14:03:56 #startmeeting kde-sig -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Meetings/2010-05-04 14:03:56 Meeting started Tue May 4 14:03:56 2010 UTC. The chair is jreznik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:03:56 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:04:23 #meetingname kde-sig 14:04:23 The meeting name has been set to 'kde-sig' 14:04:55 #chair Kevin_Kofler than ltinkl rdieter_work SMParrish 14:04:55 Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler SMParrish jreznik ltinkl rdieter_work than 14:05:03 #topic roll call 14:05:09 who's present" 14:05:11 ? 14:05:12 Present. 14:05:14 * SMParrish here 14:05:18 * Sho_ waves 14:06:03 * than is half here, i have headache, will leave office earlier 14:06:07 let's wait few seconds for other guys 14:06:17 * ltinkl is here 14:06:38 than: ok, np... I'm actually pto with my eyes in pain :) 14:07:11 first topic: health of the kde sig members 14:07:12 ;) 14:07:39 * ltinkl coughs 14:07:40 jreznik: we will try make short meeting tody 14:07:58 #info Kevin_Kofler than ltinkl SMParrish Sho_ present 14:08:06 #topic agenda 14:08:57 we have two topics now + kde 4.4.3 update status? 14:09:17 there's also a few packages where f12 is newer than f13 right now 14:09:21 arora and cmake .. 14:09:33 (in kde-redhat) 14:09:37 (not in official repos) 14:09:43 yep 14:10:11 * Kevin_Kofler wonders what happened to rdieter… 14:11:08 jreznik: 1 topic? 14:11:16 jreznik: I think that's all, let's please start. 14:11:22 Kevin_Kofler: ok 14:11:39 let's start with 4.4.3 14:11:45 it seems kde-4.4.3 was built with wrong tag (i386) 14:11:46 #topic 4.4.3 update status 14:12:16 We have built all our packages, but the special tag was misconfigured (rdieter created them for the first time and he forgot a step). 14:12:18 we have to rebuilt it again with correct tag 14:12:25 So now all the 32-bit pkgs are i386. 14:12:38 We need to rebuild all the non-noarch packages (all kde*, only oxygen-icon-theme should be fine). 14:12:44 is it affected only in f12? 14:12:51 All 3. 14:12:59 F11 should be i586, F12 and F13 should be i686. 14:13:04 * than is looking at f11 14:13:24 how to fix this? 14:13:25 it's affected in f11 too 14:13:26 #info kde-4.4.3 was built with wrong tag (i386) 14:14:33 Kevin_Kofler: do you know if rex already fixed this tag issue? 14:14:55 really all 3 14:15:10 than: He fixed the special tags. 14:15:17 We need to rebuild the packages now, but we can start now. 14:15:20 It should work now. 14:15:31 Kevin_Kofler: for f11/f12/f13? 14:15:36 Yes. 14:15:39 devel is fine. 14:15:53 We should append .1 to all the Release tags and rebuild. 14:15:55 ok, lukas, could you please take care of the rebuilt? 14:16:00 ok 14:16:07 ltinkl: thanks 14:16:09 (e.g. Release: 1%{?dist}.1) 14:16:15 all packages in all distros right? 14:16:21 ltinkl: just bump the release and build again 14:16:23 F11/F12/F13. 14:16:23 F11/F12/F13 14:16:26 No need to rebuild devel. 14:16:26 yup 14:16:41 no need to build noarch packages 14:16:47 kde-l10n/oxygen 14:16:51 no tagging required right? 14:17:20 ltinkl: no 14:17:35 #action ltinkl to rebuild all arch dep. packages in F-11, F-12, F-13 14:18:12 move on? 14:18:16 ltinkl: you need dist-f11|f12|13-kde443 14:18:23 by make build 14:18:24 than: I know 14:19:05 ok, move on 14:19:10 #topic List of critical KDE packages for new update policy (requested by FESCo) 14:19:23 So FESCo asked me to bring this up in our meeting. 14:19:45 They want a list of packages we consider critical for updates so they can put extra bureaucracy on them. :-/ 14:19:58 [] - empty list :) 14:20:04 Mind you, all packages will get extra bureaucracy, but critical ones will get more of it. 14:20:37 I understand why but it's overdesigned and overbureaucracy 14:20:51 Isn't there a cliche about Austrians liking bureaucracy? ;) 14:21:04 no thats germans 14:21:10 che: +1 ^^ 14:21:11 and it only a myth 14:21:18 * che is german 14:21:26 nah, I'm pretty sure it was specifically about people living in Vienna actually 14:21:32 anyway, not meeting business obviously, sorry ;) 14:21:34 a proper process != overhead 14:21:48 In any case I'm also for the empty list. 14:22:05 let's take it seriously now ;-) 14:22:09 empty list is win 14:22:20 if no one has objections id love to add my opinion 14:22:57 in case we are not allowed to have empty list - that means all kde could be in critical path as we have very few packages and all packages are connected/dependent... 14:23:19 as a constant user of development packages/rawhide id see everything related to a bootup process in runlevel 3 as critical ;) 14:23:25 While not everyone agrees with the direction FESCO is taking, we still have to work within the guidelines. An empty list is not the answer, we need to give the a real list 14:23:47 SMParrish: yes, but real list = nearly whole KDE 14:24:31 jreznik: why should it include it all. I would say kdebase libs as a start 14:24:41 How do you define what's critical? 14:24:45 i would add kdelibs/kdebase-workspace to the list 14:24:48 IMHO it's impossible. 14:25:03 it the enpty list is really not allowed 14:25:07 And critical packages are dep-transitive. 14:25:18 kdebase-workspace + its deps = half of the distro 14:25:18 Kevin_Kofler: exactly 14:25:29 Even eet, an Enlightenment package, would get dragged in. 14:25:39 (kdebase-workspace requires qedje which requires eet.) 14:26:37 and we usually do batch updates - whole KDE SC packages - all packages depends on kdelibs, so it blocks whole update 14:26:39 Kevin_Kofler: they asked for a list we give it to them. the fact that if pulls in a ton of extraneous stuff is what they will have to work through 14:26:47 * ltinkl notes the command "rpmdev-bumpspec -r --comment="- rebuild against correct tag" F-1{1,2,3}/*.spec" for later usage :) 14:28:36 another thing is - we have to assure that our update is not broken, but it's task for us - KDE SIG, as I'm not sure anyone else in Fedora is interested in it 14:28:53 jreznik: +1 14:29:14 And so far we didn't have any breakage which would warrant stricter scrutiny for our packages. 14:30:18 I agree with Kevin (and his open letter) - this is SIG task... 14:30:34 +1 14:30:50 let's prepare two variants - one is empty list - and try to convice FESCo to lighter policy 14:31:31 here (late, sorry) 14:31:56 another is as much lightweight list - so kdelibs and kdebase-workspace (but that mean lot of deps - should be out of scope, so only these TWO packages) 14:32:01 rdieter: So we're currently discussing the critical package list for KDE which FESCo has asked us for. 14:32:31 IMHO we should just turn up with the empty list. 14:32:39 ie, packages to be considered critpath ? 14:32:41 jreznik: it's stupid to add the deps to the list 14:32:44 qt, kdelibs, kdebase* 14:32:54 are imho the most important 14:32:54 than: But that's how they work. 14:33:21 than: yes 14:33:22 could start out small, say just qt/kdelibs 14:33:27 And in some ways it makes sense, if a lib has unresolved symbols, the dependent packages won't work. 14:33:42 A lib bug can also make everything crash. 14:34:07 question is - what is critical 14:34:10 and consider adding kdebase-workspace, when/if we can split it a bit to avoid pulling in more than want we minimally want. 14:34:27 does this mean - working desktop (so kdebase-workspace) or just qt/kde apps? 14:34:29 For workspace, I guess kdm and its deps could work. 14:34:43 It's critical, it'd protect the kdebase-workspace SRPM, but not qedje, eet and stuff like that. 14:35:12 kdm is good, kpackagekit should be considered 14:35:34 But this all assumes we want to have a nonempty critpath at all. :-) 14:36:10 I don't see how we'd need critpath protection for our stuff. It doesn't work anyway as the recent HAL splitting fiasco has shown. 14:36:34 provided we have enough proventesters, are there any other downsides to critpath? 14:36:44 (talking mostly to Kevin_Kofler here) 14:36:47 I would rather us provide them with a suitable list, than have one provided to us. That is the risk we take if we send them an empty list 14:37:05 AIUI, they want to require 1 proventester + 1 regular tester for critpath packages. 14:37:15 ok, I think we can handle that. 14:37:17 (or 2 proventesters, of course) 14:37:19 Not just 1 proventester. 14:37:46 ok, so let's have two our provetesters under KDE SIG umbrella and it's ok to have everything in critical path 14:38:00 any volunteer? 14:38:00 Well, is everything really critical? 14:38:07 I wouldn't call kdesdk critpath. 14:38:19 Kevin_Kofler: no, it isn't ;-) 14:38:24 Of course Kompare is so important everyone absolutely needs it working. ^^ 14:38:51 More seriously, I think Kate might be considered critical by some folks. But I don't think it qualifies for critpath. 14:38:52 I'd propose: qt (implicit), kdelibs, kdm as our initial list 14:39:02 rdieter: +1 14:39:05 * thomasj waves late 14:39:20 I'd propose: as our initial list. ^^ 14:39:28 I'm omitting kpackagekit, since I'm still not convinced we could get timely fixes when/if any problems are identified anyway 14:39:30 I'm not sure critpath should be strongly package wise based 14:39:32 I'd agree with rdieter's list +1 14:39:50 for desktop it should be more - basic testcase for whole env. should pass 14:40:11 and we can work to split out stuff from kdebase-workspace that we don't consider critical 14:40:33 but atm, the umbrella kdebase-workspace pulls in a bit much, imo. 14:41:26 jreznik: I think the whole critpath process is just broken. 14:41:53 Kevin_Kofler: we know how you feel. :) 14:42:26 So now we have 3 votes for rdieter's proposal, 1 for the empty list. 14:42:54 ltinkl? than? 14:43:18 Kevin_Kofler: I don't like package based critpath but I understand that we need some more assurance we do not ship shit 14:43:21 +1 for rdieter proposal 14:43:28 OK, so it passes. 14:43:32 Move on please. 14:44:10 #agreed critical path components are qt (implicit), kdelibs, kdm 14:44:26 #topic Bug Triage method (rough draft) 14:44:42 #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Bugz 14:46:04 This is just codifying existing practice, isn't it? 14:46:12 This draft is my method of triage and as I found out its very similar to what the KDE folks do as well. In fact the flow chart came from them 14:46:37 "(distribution or plugin)" would need to be replaced for us. 14:46:51 Kevin_Kofler: yes it is. people wanted it in print 14:47:15 not sure if it's worth documenting exceptions, but for "important" and reproducible items, the kde sig take take over the job of pushing certain bugs upstream. 14:47:20 one question is if we can/should change upstreaming policy 14:47:22 In our case it'd be "(upstream)". 14:47:24 Otherwise this looks OK. 14:47:27 s/take take/can take/ 14:48:01 I'll clean it up and change the wording on the flow chart this week 14:48:04 rdieter: +1 (but again - it's practically current existing practice for important issues) 14:48:22 ok, then rubber stamp a-ok from me too, +1 14:48:50 +1 to this policy, looks sane. 14:49:01 +1 from me too 14:50:36 very nice chart 14:50:37 +1 (with rdieter's proposed extension) 14:52:06 ok we have 4 votes 14:52:51 #agreed on bugreporting policy 14:53:01 anything else to the topic? 14:54:29 #topic open discussion 14:54:57 rdieter: 14:54:58 there's also a few packages where f12 is newer than f13 right now 14:54:58 arora and cmake .. 14:54:58 (in kde-redhat) 14:54:58 (not in official repos) 14:54:58 yep 14:55:08 yeah rdieter knows 14:55:21 Saw an email this am that koffice needs to be rebuilt for rawhide 14:55:34 I'm a little surprised about cmake, we can/should do an update to get that up to 2.8.1 14:55:47 arora was just a qt47 rebuild (I think) 14:56:24 SMParrish: yeah, an abi-breaking poppler landed in rawhide 14:58:04 who's doing the kde-4.4.3 rebuilds ? 14:58:11 (sorry, I missed that part) 14:58:52 rdieter: ltinkl is taking care of it. 14:59:08 ltinkl: remember devel/rawhide too 14:59:21 um, I was told not to 14:59:57 ok, time is out, let's move back to #fedora-kde 15:00:10 rdieter: devel was built properly. 15:00:31 We're doing the "append .1 and rebuild" trick. 15:00:31 ltinkl: ok, it's just for upgrade paths, bumping cvs only is probably ok at this point then 15:00:32 ah, nvm. :) 15:00:34 good. 15:00:56 #endmeeting