16:00:51 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
16:00:51 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu May 31 16:00:51 2018 UTC.
16:00:51 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:51 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:51 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:51 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
16:00:51 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
16:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:55 <tibbs> Howdy.
16:00:59 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
16:00:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs
16:01:12 * limburgher here
16:01:15 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
16:01:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher tibbs
16:01:24 <mbooth> Hallo
16:01:41 <redi> I am a bit busy with something today and might not be able to pay much attention here
16:01:45 <redi> but hello
16:01:48 <geppetto> #chair redi
16:01:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher redi tibbs
16:01:54 <geppetto> #chair mbooth
16:01:54 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto limburgher mbooth redi tibbs
16:03:23 <decathorpe> hi everybody, sorry for being late
16:03:42 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe
16:03:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher mbooth redi tibbs
16:03:43 <geppetto> no problem
16:04:06 <tibbs> Three minutes doesn't really count....
16:04:13 <geppetto> 👍
16:04:46 <tibbs> That symbol is tofu for me.
16:05:25 <decathorpe> https://emojipedia.org/thumbs-up-sign/
16:05:28 <tibbs> Ah, U+1F44D "thumbs up sign".
16:05:41 <tibbs> None of my fonts seem to have it.
16:05:49 <tibbs> Certainly this is an important discussion.
16:05:56 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
16:06:06 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/M7VIS55Q4YDQFEJTOLQB34EWDL7OAEVG/
16:06:21 <geppetto> #topic #723 Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review
16:06:24 <geppetto> .fpc 723
16:06:26 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #723: Guidelines for handling deprecated dependencies during review - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/723
16:06:36 <geppetto> lots of discussion happened in this ticket over the last few days
16:07:18 <tibbs> We did approve something, but there was a request for us to add something.
16:07:31 <tibbs> Fortunately I didn't write anything up so there's no work to undo.
16:07:49 <decathorpe> I'm good with an optional date for the virtual provide
16:08:18 <geppetto> yeh, I'm also +1 on the optional date
16:08:21 <tibbs> Yes, me too.
16:08:28 <tibbs> I just don't want to get into policy about it.
16:08:37 <limburgher> Right.
16:09:13 <geppetto> that seems fine
16:09:44 <tibbs> So my proposal was just to say that you can add a date if you have one, and leave out any discussion of what you do with the date or where it comes from.
16:09:53 <decathorpe> +1
16:10:04 <tibbs> Note also that "deprecated" has sort of meant different things.  For example, see https://www.spinics.net/lists/fedora-devel/msg153380.html
16:10:29 <tibbs> I would assume that any major "deprecation" would simply have to go through the standard FESCo change procedure anyway.
16:10:30 <geppetto> tibbs: yeh, your last comment seemed fine to me
16:11:05 <geppetto> do we want to officially vote on on what we proposed last week + the date thing as in tibbs last comment?
16:12:07 <geppetto> Proposal: Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date.
16:12:11 <geppetto> +1
16:12:17 <decathorpe> +1
16:13:41 <tibbs> +1
16:13:45 <mbooth> +1
16:14:08 <geppetto> limburgher: vote ping :)
16:14:21 <geppetto> Going to put churchyard down as a +1 too
16:14:48 <geppetto> redi: vote ping
16:19:39 <decathorpe> zzZ?
16:19:53 <geppetto> maybe
16:19:56 <geppetto> :)
16:20:19 <geppetto> We are at +5, so …
16:20:28 <geppetto> #action Deprecation guideline with no %name but optional date. (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
16:20:44 <geppetto> #topic #743 Add link to C/C++ build flag docs. in redhat-rpm-config
16:20:47 <geppetto> .fpc 743
16:20:48 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #743: Add link to C/C++ build flag documentation in redhat-rpm-config - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/743
16:21:11 <geppetto> So tibbs did a draft:
16:21:13 <geppetto> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RPMMacros
16:23:12 <tibbs> That wasn't really done, though.
16:23:14 <geppetto> tibbs: Anything to say?
16:23:16 * geppetto nods
16:23:33 <geppetto> You think it's better to merge bits of yours into the ticket … or things from the ticket into yours?
16:23:43 <tibbs> That rpmmacros page is a mess; I was trying to make it less of a mess but didn't get very far.
16:24:00 <tibbs> I don't have any good ideas, really.
16:24:11 <geppetto> Fair enough :(
16:24:28 <geppetto> Anything you want to talk about it?
16:24:43 <geppetto> man words, english, etc.
16:25:09 <tibbs> Ignoring my draft, what should we do with the document that Florian wrote up?
16:25:39 <tibbs> Just covering the compiler flag stuff.  Are we OK with that just living outside the guidelines?
16:26:06 <tibbs> My understanding is that he didn't feel like dealing with the committee to just write something, and the document itself lives in the redhat-rpm-config repo for whatever reason.
16:26:10 <geppetto> mbooth: was going to help get the draft into shape … will you have any time for that soon?
16:26:13 <limburgher> Sorry +1 on previous ping
16:26:49 <geppetto> limburgher: cool, thanks.
16:27:09 <tibbs> We could just link to it, I guess.
16:27:22 <mbooth> geppetto: Yep, sorry. Had to move house, which took all my time last few weeks
16:27:31 <mbooth> But freeing up again now
16:27:36 * geppetto nods … ok
16:28:22 <geppetto> #action mbooth should be free to look at draft in next week or two.
16:29:15 <geppetto> tibbs: the specific compiler flags seem fine outside … probably want to mention that we override GCC default flags or something though
16:29:43 <geppetto> #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects
16:29:45 <geppetto> .fpc 719
16:29:48 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #719: Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719
16:30:01 <tibbs> This seems to have gone off the rails somehow.
16:30:14 <geppetto> Yeh, decathorpe had the last comment
16:30:16 <tibbs> I have to run for a few minutes, sorry.
16:31:04 <geppetto> decathorpe: so just is there anything you want to discuss or have us vote on here … no matter how small.
16:31:34 <mbooth> Oof there's a lot to catch up on in this one
16:32:03 <decathorpe> not really. it would be nice if someone in addition to nim could look at my request
16:32:05 <decathorpe> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/24
16:32:56 <decathorpe> which actually implements the middle ground
16:33:09 <geppetto> That's https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/decathorpe/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/74b8dd05bbc696e24d469d9c7e5e4f938cf6d028?branch=master ?
16:33:29 <geppetto> the diff seemed fine, to me … but I really no expert on lua or macros.
16:33:41 <decathorpe> better look at the merged diff at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/24#request_diff
16:34:46 <geppetto> ahh, you do the automatic thing if no date is et?
16:35:11 <decathorpe> no, nim wants to do that. I want to be able to override that.
16:35:33 <decathorpe> so ... if the date is supplied, use it, if it is not, do the automatic thing
16:35:33 <geppetto> as in turn it off?
16:35:51 <geppetto> yeh, that's what I thought I said :)
16:36:10 <decathorpe> you're right
16:36:14 <geppetto> Date is set via. tarball, in the automatic mode, right?
16:36:25 <geppetto> If so I'm fine with it all.
16:36:40 <decathorpe> yes. "automatic mode" uses the modification time of Source0
16:36:45 * geppetto nods
16:36:59 <tibbs> Sorry about that.
16:37:04 <geppetto> no problem
16:37:19 <geppetto> This is the last updated ticket anyway
16:38:15 <tibbs> I'm sort of coming around to allowing the automatic date thing as long as it doesn't cause problems.
16:38:27 <tibbs> I just don't know when it might cause problems....
16:38:34 <geppetto> yeh, this isn't the builddate thing … so it's fine.
16:38:51 <tibbs> Yes, build date was bizarre.
16:39:00 * limburgher shudders
16:39:16 <tibbs> Alternately, we could separately look at whether we still want to require the date to be in the package release info.
16:39:27 <geppetto> ?
16:39:48 <tibbs> Currently if you package a snapshot, we require that the Release: field include the date.
16:40:05 <tibbs> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
16:40:13 <geppetto> yeh, because that's how it goes up
16:40:22 <geppetto> git hashes are random etc.
16:40:33 <tibbs> Well, not really.
16:41:08 <tibbs> We require either N or 0.N previous to the date.  (That's <pkgrel> in the guideline.
16:41:29 <tibbs> The date is really just semantic information, to tell someone who looks how old of a snapshot is packaged.
16:41:39 <decathorpe> yeah, the date can theoretically go backwards and the 0.1 0.2 0.3 still has to increase monotonocally
16:42:05 <tibbs> 0.N is for prerelease snapshots, just N >= 1 for post-release snapshots.
16:42:48 <decathorpe> sure. still, the date is purely informational
16:43:05 <tibbs> Anyway, the idea was that the information is important semantically, but then... using upstream's version on a real release doesn't tell you anything about how old it is.
16:43:33 <tibbs> So even though I've argued for keeping it in the past, I do wonder how much real utility it has.
16:43:44 <tibbs> But that's a distraction from the ticket at hand.
16:44:12 <decathorpe> I agree
16:44:39 <decathorpe> different question, is there even a draft for this which we could vote on?
16:45:08 <geppetto> decathorpe: if you don't know about one then no :)
16:46:08 <decathorpe> I'm not sure if the linked wiki pages are still up to date.
16:46:19 <tibbs> The only reason I brought up the date thing is because it would render the remaining issue in 719 moot.
16:46:28 <decathorpe> sure
16:46:51 <decathorpe> I just didn't open that can of worms in this ticket ;)
16:48:25 <tibbs> I will try to look at your pull request.  For some reason I didn't get a notification about it.
16:48:48 <decathorpe> thanks!
16:51:28 <decathorpe> Well, if since nothing has happened during the last week, I don't think we have to discuss this ticket further
16:51:53 <decathorpe> I'll ask for a link to an up-to-date Draft on the ticket.
17:03:06 <tibbs> Are we done?  Or did I lag out?
17:03:17 <geppetto> Yeh.
17:03:23 <geppetto> Forgot to move to open flor
17:03:29 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
17:03:33 <geppetto> Antyhing quick?
17:03:39 <limburgher> No.
17:03:56 <decathorpe> nope
17:04:12 <tibbs> Nothing for me.  I just need to write up 723 and announce it.
17:04:37 <geppetto> #info limburgher also voted +1 on ticket #743
17:05:04 <geppetto> Ok, see you all next week. With any luck we won't all be doing 3 things at once :)
17:05:18 <geppetto> #endmeeting