16:00:11 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
16:00:11 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Aug 30 16:00:11 2018 UTC.
16:00:11 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:11 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:11 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:35 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
16:00:35 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:35 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
16:00:55 <redi> howdy
16:01:27 <geppetto> #chair redi
16:01:27 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto redi
16:01:57 <geppetto> Hey, everything ok last week redi?
16:02:00 <mhroncok> hi
16:02:08 <geppetto> #chair mhroncok
16:02:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mhroncok redi
16:02:44 <decathorpe> .hello2
16:02:45 <zodbot> decathorpe: decathorpe 'None' <decathorpe@gmail.com>
16:03:20 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe
16:03:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto mhroncok redi
16:05:59 <tibbs> Got called away; sorry.
16:06:04 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
16:06:04 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto mhroncok redi tibbs
16:06:08 <geppetto> no problem … here now :)
16:06:09 <tibbs> I should be able to sit down for a while now.
16:07:07 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
16:07:08 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SNK64NH3GJAAB3OUMRDSDUSNEU3FE6ZD/
16:07:30 <geppetto> #topic #792 Proposal for "What Can Be Packaged" document
16:07:36 <geppetto> .fpc 792
16:07:38 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #792: Proposal for "What Can Be Packaged" document - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/792
16:07:56 <geppetto> tibbs: You opened this?
16:08:02 <tibbs> Yeah.
16:08:21 <tibbs> There was that question about whether additional kernels can be packaged.
16:08:29 <tibbs> The answer is no, but that's not written down anywhere.
16:08:30 <geppetto> ahh
16:08:50 <tibbs> Since we have a whole section on what can be packaged, people will look to us to answer that kind of question.
16:09:21 <mhroncok> tibbs: where si the original text come from?
16:09:28 <tibbs> Since it's not super short, I figure it should be a separate document, so I pulled out what we have now, cleaned it up a bit and added the section on the kernel.
16:09:43 <tibbs> It comes from early in the main guidelines page.
16:09:47 <mhroncok> out what we have now > that's what I'm searching for
16:09:59 <mhroncok> I man I have seen this soemhere, but I must be stupid I don't know where
16:10:18 <tibbs> It starts at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Legal
16:10:20 <mhroncok> Code Vs Content etc.
16:10:28 <mhroncok> I see it now. tahnks
16:10:45 <tibbs> Unfortunately the wiki broke and somehow didn't save the initial copy I made.
16:11:15 <tibbs> So some of the cleanup isn't visible in a diff.  But it was basically just a spelling fix.
16:11:23 <decathorpe> related: who was working on converting the Packaging Guidelines to git/rST? ;)
16:11:24 <redi> I like the draft
16:11:30 <tibbs> "permissable" isn't a word, after all.
16:11:31 <mhroncok> wiki does that recently, i need to save twice
16:11:58 <tibbs> I did open a ticket for the wiki problem.
16:12:09 <mhroncok> thanks
16:12:21 <mhroncok> permissable seems to be Uk word
16:12:30 * mhroncok is not english expert, so no idea
16:13:05 <tibbs> As far as I can tell, it's just a common typo.
16:13:24 <geppetto> well I thought it was a word … so it might be me, or it might be a uk thing
16:13:50 <tibbs> Oxford English dictionary: No dictionary entries found for ‘permissable’.
16:14:06 <mhroncok> oh, it was google that corrected it for me
16:14:09 <geppetto> fair enough
16:15:10 <geppetto> ha
16:15:11 <mhroncok> vote?
16:15:29 <geppetto> I have to watch out for that all the time
16:15:49 <tibbs> So there are a couple of open questions.
16:16:13 <geppetto> Can we just say that kernel modules aren't allowed?
16:16:27 <tibbs> One is where this document lives.  The other is who someone should ask if they are unsure if some content is acceptable.
16:16:37 <tibbs> "No External Kernel Modules"
16:16:50 <mhroncok> must it mention Fedora 8?
16:17:13 <tibbs> Probably not.  It's long enough ago that people have probably stopped saying "well you used to allow it".
16:17:33 * geppetto nods
16:18:13 <mhroncok> guidelines:WhatToPackage
16:18:28 <mhroncok> and replace the used bits with one paragraph and alink
16:18:48 <tibbs> Yes, the corresponding text will  of course be removed from the main guidelines.
16:19:16 <mhroncok> as for who they ask, I think that maybe start with devel list, go to legal or packaging if it gets more specific?
16:19:19 <geppetto> +2
16:19:44 <redi> British English spells it permissible too, permissable is not a word anywhere
16:19:47 <redi> except the internets
16:20:07 <tibbs> I don't know that "I got a reply on devel@ that said it's OK" is really the best way.
16:20:18 <redi> heh, yeah
16:20:37 <mhroncok> oh, that probably is not
16:21:00 <geppetto> tibbs: I mean they can always ask us … it's going to be different for different things, so would be non-trivial to describe all those.
16:21:50 <geppetto> and, yeh, we really don't want people saying "well bob said it was fine so I did it"
16:22:17 <tibbs> Updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/WhatToPackage#No_External_Kernel_Modules
16:22:56 <mhroncok> regarding enabling additional kernel.
16:22:59 <mhroncok> modules?
16:23:07 <redi> back in 15 minutes
16:23:11 <tibbs> Hmm, where did that word go?
16:23:30 <geppetto> "Om nom nom", says the wiki
16:24:00 <tibbs> So, sure, could just say that they should ask us, though most of the time we would have to bounce to legal.
16:25:28 <geppetto> yeh, I mean I'm happy with saying speak to the kernel team about additional kernels/kernel-modules.
16:26:11 <geppetto> But I'm ot sure we want to list of all the places they should contact, and so it'd be easier to say contact us and we'll then bounce it to the right people.
16:26:35 <mhroncok> agreed
16:26:44 <tibbs> If you are unsure if something is considered approved content, ask the [[Packaging_Committee|Packaging Committee]] or, if your question is of a legal nature, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?go=Go&search=Legal:Main|Legal.
16:27:05 <tibbs> My IRC client ate that....
16:28:35 <geppetto> that seems fine, to me
16:28:38 <tibbs> Also, I probably picked a bad name.  "What Can Be Packaged" is probably better than "WhatToPackage" since I think spaces are en vogue these days.
16:29:34 <geppetto> Can easily rename it if you want
16:29:43 <geppetto> I'm not a huge fan of %20 … but eh
16:29:44 <tibbs> And one final issue is the "No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries" section.
16:29:55 <geppetto> what about it?
16:30:28 <tibbs> Well, it straddles the line between "what you can package" and "how you package".
16:31:34 <tibbs> So this document could say only "you must be able to build code from source" and leave that section in the main guidelines.
16:32:07 <decathorpe> ^ well, there's the bootstrap exception, too
16:32:19 <tibbs> Right, it seems out of place in this document.
16:32:48 <mhroncok> it seems fine to me
16:33:44 <tibbs> Or we could just call this document "what can be in a package" and then it covers whether you can include specific files.  If not being able to include a single file means you can't package something, well then... good.
16:34:46 <mhroncok> what can be packaged
16:34:50 <mhroncok> that says both
16:34:54 <tibbs> Indeed.
16:37:44 * geppetto nods
16:38:04 <geppetto> We want to vote on it?
16:38:04 <geppetto> redi: You back?
16:38:09 <tibbs> So call it "what can be packaged", leave basically all of what's there in there, and let this new document be part of the main guidelines.
16:38:49 <mhroncok> right
16:39:06 * geppetto nods
16:39:54 <geppetto> +1
16:40:17 <mhroncok> +1
16:40:35 <tibbs> +1
16:40:55 <geppetto> Going to assume a +1 from tibbs
16:41:00 <decathorpe> +1
16:41:06 <geppetto> 👍
16:41:33 <mhroncok> (18:23:07) redi: back in 15 minutes
16:41:43 <geppetto> redi: Ok, just you … are you back?
16:42:51 <geppetto> mhroncok: yeh, that was more than 15 minutes ago :)
16:45:09 <geppetto> #info Proposal for "What can be in a Package" document (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0)
16:45:23 <geppetto> #action We can have other votes in the ticket.
16:45:59 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
16:46:47 <mhroncok> I'd like to get soem feedback on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompilation_phase_2
16:49:50 <decathorpe> sounds good
16:50:24 <tibbs> I was pro-phase2 back when phase1 was being implemented.
16:53:45 <mhroncok> tibbs: I know but we said it's too late
16:53:45 <mhroncok> being fesco approvefd and stuff
16:53:45 <mhroncok> that's why I ask for feedback before it's approved now
16:54:24 <tibbs> As far as I know, my proposal to remove all Group: tags is still churning through the process.
16:54:42 <tibbs> I don't have any feedback on this besides with "it's about time".
16:55:06 <tibbs> I can also never tell when something is supposed to be a system wide change.
16:55:25 <tibbs> This certainly will touch fewer packages than the Group: removal, so there's that.
16:56:17 <mhroncok> :)
16:57:51 <geppetto> I guess ask someone?
16:57:56 <mhroncok> ok, let's end this?
16:58:20 <geppetto> Yeh, that's fair … thanks for coming everyone
16:58:27 <geppetto> #endmeeting