17:00:53 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc 17:00:53 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 4 17:00:53 2017 UTC. The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:53 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:53 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:53 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc 17:00:53 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:53 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call 17:01:02 <mbooth> hi 17:01:05 <geppetto> hey 17:01:08 <geppetto> #chair mboddu 17:01:08 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mboddu 17:01:12 <geppetto> #undo 17:01:12 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x2b4a9b50> 17:01:24 <geppetto> #unchair mboddu 17:01:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto 17:01:30 <geppetto> #chair mbooth 17:01:30 <tomspur> Hi 17:01:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth 17:01:33 <geppetto> #chair tomspur 17:01:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth tomspur 17:05:08 <mbooth> Hm 17:07:55 <geppetto> IIRC tibbs said he probably couldn't make it this week 17:08:12 <mbooth> Sorry I wasn't here last week btw 17:09:12 <Rathann> hi 17:09:14 <Rathann> sorry got distracted 17:09:28 <orionp> hello. Here, barely 17:09:29 <geppetto> #chair Rathann 17:09:29 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth tomspur 17:09:33 <geppetto> #chair orionp 17:09:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp tomspur 17:09:41 <geppetto> Woo … 5 peeps :) 17:09:48 <mbooth> \o/ 17:09:56 <geppetto> #topic Schedule 17:10:26 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TO325LMDAHN4N5SSI2PPESSLOZJU5GLT/ 17:12:06 <geppetto> #topic #708 Allocating a static uid and gid for openvswitch 17:12:12 <geppetto> .fpc 708 17:12:14 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #708: Allocating a static uid and gid for openvswitch - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/708 17:13:27 <mbooth> So, I'm not sure if there is precedent for this -- I'm almost sure tibbs would know :-) 17:13:51 <geppetto> Also … pretty much every application would hit this, no? 17:14:15 <mbooth> Yes 17:14:24 <orionp> yeah, most backups use names 17:14:45 <Rathann> restoring from backup case is not a valid reason, but having to match between host and VMs could be 17:15:40 <mbooth> Hmm, yeah. They give no reason why ID must survive a backup/restore 17:16:26 <mbooth> Why does it matter if openvswitch picks a new ID, etc? 17:19:02 <mbooth> Further, if files he needs to backup are containing the ID then this seems like bug in openvswitch, right? It should be storing and using the name? 17:19:12 <geppetto> #action We would need to know why it matters if the ID changes. Backup software understand ID's can change, and so save names/etc. 17:19:41 <geppetto> Yeh, but good luck getting upstream to fix that 17:20:24 <geppetto> #topic #710 Ruby packaging guidelines update 17:20:27 <geppetto> .fpc 710 17:20:28 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #710: Ruby packaging guidelines update - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/710 17:21:06 <geppetto> Diff: 17:21:07 <geppetto> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AVondruch%2FDraft_RubyGuidelines&diff=501566&oldid=500202 17:23:18 <tomspur> "F26 and older" in the warning box also includes EPEL? 17:23:45 <orionp> presumably 17:23:54 <Rathann> I'd like an explanation why the paths changed from current dir to ../ 17:24:15 <mbooth> tomspur: I guess it's really RPM < 4.14 17:24:37 <tomspur> The older warning box removed F19/20 and EPEL, so maybe it works on EPEL now 17:25:05 <Rathann> ah, I think it's because the unpacked gem lands the .gemspec file in topdir 17:25:14 <Rathann> ok, no question then 17:25:17 <orionp> Rathann: was not creating a build directory before I think - probably should be a source macro instead of relative path 17:26:09 <Rathann> no, actually the ../ is fine 17:28:11 <Rathann> ok, the changes look fine to me 17:28:13 <Rathann> +1 17:28:54 <mbooth> The minutes from the last meeting say these guidelines only work on F27+ 17:29:02 <mbooth> From the log "<vondruch> it should be modified to "Different Guidelines for Fedora up to including 26 and EPEL6/7" 17:29:17 <mbooth> tomspur: To answer your Q 17:29:41 <tomspur> mbooth: thanks 17:30:02 <mbooth> I guess we should ask if the situation changed or if the warning should change to reflect reality :-) 17:31:06 <Rathann> well there's an {{admon saying that for F26 and older you need to keep using the previous code snippet 17:31:23 <tomspur> I'd just add EPEL6/7 there too then 17:31:36 <Rathann> yes 17:31:59 <Rathann> I also think we should notify the EPEL SIG when introducing new guidelines incompatible with EPEL 17:32:01 <tomspur> This was in the previous warning box "In Fedora 19/20 and EPEL 6/7 the Ruby guidelines were slightly different." 17:32:34 <tomspur> Unsure if EPEL behaves now as F20 or F26 17:33:35 <mbooth> I think I'm other happy with the guidelines if we get that clarification 17:34:14 <mbooth> s/other/otherwise/ 17:35:47 <pvalena> mbooth: AFAIK some of the macros were backported to EL7, but I think some differencies still exist (I'm not sure at all about EL6) 17:36:14 <mbooth> Sure -- it's just the admon has different wording to what vondruch said it should be :-) 17:36:44 <tomspur> Why should some of the test frameworks be avoided? 17:36:56 <tomspur> "Rake almost always draws in some unnecessary dependencies like hoe" 17:37:26 <tomspur> unnecessary runtime dependencies might be slow, but I don't fully get why it should be avoided 17:39:01 <pvalena> tomspur: it's harder to package if gem has a lot of dependencies, esp. circular, and most of the time it can be easily avoided 17:40:22 <pvalena> tomspur: f.e. in most cases rake just executes the test suite, so it can be executed by simillar means, without the redundant dependencies for build 17:40:51 <tomspur> ok 17:41:04 <tomspur> pvalena: thakns 17:41:14 <pvalena> tomspur: yaw 17:41:34 <tomspur> One regex for the tests has changed. I guess that should all be ./test/test_*.rb, right? 17:42:02 <tomspur> The rest looks fine to me 17:42:47 <pvalena> tomspur: no, the latter is the correct one, as the tests can be nested in multiple folder levels 17:43:06 <pvalena> ** expands those 17:44:22 <tomspur> I'd use a consistent regex on both examples. The one with ** is also fine 17:46:52 <pvalena> tomspur: well I'd say it's fine this way, as in the text you're just trying to reference to the test files while mentioning the regex may be different 17:47:45 <pvalena> (it's also actually not a regex) 17:48:51 <pvalena> (in case you're interested, ref: https://ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Dir.html#method-c-glob ) 17:49:10 <mbooth> I think geppetto fell asleep :-) 17:49:19 <mbooth> I added my concern to the ticket 17:49:24 <geppetto> Ruby API docs will do that to me :) 17:49:58 <mbooth> I will have to leave at the top of the hour 17:50:17 * geppetto nods 17:51:30 <tomspur> pvalena: I see. So this doesn't work for jruby and therefore another pattern is used there? 17:51:51 * tomspur doesn't do anything with ruby usually :) 17:52:53 <geppetto> Yeh, me either 17:53:01 <pvalena> tomspur: I do not really know about jruby, as we do not use or maintan it, but I think the behavior should be consistent 17:53:36 <pvalena> it's more dependent on the 'test/' file structure 17:53:59 <tomspur> ok 17:54:23 <pvalena> (f.e. in some rare cases the _test.rb suffix may be different) 17:57:22 <geppetto> ok, before the end of the hour … is there anything specific we want as an action? 17:57:38 <geppetto> So that people will be able to vote 17:57:58 <tomspur> The clarification from mbooth is fine for me 17:58:29 <orionp> I have to go now... 18:00:18 <geppetto> #action Q: Has the situation changed or should the warning should change to reflect reality: 18:00:24 <geppetto> Q: Has the situation changed or should the warning should change to reflect reality: 18:00:35 <geppetto> Is that good? 18:01:10 * Rathann sees too many "should" 18:01:19 * geppetto nods 18:01:22 <geppetto> #undo 18:01:22 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by geppetto at 18:00:18 : Q: Has the situation changed or should the warning should change to reflect reality: 18:02:14 <geppetto> #action Q: Has the situation changed or should the admon/warning change to reflect reality? 18:03:04 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor 18:03:15 <geppetto> Ok, anything anyone wants to discuss? 18:04:03 <Rathann> nothing from me this week 18:04:12 <Rathann> I'm still catching up after vacation 18:04:16 <geppetto> ok 18:05:10 <geppetto> Ok, see you next week 18:05:19 <geppetto> #endmeeting