15:00:05 #startmeeting FESCO (2018-10-22) 15:00:05 Meeting started Mon Oct 22 15:00:05 2018 UTC. 15:00:05 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 15:00:05 The chair is jforbes. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:05 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2018-10-22)' 15:00:05 #meetingname fesco 15:00:05 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 15:00:05 #chair nirik, maxamillion, jsmith, jforbes, zbyszek, tyll, sgallagh, contyk, bowlofeggs 15:00:05 Current chairs: bowlofeggs contyk jforbes jsmith maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll zbyszek 15:00:05 #topic init process 15:00:17 morning 15:00:30 morning 15:00:48 .hello2 15:00:48 .hello2 15:00:48 .hello till 15:00:48 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 15:00:51 zbyszek: zbyszek 'Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek' 15:00:55 tyll: till 'Till Maas' 15:02:55 Looks like we have quorum at least and can get started 15:03:14 .hello2 15:03:15 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 15:03:17 Only one topic on the agenda today 15:03:21 #topic #2001 F29 Final: dnf rebase requested post-freeze 15:03:21 .fesco 2001 15:03:21 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2001 15:03:23 jforbes: Issue #2001: F29 Final: dnf rebase requested post-freeze - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2001 15:03:31 (I'm in two concurrent meetings at work, but I'll do my best to multi-task) 15:04:18 On that particular issue, I agree with bowlofeggs... would like to know exactly what we're agreeing to 15:04:27 (what changes are involved, etc.) 15:04:31 I'm just typing a bit comment in pagure 15:04:37 Technically it could have waited another day for in ticket votes, but it seemed rather urgent 15:04:43 * nirik tried to get github to show a diff, but failed over the weekend 15:04:53 it's blocking release. 15:05:19 well, 2 accepted blocker bugs anyhow. 15:05:22 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2001#comment-537283 15:06:22 * nirik notes the dnssec thing is off by default, but of course the code is still there. 15:07:55 Right, and as it was posted earlier, it is pretty much bug fixes, the versioning change makes sense in the context posted 15:09:02 nirik: where do you see that it is off by default? I can't find an explicit switch either way in the code... 15:09:38 I think in the orig pr, or perhaps in the infra ticket for adding the keys to dns... can't recall... 15:10:10 OK, so I'm +1 to accept the rebase too. 15:10:40 We're at +5 with my vote. 15:11:24 Anyone else want to weigh in either way? 15:11:25 I mean, the real question is ... do we really have a choice? 15:11:36 maxamillion: I think yes, we do. 15:11:44 sure, it would just be a lot more work 15:11:45 * tyll is also +1 15:12:04 dnf has historically constantly broken things so I'm a little hesitant but there's a lot of support for it, so I'll leave it alone 15:12:05 +0 15:12:07 maxamillion: it is really like 1/2 h of work to prepare a branch with the new features, just bug fixes. 15:12:21 "just bug fixes" ... famous last words 15:12:25 zbyszek: and libdnf and anaconda and dnf-plugins and... 15:12:26 It's a bit disappointing that the dnf team considers this too onerous. 15:13:37 nirik: did you vote? 15:13:45 nirik: sure, but the fact that we are in a freeze is well known. Instead of merging new features, it'd be totally OK to just do the bugfixes for a few weeks, and do the new stuff next month. 15:14:01 jforbes: yeah, I thought I added a +1 in ticket 15:14:10 Oh, you did, it was mid comment 15:14:17 zbyszek: I completely agree... but the ship has sailed now. ;( 15:14:29 yeah, that's kind of my point 15:14:36 but whatever 15:14:44 #agreed F29 Final: dnf rebase requested post-freeze is approved (+6,1,-0) 15:14:57 #topic Next week's chair 15:16:04 Bueller?.. 15:16:27 I guess if no takers, I will take it again. 15:16:45 Please do, and then I'll do it next week. 15:16:50 #info jforbes will chair next meeting 15:17:01 #topic Open Floor 15:17:04 Thank you both! 15:17:14 * nirik has 1 item for open floor... 15:17:26 * zbyszek has one too 15:17:28 yeah, thanks jforbes / zbyszek 15:17:37 nirik: please go first 15:18:41 ok. So, releng has gotten recently 2 tickets that change the way things are built for end users... Just wanted to give fesco a heads up, and I have been thinking that perhaps these should go to fesco instead of releng trying to decide by itself... 15:18:55 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7878 - make pm_request available and working in koji. 15:18:55 https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7840 - consider ursa major 15:19:30 pm_request would allow go (or anything) to request additional packages be installed as buildrequires during the build. 15:19:46 ursa major would allow building against modules 15:20:21 for ursa major we thought of a possible fix of making a 'buildroot' repo that has listed the modules in the buildroot... 15:20:32 why can go packages not use regular BRs` 15:20:33 ? 15:20:41 but in any event we need to decide if someone using rpmbuild is something we want to keep always supporting or not 15:21:07 tyll: ask nim, or read the wall of text in that ticket. 15:21:49 Let's not get distracted by the technical/insteresting side. 15:22:03 I think nirik point is more about policy 15:22:20 in any case this doesn't need to be decided today, but likely will come to fesco, so might be good to start thinking about it. 15:22:24 yeah exactly. 15:22:58 Yeah, there is a good bit to digest I think on what the policy might mean 15:23:15 I think that for such complicated questions we need something similar to the Change process — both a fesco ticket and a rel-eng ticket, because the input from both of those groups is useful. 15:23:58 Fesco is more about "do we want this?", and releng answers "can we do this?". 15:24:10 And also, how might these changes be used outside of the original intent in the request? 15:24:16 well, we can do this, but it means end users will see a lot of change in building things 15:25:16 Not sure if it is just "do we want this", since we want Go packages and building against modules also sounds like a good idea - the question is IMHO if we like the new workflows/restrictions 15:25:33 i should note my rant/tip here - https://twitter.com/shlomif/status/1053390606758825984 15:25:59 i wasted so much time due to that :( 15:26:08 rindolf: note f29 is not actually released yet. ;) 15:26:17 nirik: yes 15:26:20 nirik: I would say file those tickets with a link back to the releng tickets. I am all for discussing the impacts there. 15:26:32 and the item we approved earlier moves this change into the compose. ;) 15:26:52 jforbes: fesco tickets you mean? 15:26:54 nirik: great, thanks 15:27:27 nirik: I meant file the fesco tickets with a link back to releng tickets, but however works 15:27:49 Just not a whole lot of reason to restate wall of text in a separate ticket 15:27:49 jforbes: sure, 2 tickets I guess? 15:28:16 It seems feasible that there might be separate outcomes for each 15:28:50 yeah, ok will do 15:29:47 I'd like to discuss the Enginnering rep vote 15:29:51 .fesco 2000 15:29:53 zbyszek: Issue #2000: New Council Engineering rep needed - fesco - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2000 15:30:48 Looked like it was just waiting for maxamillion to vote 15:30:53 Right. 15:31:24 on it 15:31:24 dgilmore raised a question whether contyk has enough time to commit, but I think we assume that he does, since he accepted the nomination. 15:31:47 voted :) 15:31:53 Yes, I took the accepting the nomination as accepting the nomination 15:32:47 Great. I just wanted to move this along. 15:33:26 #agreed FESCo confirms psabata as the New Council Engineering rep (+8,1,0) 15:33:39 Anyone have anything else for the open floor? 15:34:31 Will close out in 1 minute if not 15:34:51 Thanks jforbes! 15:35:30 #endmeeting