16:00:12 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc 16:00:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Apr 18 16:00:12 2019 UTC. 16:00:12 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:00:12 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:00:13 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc 16:00:13 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call 16:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:03:32 <mhroncok> hey 16:03:42 <tibbs> Hey, folks. 16:03:46 <tibbs> Just writing up the Lua naming thing. 16:03:47 <geppetto> #chair mhroncok 16:03:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mhroncok 16:03:49 <decathorpe> o/ 16:03:49 <geppetto> #chair tibbs 16:03:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mhroncok tibbs 16:03:52 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe 16:03:52 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto mhroncok tibbs 16:03:57 <geppetto> Hey 16:05:56 <geppetto> #chair redi 16:05:56 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto mhroncok redi tibbs 16:06:01 <geppetto> And then there were 5 :) 16:06:02 <redi> hi - got a high priority bug fix I'm working on, so will only half pay attention here today 16:06:10 <geppetto> Fair enough 16:06:58 <geppetto> #topic Schedule 16:07:02 <geppetto> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IBDGRCJN5D4QF5GHXQQJUDBWVS3CRKMJ/ 16:07:24 * limburgher is late 16:07:32 <geppetto> #chair limburgher 16:07:32 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher mhroncok redi tibbs 16:08:32 <decathorpe> looks like the email got mangled at some point? 16:08:41 <geppetto> yeh 16:08:56 <geppetto> seems to be evolution on my end 16:09:05 <decathorpe> but I think it looked fine locally 16:09:53 <geppetto> Anyway … this one popped back up: 16:09:54 <geppetto> #topic #382 Go Packaging Guidelines Draft.fpc 382 16:09:58 <geppetto> .fpc 382 16:10:01 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #382: Go Packaging Guidelines Draft - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/382 16:10:04 <decathorpe> I wanted to look at this once I have some time 16:10:11 <decathorpe> since I'm member of the Go SIG as well 16:10:30 <geppetto> Latest draft is: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/883 16:10:46 <mhroncok> https://eclipseo.fedorapeople.org/guidelines/packaging-guidelines/Golang/ 16:11:24 <mhroncok> this just adds stuff, so it might be easier to read rendered 16:12:26 <mhroncok> If upstream confused itself... 16:12:33 <mhroncok> go is lovely 16:12:42 <decathorpe> sarcasm? 16:13:32 <geppetto> There are two types of programming languages … those that people hate and those that nobody uses ;) 16:13:43 <mhroncok> yes, I find the entire "import from github master" a very bad idea 16:14:00 <mhroncok> but geppetto has a point :) 16:16:02 <geppetto> A quick search suggests that this says nothing about go modules 16:16:10 <decathorpe> no, those are not covered yet 16:16:13 * geppetto nods 16:16:27 <decathorpe> because they break a whole load of assumptions 16:16:44 <decathorpe> the Go SIG is working in it, though 16:17:20 <ignatenkobrain> hi 16:17:27 <ignatenkobrain> I wonder why I didn't get invitation 16:17:36 <ignatenkobrain> sorry for being late 16:17:41 <geppetto> #chair ignatenkobrain 16:17:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto ignatenkobrain limburgher mhroncok redi tibbs 16:18:25 <decathorpe> from what I can tell, these Go Guidelines are pretty good and comprehensive 16:18:37 <decathorpe> (speaking as somebody who maintains ~30 go packages) 16:18:46 <geppetto> ok 16:18:57 <ignatenkobrain> I wish we could have "expandable" text on docs 16:19:15 <ignatenkobrain> so that we could inline some templates with being hidden by default 16:19:38 <mhroncok> Binaries SHOULD set ExclusiveArch ... This is now automatically added by the %gometa macro. 16:19:46 <mhroncok> so packagers should not add it, right? 16:19:50 <decathorpe> yes 16:19:54 <mhroncok> this part confused me 16:19:55 <decathorpe> they should't 16:19:59 <decathorpe> me too 16:20:27 <decathorpe> but some packages might not use %gometa yet, which sets this macro 16:20:58 <ignatenkobrain> these new guidelines look much better than I saw before :) 16:21:13 <mhroncok> You MUST run unit tests. 16:21:22 <mhroncok> wow! we should add this everywhere 16:21:34 <tibbs> Well.... it's always a qualified thing. 16:21:51 <tibbs> Sometimes tests require unpackaged dependencies or take six days to run on ARM or whatever. 16:22:09 <ignatenkobrain> I think I disagree with this one... Given those Fedora CI efforts (which do not involve running them using rpmbuild) 16:22:31 <ignatenkobrain> " 16:22:32 <ignatenkobrain> the import path github.com/gopherjs/gopherjs will become golang-github-gopherjs 16:22:33 <ignatenkobrain> " -- I think I don't understand why this has been done 16:23:29 <mhroncok> I also don't understand this: the import path github.com/DATA-DOG/go-txdb will become golang-github-data-dog-txdb 16:23:30 <decathorpe> paraphrasing here: "to reduce redundancy and produce human-friendly package names" 16:23:48 <ignatenkobrain> "They are automatically generated by the %gogenbr macro in %prep 16:23:48 <ignatenkobrain> " -- No, please no. This is not the way it works. BuildRequires (as of today), have to be specified manually. 16:24:25 <mhroncok> "If you’re lucky" 16:24:27 <decathorpe> right, that shouldn't be in there 16:25:02 <ignatenkobrain> "Security in Go Language Packages" -- I think this section doesn't belong to FPG 16:25:17 <ignatenkobrain> I will take a look this weekend and comment inline in PR 16:25:26 <decathorpe> well ... would you stick this into the update guidelines? 16:25:34 <geppetto> Yeh, the examples all have explicit BRs 16:26:19 <ignatenkobrain> decathorpe: yes. I think we need to have generic documentation how to detect such things... And moreover, we should automate it on infra level :) 16:26:30 <geppetto> I'm not sure I mind having a %gogenbr … but if so the examples should use it 16:26:42 <decathorpe> but it doesn't work yet, does it? 16:26:45 <ignatenkobrain> geppetto: it simply won't work 16:26:54 <ignatenkobrain> decathorpe: it won't work in future, either 16:27:02 <mhroncok> :) 16:27:07 <mhroncok> not this way anyway 16:27:14 <geppetto> Fair enough 16:27:26 <mhroncok> #action ignatenko will comment inline 16:27:45 <mhroncok> I don't think we have more to decide now, do we? 16:27:58 <ignatenkobrain> probably not now.. 16:28:10 <decathorpe> I don't think so 16:28:14 <decathorpe> I'll add a few comments, too 16:28:15 <geppetto> #topic #876 F31 System-Wide Change: F31 Mass Python 2 Package Removal - policies and exceptions 16:28:21 <geppetto> .fpc 876 16:28:22 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #876: F31 System-Wide Change: F31 Mass Python 2 Package Removal - policies and exceptions - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/876 16:28:46 <geppetto> mhroncok: You commented 16:28:50 <mhroncok> yes 16:29:23 <mhroncok> latest meeting, it seemed that a part of the process was not received well. we made it optional 16:29:30 <geppetto> So was that our second vote from last meeting? 16:29:37 * geppetto nods 16:29:52 <geppetto> Do we need to discuss anything? 16:29:55 <mhroncok> the second vote was already implemented ina separate PR 16:30:01 <geppetto> ok 16:30:08 <mhroncok> we'd like explicit FPC approval / ack 16:30:35 <ignatenkobrain> mhroncok: on the way of conditionalizing/changing spec files? 16:30:46 <mhroncok> no 16:31:01 <mhroncok> on the processes described in the change proposal 16:31:16 <mhroncok> and review exceptions 16:31:33 <geppetto> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FF31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal&type=revision&diff=540278&oldid=540029 16:31:59 <geppetto> Given that it's an optionally … I'm fine to +1 it. 16:32:49 <mhroncok> I it not this diff I'd liek to get acked 16:33:06 <geppetto> Oh, ok … can you link to the diff. you want to get ackd? 16:33:14 <ignatenkobrain> I'm +1 indeed (since I'm actually listed as owner of a change) :) 16:33:15 <mhroncok> it's the change proposal 16:33:22 <ignatenkobrain> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FF31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal&type=revision&diff=540278&oldid=540029#Process_for_abandoning_Python_2_subpackages 16:33:29 <ignatenkobrain> I think Miro means this part 16:33:41 <ignatenkobrain> and this one 🔗 Removing Requirements 16:33:53 <mhroncok> I'm sorry 16:34:11 <mhroncok> I've explicitly linked 4 parts in the issue description 16:34:11 <mhroncok> I mean those 4 parts 16:34:19 <mhroncok> Process for abandoning Python 2 subpackages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Process_for_abandoning_Python_2_subpackages 16:34:30 <mhroncok> Claiming Python 2 parts of a package with package review exception https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Claiming_Python_2_parts_of_a_package 16:34:43 <mhroncok> More drastic version of the Policy for nonresponsive package maintainers https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Information_on_Remaining_Packages 16:34:51 <mhroncok> Removing non-installable packages from the distro https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Removing_non-installable_packages_from_the_distro 16:35:42 <ignatenkobrain> I don't think that we have to vote on "🔗 Removing non-installable packages from the distro" part since it is more FESCo stuff 16:35:43 <ignatenkobrain> the others look ok for me 16:36:32 <mhroncok> ignatenkobrain: I realize most of this is not in fpc "jurisdiction" 16:36:55 <mhroncok> a simple: "whatever, ok" vote works for me as well 16:37:01 <geppetto> The one part of the abandon process I'm not sure of is the 3-week waiting time 16:37:19 <decathorpe> I'd be comfortable to give this an "ack" vote ;) 16:37:40 <ignatenkobrain> mhroncok: well, yes... but the split of python2 packages and handling whole thing seems prety much FPC business 16:37:49 <geppetto> but in general I'm fine with all of it. 16:37:59 <mhroncok> geppetto: too fast? 16:38:36 <mhroncok> geppetto: let's make it 4? 16:38:37 <geppetto> mhroncok: No, I'm more worried that someone will want to update to a new version and it won't work with py2 … and they can't fix it, so they have to wait 3 weeks. 16:38:49 <mhroncok> oh 16:39:59 <mhroncok> I think the maintainer may just use their best judgement there - breaking the rules on purpose and be extra loud about it 16:40:13 <decathorpe> "rules" 16:40:20 * geppetto nods … I'm fine with that, might be worth saying something though. 16:40:50 <geppetto> Yeh, my guess was that people would either complain loudly that they aren't allowed to update … or just update and immediately break things. 16:41:50 <ignatenkobrain> until we get automation to detect breakages, people will keep breaking things.. so it is okay :) 16:41:58 <mhroncok> I'm ok to deal with this on individual basis 16:42:01 <mhroncok> as ignatenkobrain says 16:42:02 <redi> yeah 16:42:46 <geppetto> fair enough 16:44:52 <mhroncok> should we ack vote? 16:45:00 <geppetto> Sure. +1 16:45:10 <mhroncok> I'm +1 obviously 16:45:13 <redi> +1 16:45:13 <decathorpe> +1 as well 16:45:14 <tibbs> +1 16:45:18 <mhroncok> thanks 16:45:46 <geppetto> #action F31 Mass Python 2 Package Removal - policies and exceptions (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 16:47:08 <ignatenkobrain> I was +1 too :) 16:47:16 <geppetto> #undo 16:47:16 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by geppetto at 16:45:46 : F31 Mass Python 2 Package Removal - policies and exceptions (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) 16:47:24 <geppetto> #action F31 Mass Python 2 Package Removal - policies and exceptions (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 16:47:32 <geppetto> Done :) 16:47:37 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor 16:48:10 <decathorpe> I just wanted to mention, the Go SIG is thinking about renaming a lot of packages to have a consistent naming scheme 16:48:36 <geppetto> So we had two other ticket son the schedule, #859 and #845 … but neither has been modified since last meeting. 16:48:49 <ignatenkobrain> Just in case anybody is wondering -- I was working in upstream on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DynamicBuildRequires and it is ready to play with :) 16:49:56 <geppetto> Cool 16:52:43 <geppetto> Ok, I think we are done for this week … enjoy your spring vacation. 16:53:20 <decathorpe> you too! 16:54:00 <decathorpe> and thanks for organizing the meeting every week, geppetto 16:54:13 <geppetto> #endmeeting