring up?
17:36:31 <limburgher> Not I, said the duck.
17:36:57 <tomspur> :)
17:37:22 <tibbs> For the first time in a long time, I don't feel like I'm behind on FPC stuff.
17:37:41 <tibbs> Of course, there are still tickets tagged as "committee" which generally means they're waiting on me.
17:38:00 <limburgher> "I am not a committee!" - Leia Organa
17:38:10 * geppetto nods … I have to keep reminding myself that we didn't just accidentally delete all the tickets when we moved to pagure
17:39:09 <tibbs> When pagure isn't dead (which does happen, sadly) I find it a bit easier to deal with than trac.
17:40:38 <geppetto> One thing that was pretty annoying was trac's desire to have me login whenever I wanted to do anything
17:41:01 <geppetto> While pagure does the normal thing and has my session not expire
17:41:09 <geppetto> So that's def a +1 ;)
17:41:22 <tibbs> If you have an active kerberos ticket it shouldn't ever stop and ask you.
17:41:46 <geppetto> I almost never have an active kerberos ticket
17:42:09 <tibbs> trac made you click on the login link; pagure will redirect you through ipsilon which will fall straight through if your browser presents the ticket.
17:42:32 <tibbs> So besides a couple of weird page refreshes it ends up being pretty much transparent.
17:42:41 <geppetto> Ahh
17:43:19 <tibbs> So we'll be at 17 tickets after this meeting's business is closed.
17:43:35 * geppetto nods
17:43:53 <tibbs> If anyone still cares about the tilde-in-version thing, I did add my draft to the end of https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/398.
17:44:09 <geppetto> cool, we can look at that next week or something
17:44:37 <geppetto> But unless anyone shouts I'm going to close the meeting now, and go get some lunch 👍
17:45:02 <tibbs> I think it's more of a complication than a simplification at this point, but I might have missed something.  Anyway, I have no energy to deal with that again for a while.
17:45:11 <tibbs> But yeah, I'm done.  Too much work to do.
17:45:11 * geppetto nods
17:45:18 <geppetto> #endmeeting