17:05:02 #startmeeting fpc 17:05:02 Meeting started Thu Feb 12 17:05:02 2015 UTC. The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:05:02 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:05:08 #meetingname fpc 17:05:08 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:05:21 #topic Roll Call 17:05:22 #chair tibbs|w 17:05:22 Current chairs: geppetto tibbs|w 17:05:31 #chair orionp 17:05:31 Current chairs: geppetto orionp tibbs|w 17:05:36 #chair Rathann 17:05:36 Current chairs: Rathann geppetto orionp tibbs|w 17:05:40 #chair mbooth 17:05:40 Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs|w 17:06:31 #chair tomspur 17:06:31 Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs|w tomspur 17:07:14 #topic #126 bundling exception for scintilla 17:07:18 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/126 17:07:53 #chair racor 17:07:53 Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs|w tomspur 17:08:42 So, this one is old. 17:08:46 indeed 17:08:53 It's kind of annoying, too. 17:09:32 A whole lot of things bundle scintilla. I don't know what security impact it has. 17:09:54 This one may fall under the "too big to do anything about" rule, but I don't know. 17:11:26 scintilla is rather a lot of code, too. 17:11:46 But the packages may not be bundling all of it. 17:11:55 * tomspur wonders what changes all packages need to do each time 17:12:43 So, in all that time we never really got a handle on what's being modified, and whether everything that's bundling it actually modifies it. 17:13:01 Some packages seem to require qscintilla without bundling it... 17:13:17 But is qscintilla even the same thing as scintilla? 17:13:36 QScintilla is a port to Qt of Neil Hodgson's Scintilla C++ editor control. 17:13:41 It could be that scintilla bundles scintilla, and then things pull in scintilla. 17:13:54 Or whatever I intended to say but didn't type sensibly. 17:14:39 This all needs a rather complete analysis, and nobody seems to want to do that in the ticket. 17:15:05 well granting an exception is an easy way out, but being the FPC, we shouldn't do that 17:15:27 Proposal: try to find what's bundling scintilla, and try to do a rundown of what would need an exception. 17:15:41 you are volunteering? 17:15:46 I don't think a blanket exception is warranted at this point. It's not supposed to be a copylib in any case. 17:15:54 I can try to find some things; there's a list in the package. 17:16:08 I'd be +1 to a temporary exception while someone works on the analysis, however 17:16:10 But mainly it will just be pinging package maintainers for info. 17:16:25 Rathann: I don't see the point. The stuff is in there already. 17:16:27 sadly, I can't devote too much time to this for the next couple of weeks 17:16:38 geppetto: Yes, I'll volunteer to do what I can, but I doubt I could find everything. 17:16:58 * geppetto nods 17:17:05 Don't really relish doing a full checkout, prep and grep of the entire package set. 17:17:30 Not sure how else you'd find an exhaustive list of what's bundling it, though. 17:18:17 Anyway, I can try to do some analysis from the list given in comment 14. 17:18:44 I suspect lots of things are bundling an old version, which means we kind of get more evidence of why bundling is bad. 17:18:49 tibbs|w: I wish we had something like https://codesearch.debian.net/ 17:18:56 One day, maybe. 17:19:01 Anyway, action that and move on? 17:19:08 Is it even worth pursuing? 17:19:19 orionp: What's "it"? 17:19:23 http://mmaslano.fedorapeople.org/review/perl-Wx-Scintilla.spec -> 404 17:19:26 #action tibbs try to find what's bundling scintilla, and try to do a rundown of what would need an exception. 17:19:49 orionp: in CPAN Wx::Scintilla looks dead 17:19:54 #topic #202 Application for exemption from "No bundling" rule: Gargoyle 17:19:59 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/202 17:20:55 tibbs|w: You seem to think this is too small to care about? 17:21:00 This was an old one, would probably be accepted under our "too insignificant to care" rule, but I think the package submitter gave up. 17:21:12 Not really small, just kind of pointless. 17:21:19 To recap, 17:21:29 It's a program that plays various kinds of text adventures. 17:21:45 * geppetto nods 17:21:50 It bundles some of the interpreters and modifies them to work within its framework. 17:22:04 Which is basically just shoving them into the main window. 17:22:13 Most of the things bundled are dead upstream. 17:22:29 And a lot of work went into unbundling some of the stuff, I think. It's been a long time. 17:23:18 But I can see just closing this since it doesn't really matter. I actually wanted to use it but I can build it myself. I guess I could reopen if I or limb wanted to submit it in the future. (He does a lot of game stuff.) 17:23:46 Don't really want to waste meeting time on it, though. 17:24:04 yeh, I mean I can see the desire to just accept it as is 17:24:19 but, I don't think I'd normally want to pass it given the size etc. 17:24:21 * geppetto shrugs 17:24:37 Anyone else have an opinion? 17:25:03 What is the "too insignificant to care" rule? Could it be written down somewhere? ;) 17:25:16 I don't know if we ever actually wrote those down. 17:25:21 If not, it would suck. 17:25:29 Carlo has not responded since before the FPC last discussed this in 2012? 17:25:39 Either in trac or bugzilla 17:25:52 Yeah, let's just move on with it and if I feel like taking it over I'll start afresh. 17:26:45 #action Still no, close and reopen if someone wants to start afresh 17:26:55 #topic #221 Bundling exception request: numptyphysics and Box2D 17:26:59 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/221 17:27:26 Postpone until we can get limb here? 17:27:35 I don't recall where he's gone lately. 17:27:36 That's fine. 17:28:09 #action postpone until limburgher is at the meeting. 17:28:19 #topic #235 exception for bundling a library into uif2iso package 17:28:23 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/235 17:28:52 This is another ancient one. Last comment two years ago. 17:28:56 We really kind of fell down. 17:29:47 Oops. 17:30:09 I agree we should find out if this is still relevant -- bundling encryption makes me nervous 17:30:42 yeh, but I'm confused … does he just want to bundle a single gost.c file from an ancient version of libmcrypt? 17:30:45 I can bump back to needinfo. ufs2iso doesn't seem to be in the distribution. 17:31:18 the review request is still ongoing. Last comment a year ago 17:31:30 oh two years ago... 17:31:38 I can close the review request if we close the ticket. 17:31:54 That is probably the easiest 17:31:59 Yep. 17:32:21 Upstream also seems quite dead if they "don't want to modify it as it suits their needs"... 17:32:26 #action Just close this out, open a new ticket if someone wants to start afresh 17:32:26 Yeah. 17:32:45 #topic #338 %doc and %_pkgdocdir duplicate files and cause conflicts 17:32:49 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/338 17:32:57 Something more meaty.... 17:33:16 Unfortunately I don't really know what to do here. 17:34:18 Hmm, looks like I was supposed to do something there. Crap. 17:34:31 I just read the meeting notes from three weeks ago. 17:35:07 I'll do what I promised to do (restate the proposal) and we can see if anyone cares enough to vote. 17:35:20 ok 17:35:32 geppetto and tibbs just voted +1 to the last proposal in there in that meeting but nobody else had any opinion. 17:35:56 Does anyone else want to vote now? 17:36:12 mbooth: racor: Rathann: ? 17:36:16 tomspur: ? 17:36:25 I think it needs a proper draft. There's a lot to read in that ticket. 17:36:55 yeah, a draft would be helpful 17:37:05 The proposal was fairly simple .... " "Packages must not use both relative %doc in the %files section and manual installation of documentation files into %{_docdir} in a single spec file"" 17:37:38 I can put you do to do an official policy change though, if you want tibbs|w? 17:37:50 Also interesting is that we have no Fedora release with unversioned docdirs these days. 17:38:02 indeed 17:38:05 Sure, action that I'll do a draft. 17:38:09 geppetto: Aha, I could not find the "proposal"in the ticket 17:38:31 Yeah, there's a lot of stuff there. Which is why I promised to restate it at the bottom, and then failed. 17:38:36 #action tibbs Restate the proposal as a policy change, so we can vote on it 17:38:56 #topic #346 Bundling exception request for Eclipse Sisu 17:39:02 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/346 17:39:26 I thought we had a solution that didn't involve FPC at all, but there was no response. 17:39:39 Well, no response to my last comment. 17:39:50 given comment #9 … this seems trivial … they should just fix it 17:40:20 I am familir with ASM package -- I could propose a patch 17:40:28 cool 17:40:34 I think the patch is already in the sisu package. 17:40:59 This is just moving it to a better place, the asm package, so everything automatically works whenever asm is updated and there's no actual bundling at all. 17:41:27 I'd suggest we close the ticket since there's a sensible non-bundling solution, and then they can reopen if it doesn't work. 17:41:38 Sure -- I am happy to fix asm so mikolaj can unbundle from sisu 17:41:59 Awesome. 17:42:00 #action No bundling, do the automatic re-namespacing in sub-package fix. 17:42:11 #topic #381 Bundling exception for python-matplotlib fonts 17:42:17 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/381 17:43:04 I don't know what's left to do. 17:43:24 yeh, I wasn't sure if I should just delete it 17:43:41 but given the last comment asking for comments 17:43:49 I thought we might as well take a look 17:43:51 We already granted an exemption, I think, though now re-reading I can't see where. 17:44:38 Not sure if comment 2 was what we voted on, or what we were going to vote on. 17:44:44 comment #2 I guess 17:45:10 But if the former, I don't think the fonts ever got pushed into the subpackage as requested. 17:45:23 I think we voted on it 17:45:40 There's no python-matplotlib-whatever-fonts package in F21, at least. 17:45:40 isn't that what the last comment is about? 17:46:00 Oh, durr, I'm wrong. 17:46:24 He did what we asked, and I don't really see any further issue. 17:46:42 yeh, ok … worth the 5 minutes to double check :) 17:47:01 #action Everything going as planned, excellent. Can close. 17:47:11 #topic #399 request for bundled library exception - clustal omega 17:47:16 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/399 17:48:06 Still no movement; we're at +4, though some of those plusses are from people not on the committee so there's a fun issue there. 17:48:17 "not currently on the committe" 17:48:28 * geppetto nods 17:48:41 "I contacted the upstream author - my understanding is that they are not interested in getting any "outside" code changes. " 17:48:44 Always a good lol 17:48:50 It's a copylib, I guess. 17:49:06 Yeh, I guess I'm still +1 17:49:10 I mean, he dumped some code out there, but doesn't want the overhead of "developing" it. I can sort of understand that. 17:49:25 mbooth: racor: Rathann: tomspur: vote ? 17:49:28 I'm +1 as well as stated in the ticket. Hoped other folks would just vote there, but nothing has happened. 17:49:58 Rathann: was -1 17:50:02 so I guess he still is 17:50:12 Rathann mentionedthat the bundled code is just sloppy coding... 17:50:15 yes, sorry, got a little crisis around here 17:50:21 no problem 17:50:37 I'm -1 17:50:44 Alternative is to just fork the damn library and package it properly. 17:50:51 I doubt anything else uses it. 17:50:54 So asking upstream for upstreaming the code first, would be nice 17:51:19 well, squid upstream is apparently not accepting patches 17:51:31 I agree with Rathann's assessment in the ticket, but I am not super against bundling 17:51:36 tomspur: They did. 17:51:42 Upstream doesn't care. 17:51:51 hm 17:51:51 +0, I guess 17:52:01 is anything else in Fedora bundling? 17:52:02 hmm... +1 then also... :/ 17:52:04 where doesn't care == doesn't care to accept patches 17:52:21 *bundling this squid code 17:52:34 so atm. we are at (+1:3, 0:1, -1:1) 17:52:37 Rathann: I don't know an easy way to find that in any case. 17:53:14 ah wait 17:53:14 Would everyone be happy if they forked squid and packaged it separately? 17:53:31 it was said that clustal is the only consumer in Fedora atm 17:53:34 Of course, it would need a different name, because squid is kind of already taken. 17:53:55 so I'll change my vote to +1, if only because there's no 17:54:20 real benefit in unbundling in this case 17:54:23 And back to +4, I guess. 17:54:41 this raises the bar for the next squid bundler I suppose 17:55:05 sorry folks, I was distracted on the phone and now am trying to catch up, but you're too fast ... 17:55:22 How about a -squid subpackage and it should be fine/"too insignificant to care"? ;) 17:55:31 Mad typor skillz. 17:55:35 mbooth: You want to change to +1 now that Rathann has ? 17:55:46 tomspur: it's modified so not really upstream compatible 17:55:48 no point 17:56:19 as I said, it could've been made upstream API-compatible (maybe even ABI-) with a bit of effort 17:56:23 geppetto: It still passes whether I do or not :-) 17:56:31 :) 17:56:51 it needs +5, and we're at +4 17:56:59 Aren't we are +1:4 now? 17:57:00 or am I counting wrong? 17:57:01 * geppetto nods 17:57:35 I get geppetto tibbs Rathann tomspur as +1 17:57:43 Oh we need unanimous +1's? 17:57:50 no … we need +5 17:58:24 Even if people aren't here, we still need more than half of the committee. 17:58:35 mbooth: there are 9 FPC members in total, so 5 of 9 is the majority 17:58:58 Rathann: I thought so, I guess there's only 5 of us here today 17:59:10 My vote on squid: 0 18:00:16 Not going to pass today, I guess. Back to the voting state? 18:00:42 Well I guess I can +1 this 18:01:07 I wanted to show my ambivilence 18:01:15 I know the feeling. 18:01:26 my vote on #381 (python-mathplotlib-fonts): -1 18:01:36 * geppetto nods 18:02:06 #action request for bundled library exception - clustal omega (+1:5, 0:1, -1:0) 18:02:10 racor: Thing is, we approved that ages ago. It just never got closed out, 18:02:25 #topic #401 (reverse) bundling exception for stream-lib 18:02:30 If another squid consumer comes up, though, someone needs to fork it properly. 18:02:30 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/401 18:02:55 this is another that got some votes, but not enough 18:03:24 I think it's at +3 currently, excluding Toshio who is no longer on the committee. 18:03:45 I can't remember the details of this in any case, but I doubt anything happened to change my mind. 18:04:19 yeh, I'll let Rathann, tomspur, mbooth, racor have a look 18:05:13 +1 I guess, but what happens when someone wants to package Cassandra 18:05:54 I'm not sure it's a problem 18:06:12 they took an API that's part of cassandra, and changed the API to make it easier to use 18:06:17 * geppetto shrugs 18:06:36 It's been 11 months, is willb still interested in this? willb seems AWOL from his other packages 18:06:48 Can certainly ping. 18:06:48 not sure 18:06:57 Mostly Scala things that FTBFS for a looong time 18:06:57 mbooth, not AWOL, just hitting snags 18:07:00 Probably should have just done that instead of putting it to voting. 18:07:07 Oh hi willb! 18:07:07 we can always approve it anyway, and if someone else wants to pick it up they can 18:07:11 also, stream-lib seems to bundle murmurhash 18:07:51 willb: Sorry for assuming your absence 18:08:13 My vote on #401: -1 18:08:48 ok, that's at +1:3, 0:0, -1:1 … now, I think 18:08:58 mbooth, no prob, sorry to give that impression! 18:10:31 mbooth: tomspur Rathann: vote? 18:10:48 From what's in the ticket I really think this is a clean fork. 18:11:01 I would have said so too 18:11:17 Yeah, +1 from me 18:11:44 tibbs|w: although they are tracking cassandra's git commits … so it's a bit greyer 18:11:51 ok, that's at +1:4, 0:0, -1:1 … now, I think 18:12:08 geppetto: I already said +1 18:12:16 Rathann: Ahh, sorry, missed it 18:13:07 #action bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) 18:13:13 Great, so I can stay at a clean +0... 18:13:21 #undo 18:13:21 Removing item from minutes: ACTION by geppetto at 18:13:07 : bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:0, -1:1) 18:13:24 #action bundling/forking of cassandra bloom filters for stream-lib (+1:5, 0:1, -1:1) 18:13:35 #topic #426 Need policy and macros for binfmt.d file handling 18:13:40 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/426 18:14:38 tibbs|w: What did you want us to vote on here? 18:14:46 regarding #381 I'm +1 to temporary bundling ttf versions of STIX-1.0 fonts until upstream supports 1.1 18:17:09 Is it /lib or /usr/lib/binfmt.d? 18:17:38 I'd assume the later 18:18:00 both seem to be checked in systemd-binfmt.service 18:18:10 spots draft says just /lib 18:18:14 does the former exist? 18:18:15 but the manpage speaks of /usr/lib 18:18:36 well on modern Fedora it's a symlink to /usr/lib anyway 18:19:05 and on older distros. it doesn't exist 18:19:57 tibbs|w: Was it just the /lib vs. /usr/lib confusion, or something else? 18:20:17 Not much different than libreoffice, I think. 18:20:20 I think that's +5, -1 now. 18:20:21 So... 18:20:32 Whoa, I just got a torrent of stuff. 18:20:53 ? 18:20:53 I must have lagged out or freenode is having issues or something. 18:20:58 ahh 18:21:34 I have to go, did we get through everything? 18:21:55 Basically, before writing that up, I wanted to make sure that what we voted on still made sense given that in the meantime we added %binfmt_apply. 18:22:08 mbooth: There was one more I wanted to look at 18:22:20 And that was then all of the really old tickets 18:22:36 tibbs|w: So we good with 426 now? 18:23:01 I.. don't know. 18:23:01 Ahh, nevermind I just saw your reply 18:23:05 * geppetto nods 18:23:37 That draft was written before systemd-binfmt existed, and I suspect it's no longer correct, but I don't know. 18:23:51 I don't find _binfmtdir in the guidelines, would anyone mind, if I just add it to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#binfmt.d.2C_sysctl.d_and_tmpfiles.d ? 18:23:58 I'll try to figure out what on earth systemd-binfmt actually does. 18:24:31 Yeah, 426 is completely obsoleted by the link tomspur just posted, I think. 18:24:36 * geppetto nods 18:24:41 Yeh I think so 18:25:23 tomspur: Yes, I think that you just change /usr/lib/binfmt.d to %_binftdir i that section. 18:25:26 I'd say just do it. 18:25:53 no do it the same way it's done for sysctldir above it 18:26:00 Sure. 18:26:02 It seems like %binfmt_apply doesn't restart binfmt. Seems like that was spots proposal 18:27:13 tomspur: the text you posted doesn't imply that needs to happen 18:27:22 it suggests that binfmt_apply does everything that's needed 18:27:46 tomspur: Hmm, crap. 18:28:03 binfmt_apply just calls /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-binfmt (whatever that does...) 18:28:14 Let me just ping the systemd folks and try to clear this up for next week. 18:28:27 Either way I'm pretty sure spot's proposal was just about the paths, and not changing restarting 18:28:45 I think we can close this as obsolete 18:29:08 Fine with me. 18:29:27 This is an incredibly rare thing to do anyway. 18:29:43 Not everything has to have a complete set of guidelines and examples. 18:29:49 #action Seems to be obsolete by the new wording we have for binfmt_apply. 18:29:59 #topic #435 %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean 18:30:04 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/435 18:31:26 regarding #426, systemd-binfmt.service simply calls /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-binfmt if any of the directories are present 18:31:27 I agree with rathan … and I've done similar things in packages (just copy the entire tree) 18:31:50 so it seems binfmt_apply does everything that's needed 18:31:53 agree with Rathann too ;) 18:32:18 So, on 435, can someone who understand this whip up a draft? 18:32:24 sorry, it's 30 past the hour, ... time for me to quit. 18:32:29 tibbs|w: I can do that 18:32:30 Rathann: Did you still want to propose a draft? 18:32:38 racor: ok, should be ending soon anyway 18:32:44 Rathann: Would changing %py3dir to be in %{buildroot}/%{name}-%{version}/.py3copy also work? 18:32:57 basically we scrap py3dir and make a generic guideline 18:34:01 well py3 is not so special a case, so I'd rather have a generic guideline for this type of thing (MPI is similar) 18:34:29 ok 18:34:39 tomspur: not %{buildroot}, it should be under builddir 18:34:50 if I remember correctly 18:35:20 For MPI, I just pushd/popd to a subfolder and call ../configure. Haven't tried that with python stuff yet 18:35:28 speaking of buildroot, it's really a misnomer and should be renamed to installroot ;) 18:35:35 Rathann: sorry, I meant builddir... 18:37:24 I'll prepare a draft for next week 18:37:29 ok 18:37:48 #action Rathann Will prepare a draft we can vote on for next week 18:38:00 #topic Open Floor 18:38:08 Ok, does anyone want to bring anything up? 18:38:20 I did push that buildroot thing to the packaging list. 18:38:30 * geppetto nods 18:38:57 we didn't get to 495, 497, 498 this week … but I don't think they are urgent … and we did do all the really old tickets 18:39:11 I guess we're plowing through things, and hopefully future meetings will have a shorter agenda. 18:39:17 Would be nice to get back to one hour meetings. 18:39:24 yeh, that would be nice :) 18:39:31 we are getting there 18:39:42 There was a lot of stuff. 18:40:20 yeah, sorry I didn't comment on several tickets today 18:40:35 I was a bit distracted 18:41:05 We're down to 41 total tickets before this meeting, and we've closed out a few now. 18:41:06 it's ok … as tibbs|w said … hopefully it'll be a bunch less work soon 18:41:19 Plus several more needinfo ones are going to get closed soon. 18:42:08 Hmm, a new proposal for doing less package review was just posted to packaging@. 18:43:01 A lot of that is going to go directly to us, too, so prepare for a big one, I guess. 18:43:23 But it seems some people really liked the core/extras split and want to bring it back. 18:43:45 Actually, it seems more like some people liked the old RHL contrib directory and want to bring it back. 18:45:10 Oh, hey. FPC Open Floor. That would be a perfect place to note the straw-man proposal I just sent out :-) 18:45:39 First reaction: hell no. Sorry. 18:47:16 sgallagh: So ring packages are just a giant bundling exception? 18:47:16 tibbs|w: The general sense of that email is this: only have the extremely restrictive rules on the stuff that everyone uses. Lower the bar for the wider package collection 18:47:29 Yeah, I read it. 18:47:33 I just don't agree with it. 18:47:43 yeah... If the projects are so fast moving, it's best to install it locally and not distribute, isn't it? 18:47:44 That's fair. I'm not expecting it to go unchallenged. 18:47:47 I've skimmed it … and talked with other people about things like it before 18:48:11 tomspur: At which point, why does anyone bother installing Fedora? 18:48:15 They can do that with any distro. 18:48:16 In general I think it'd be fine to have "ring packages" _as long as they aren't in the default repo_ 18:48:24 We give them the advantage of an easy way to get it 18:48:39 geppetto: That's basically COPR, but I'm convinced that's not enough. 18:49:03 It's a good start, but not enough and not very discoverable 18:49:04 So if we ship fedora and fedora-ring … even if they are both enabled by default … I'm much more likely to +1 whatever the exceptions are on ring packages than if you lump them in with good ones 18:49:19 Ah, if they're both enabled, that's a different story. 18:49:28 We kind of already do that, though 18:49:38 We ship the install trees and the Everything tree. 18:49:43 yeh, there's 3 levels as I see it … COPR, installed by default, installed and enabled by default 18:50:09 sgallagh: I don't think that ignoring security issues is a reason to install Fedora 18:50:40 tomspur: Well, it would also mean an end to pretending that people aren't just bundling (often accidentally) already. 18:50:40 I'm somewhat happy to have some way to get beta packages into fedora at level 3 … but there needs to be able easy way to fix it (Eg. manually disable that repo(s)) 18:51:22 geppetto: Well, "beta" packages belong in COPR. I think that's hard to disagree with, yes? 18:51:41 Well … that would depend on how you described docker ;) 18:51:48 /me snickers 18:52:41 Accidental bundling is better than on purpose bundline :) 18:52:46 I think how many rings you want, and what the differences should be is a weird debate … and I don't think FPC should be the only person in deciding that 18:53:01 tomspur: I disagree. If you bundle on-purpose, at least you know it's there and can react when needed 18:53:27 geppetto: Oh, absolutely not. That's why the email was posted to devel@ with packaging@ on the CC 18:53:40 I think I would be against a blanket bundling exception for any of the rings … but maybe could be convinced otherwise 18:54:11 I don't think bundling is the holdup for getting packages into the distro anyway. 18:54:41 Having some kind of specialize bundling exception could be doable though (Eg. allowed to bundle parts of other ring packages for N weeks, when features/APIs are needed) 18:54:46 You might be surprised how often that is the case, but it's not the only issue. 18:55:13 geppetto: Also, part of the bundling problem is the time-sink it becomes to the FPC 18:55:40 Since you have to review every one individually (and generally only at meetings, which means it can drag out for some time) 18:55:42 yeh, but that's there in the hope that people won't want to bundling 666 things 18:56:05 Obviously Java/Ruby/Go upstreams don't quite agree 18:56:07 geppetto: How has that worked out? :) 18:57:10 I figure we can either continue to drain the river with a bucket or we can try to redirect it so it runs past where we want to be. 18:57:42 The thing is, you're dealing with upstreams who don't want to be distro-packaged. 18:57:49 That's basically the top and bottom of it. 18:58:12 I think it's not "don't want" and more "don't care" 18:58:30 EIther way, why package them at all? 18:58:55 Because Fedora wants to ship them 18:59:27 Because it's still better for our *users* 18:59:30 at least in some semi usable way … that isn't just "Please type: wget | sh" … :-o 18:59:47 Being able to click on an icon in GNOME Software and have something that works in a few minutes is a significant value 18:59:59 (for example) 19:00:10 If Fedora wants to ship them, Fedora has work to do to make sure it has a functional distro. 19:00:23 Fedora has decided that bundling is antithetical to having a functional distro. 19:00:53 tibbs|w: It decided that at a point in history where most upstreams wanted to be part of the major distros. 19:00:58 I just don't see how packaging software developed by people who don't want us to package software is helping anyone. 19:01:03 As the times change, we need to adapt or fail. 19:01:19 tibbs|w: Again, it's not usually a matter of "don't want". 19:01:40 It's usually a matter of "I'm not changing my upstream to accommodate your needs, so deal with it yourself" 19:01:48