17:00:52 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc 17:00:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 14 17:00:52 2019 UTC. 17:00:52 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:52 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:52 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc 17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:52 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call 17:00:57 <redi> yo 17:01:01 <geppetto> #chair redi 17:01:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto redi 17:01:04 <tibbs> Hey, folks. 17:01:09 <geppetto> #chair tibbs 17:01:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto redi tibbs 17:01:11 <decathorpe> o/ hello 17:01:14 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe 17:01:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto redi tibbs 17:01:52 * limburgher here 17:02:02 <mhroncok> hey 17:02:17 <geppetto> #chair limburgher 17:02:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher redi tibbs 17:02:19 <geppetto> #chair mhroncok 17:02:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher mhroncok redi tibbs 17:04:52 <geppetto> #topic Schedule 17:04:55 <geppetto> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IAO6B2SKPGYUVYO2FWPGTJY2YJJ3DKLB/ 17:05:31 <geppetto> #topic #848 Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies 17:05:33 <geppetto> .fpc 848 17:05:34 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #848: Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/848 17:05:57 <tibbs> I haven't had time to even look over tickets this week. 17:06:02 <geppetto> IIRC this is kind of an ongoing thing we don't really need to discuss but keeping on the meeting list so we are all aware of it? 17:06:25 <tibbs> Well, something in the guidelines does need to change. 17:06:28 <geppetto> tibbs: Nothing new AFAIK 17:06:40 <geppetto> Ok, is there anything we can discuss today? 17:06:43 <tibbs> And there's a PR submitted. 17:06:47 * geppetto nods 17:07:55 <decathorpe> my RPMMacros page update PR is also still open 17:08:02 <decathorpe> should I just merge it? 17:08:03 <geppetto> I'm mostly happy with the proposal and solution 17:08:11 <geppetto> decathorpe: link? 17:08:14 <tibbs> I guess the wording has been tweaked but not since the last rebase a month ago, and there was discussion after that. 17:08:25 <decathorpe> a bit OT, sorry: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/846 17:08:44 <tibbs> Yeah, let's do that one after this one. 17:10:01 <decathorpe> the patch looks OK to me 17:10:36 <tibbs> It's a little over wordy, frankly. 17:10:53 <mhroncok> it an improvement 17:11:28 <mhroncok> perfect is the enemy of good 17:11:35 <tibbs> "You MUST not use macros for paths such as %_bindir when specifying BuildRequires:, as these may be changed when building certain types of packages." 17:11:40 <mhroncok> let's have it merged and we can work on it later, but we don't have to 17:12:02 <mhroncok> (we are dicsussing 2 things at once, right?) 17:12:15 <limburgher> Sometimes it's best to put up something imperfect; that draws corrections from the audience. :) 17:12:29 <tibbs> We are discussing ticket 848 and the associated pull request 847. 17:12:33 <tibbs> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/847#request_diff 17:12:58 <decathorpe> (sorry for the confusion 🙉) 17:13:04 <limburgher> I like it. 17:14:07 <geppetto> otaylor: hey, we are talking about 848 17:14:08 <tibbs> Personally I like having one clear sentence rather than specifically a random set of potential problem domains and solutions. 17:14:52 <otaylor> geppetto: Hmm, which is that? 17:16:14 <decathorpe> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/848 17:16:46 <otaylor> Ah, OK 17:17:24 <redi> I'm fine with the wording in the PR 17:17:32 * geppetto nods 17:17:32 <decathorpe> me too 17:17:50 <geppetto> tibbs: You want to try to tweak it now? 17:18:22 <tibbs> No, if people are happy with it then lets merge it. I can capitalize MUST later. 17:18:28 <redi> the only thing that I can think to improve it is to add an example of badness, e.g. BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/sed 17:19:28 <redi> last time we discussed it, we seemed to get in a muddle whether this was only talking about paths in BuildRequires, or for actually running executables in the spec 17:19:33 <redi> an example would avoid that confusion 17:19:33 <tibbs> You MUST not use macros for paths such as %{_bindi}r when specifying BuildRequires:, as in `+BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/sed+`. These macros may be redefined when building certain types of packages." 17:19:38 <redi> but it's not essential 17:19:47 <redi> yeah I like that 17:20:00 <geppetto> Sure, +1 to that too 17:20:07 * mhroncok uses that all over the place, but +1 17:20:31 <mhroncok> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/redhat-rpm-config.spec#_106 17:20:44 <tibbs> Yes, it's used pretty often. 17:20:59 <decathorpe> I've never used it 😅 17:21:02 <tibbs> Though personally I've never agreed with the practice. 17:21:30 <mhroncok> $ rg 'Requires:\s+%\{_bindir\}' -l | wc -l 17:21:30 <tibbs> We could try to narrow the scope of places where it can't be done, but I think madness lies down that road. 17:21:31 <mhroncok> 322 17:22:04 <tibbs> Yes, I had given a count when we discussed this a while ago. 17:22:15 <tibbs> Point is, it actually breaks things and is in no way necessary. 17:22:18 <otaylor> I think it's always wrong, but often doesn't matter much. :-) ... I don't think we'll even in the long term be rebuilding more than 10% of the distro for Flatpak inclusion 17:22:54 <tibbs> So then the question arises: If it doesn't matter often, why are we adding a prohibition to the guidelines? 17:23:04 <redi> hmm 17:23:11 <tibbs> Or why are we being asked to add one. 17:23:41 <otaylor> tibbs: I'm asking to add it, to make it clear if we request a change from a module maintainer, what is correct 17:23:57 <tibbs> My personal opinion is that this makes sense regardless of flatpaks or SCLs or whatever else might redefine %_bindir, but I can understand that others might disagree. 17:24:10 <tibbs> A number of these things entered the distro when we moved /bin to /usr/bin. 17:24:19 <otaylor> Also, the more people that people do it right, the more things just work 17:24:25 <tibbs> It allowed single specs across the usermove transition. 17:24:35 <tibbs> But now I see no valid reason for it. 17:24:46 <tibbs> (Inertia is not a valid reason....[) 17:24:49 <otaylor> tibbs: how? %{_bindir} was always /usr/bin 17:25:11 <tibbs> Not entirely sure of the history, but that was my recollection. 17:25:25 <tibbs> I could certainly be wrong; usrmove was a while ago. 17:25:39 <tibbs> Some maintainers might even have added it as a placebo. 17:25:58 <tibbs> People randomly add things thinking that they make sense, and often that gets copied randomly all over the place. 17:26:08 <mhroncok> that is very true 17:26:15 <otaylor> I think it's mostly there because people fall into the habit of reflexively using the path macros instead of hardcoded paths without thinking about it a lot. 17:26:17 <tibbs> So bottom line is that I'll vote for a prohibition on it simply because I agree with it. 17:26:38 <tibbs> Personally I never use the path macros unless it actually makes things clearer or saves typing. 17:27:44 <mhroncok> should we scoll back and count the votes, or revote? 17:28:15 <decathorpe> let's make it explicit 17:28:43 <geppetto> +1 17:28:49 <decathorpe> +1 17:28:57 <mhroncok> +1 17:28:57 <tibbs> Hold on, what are we +1'ing? 17:29:13 <mhroncok> the issue with it's PR 17:29:16 <tibbs> The concept, the PR or the sentence I posted? 17:29:26 <mhroncok> hah :) 17:29:37 <geppetto> tibbs: the PR and your sentence 17:29:53 <mhroncok> I assumed the same 17:30:13 <tibbs> I'm +1 to the concept; I prefer to be concise so prefer what I pasted but I can +1 the language in the PR as well. 17:31:09 <geppetto> redi: limburgher: vote? 17:31:24 <mhroncok> let's vote for the concept, and iff it is approved, we can bikeshad about the wording? 17:31:32 <redi> +1 to the current PR, I like tibbs's concise statement too 17:31:56 <geppetto> mhroncok: Well we are already +5 on the wording, so meh 17:32:03 <mhroncok> either way 17:32:10 <geppetto> mhroncok: if anyone wants to tweak it more they can do another PRs 17:32:19 <mhroncok> works for me 17:33:59 <limburgher> =1 17:33:59 <geppetto> #action Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 17:34:00 <limburgher> +1 17:34:06 <limburgher> Sorry, was called away. 17:34:06 <geppetto> #undo 17:34:06 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by geppetto at 17:33:59 : Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 17:34:14 <geppetto> #action Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 17:34:16 <geppetto> no problem 17:34:33 <geppetto> #topic #845 Wiki deprecation status 17:34:38 <geppetto> .fpc 845 17:34:39 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #845: Wiki deprecation status - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/845 17:35:23 <geppetto> Is there anything to do here? 17:35:30 <mhroncok> help :) 17:35:31 <tibbs> This is just an ongoing thing, but if anyone has ten minutes to pick a page and check it over to make sure the formatting came out OK, that would be great. 17:35:39 <tibbs> Otherwise I will mark off pages as I find them. 17:35:40 <decathorpe> I wanted to work on the SourceURL page a bit so we could officially move that one too 17:36:08 <decathorpe> and I guess we can drop the RPMMacros wiki page as well after my PR is merged 17:36:53 * geppetto nods 17:36:58 <redi> yeah, your PR is much better 17:37:13 <tibbs> And we did agree that we should just redirect. 17:37:37 <mhroncok> yes 17:37:47 <tibbs> So, for example, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets 17:38:00 <tibbs> Hit it and you don't get to see the wiki at all. 17:38:12 <decathorpe> nice 17:38:35 <mhroncok> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&action=history 17:38:37 <tibbs> If we need to see the history, hit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?action=history 17:38:45 <redi> ah that's what I was going to ask 17:38:47 <redi> thanks 17:38:57 <decathorpe> history is in git too 17:38:59 <tibbs> But keep in mind that you can't even diff to the current page or it will redirect you. 17:39:09 <tibbs> Sadly history being in git isn't actually useful. 17:39:13 <mhroncok> tibbs: the compare selected revisions redirects as well :D 17:39:18 <redi> feel free to assign me a few pages to check for formatting, can do it tomorrow. I have to leave now though 17:39:20 <mhroncok> so I'm unable to see the change 17:39:33 <tibbs> Because what's in git is post-mangling. 17:39:35 <mhroncok> ah, you've just said that 17:39:45 <redi> if we vote on 846 I'm +1 17:39:47 <tibbs> You can diff to any revision but the new one. 17:40:18 <tibbs> And you can of course click a date to see the page at that point in time, so it's still useful. 17:40:42 <mhroncok> tibbs: do you keept he categoreies? 17:40:52 <mhroncok> source shows that you don't 17:40:52 <tibbs> I wasn't planning on doing that. 17:41:14 <mhroncok> shall we give it a thought? 17:41:21 <tibbs> Not sure if it's useful, really; I thought we wanted the stuff to basically drop out of the wiki entirely. 17:41:44 <mhroncok> tibbs: ok 17:41:47 <geppetto> #topic #846 guidelines/RPMMacros: update for the 21st century 17:41:52 <mhroncok> and when i redirecta page 17:41:54 <geppetto> We want to vote on this? 17:42:20 <mhroncok> shall i put my name and date somewhere in the asciidoc source, or have we not yet figured that part out? 17:42:45 <decathorpe> I think we haven't formalized this yet 17:43:41 <tibbs> I'm using the last-reviewed: 2019-01-01 17:43:54 <tibbs> I don't see a need to put the person who did the review since git blame will show it. 17:44:25 <mhroncok> sure 17:44:41 <mhroncok> see JavaScript or AppData 17:44:44 <mhroncok> for an example 17:45:00 <decathorpe> so should I add :last-reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD to my PR too? 17:45:11 <tibbs> So the only reason to include it in the document is if we want to actually substitute it into the document "last reviewed on (date) by (person)". But I don't see much point in that. 17:45:27 <tibbs> decathorpe: You can, or just merge the PR and commit a last-reviewed bit. 17:45:34 <decathorpe> right 17:45:55 <tibbs> If you want to see how to do the redirect in the wiki, look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?action=edit 17:45:57 <decathorpe> still, I think it's useful to have a tag that shows that someone has looked at the *whole* page, not only at the changes they made 17:46:15 <tibbs> Yes, that's what the tag would be intended to say. 17:46:36 <tibbs> Obviously you looked at the changes you are making. 17:46:46 <tibbs> (OK, we hope that you checked the formatting) 17:47:06 <tibbs> I find that Asciidoctor.js Live Preview browser extension to be super useful. 17:47:12 <decathorpe> yeah, I did render it locally when I made the changes 17:48:21 <tibbs> I reworked the AppData page quite a bit to use some asciidoc features and I think it looks really nice now. 17:48:37 <decathorpe> it does! 17:48:49 <tibbs> Too bad there's no highlighting engine for specfiles. Anyone know javascript and have an evening to spare? 17:50:36 <tibbs> And I've not had luck getting anyone to comment on adding some CSS to make the ToC look... like something. 17:50:43 <mhroncok> I like the examplesdir 17:51:29 <tibbs> Yes, it makes the actual source document much more readable. 17:51:50 <tibbs> It's nice you you can just click the "Edit this Page" link to get to the source. 17:53:17 <mhroncok> move on? 17:53:46 <decathorpe> I added the last-reviewed tag to the PR 17:54:03 <geppetto> wasn't sure if we had anything to vote on here? 17:54:34 <decathorpe> no idea, I just want to know if I can merge the PR :) 17:55:40 <mhroncok> it doesn't add new policies, so i don't think we need to vote 17:55:45 <geppetto> ok 17:55:46 <mhroncok> and geenrally people are happy about it 17:55:54 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor 17:56:04 <geppetto> Ok, we have 5 minutes … anything anyone wants to talk about? 17:56:15 <mhroncok> interesting fesco issue: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2089 17:56:28 <mhroncok> it is about retired packages and re-reviews 17:56:31 <tibbs> Yes, please merge that PR. I thought we accepted the document already. 17:56:40 <decathorpe> done 17:56:48 <mhroncok> does FPC want to be part of the decision? 17:57:26 <geppetto> seems fine … 2 weeks was a bit agressive 17:57:37 <limburgher> Nothing from me. 17:57:42 * decathorpe shrugs 17:57:45 <tibbs> Hmm, I think re-review is still important and wouldn't want to skip it because there's still a week before the last release that contained an unmaintained package goes EOL. 17:57:47 <geppetto> even 3 months seems kind of short 17:58:13 <tibbs> I guess I just don't see a re-review as that much of a burden. 17:58:25 <tibbs> If the package was in good shape then it should be easy. 17:58:39 <tibbs> If the package wasn't in good shape then.... a review is a good idea. 17:58:43 <mhroncok> I just guess the when you accidentally retire a package that is needed 17:58:46 <tibbs> But I agree that two weeks is super short. 17:58:50 <mhroncok> being able to put it back ASAP is good 17:59:02 <tibbs> If you accidentally retire a package then even the 2 week rule should have been fine. 17:59:05 <mhroncok> and sometimes it takes almost 2 weekes to get a new compose and realize the problem 18:00:03 <mhroncok> anyway, this was more of a pointer - we can discuss more in the ticket 18:00:20 * geppetto nods 18:00:34 <geppetto> Ok, going to close … see you next week 18:00:37 <geppetto> #endmeeting