16:21:34 <rdieter> #startmeeting fpc
16:21:34 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 16 16:21:34 2011 UTC.  The chair is rdieter. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:21:34 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:22:21 <rdieter> #topic Minor PHP Guildelines Changes for doc files placemen, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/69
16:22:44 <rdieter> there's some alias/shortcut I'm missing, but we can fake it
16:23:01 <tibbs|h> So, nothing says where doc files have to live, only that they be marked as %doc.
16:23:16 <geppetto> Really? … /usr/share/pear/doc … seems kinda horrible
16:23:37 <tibbs|h> No worse than /usr/share/man/man1/whatever.
16:23:42 <rdieter> I'm ok with it
16:24:01 <Rathann> geppetto: why horrible?
16:24:04 <geppetto> That's different … as that's where the man command looks
16:24:14 <tibbs|h> And /usr/share/pear/doc is where pear looks.
16:24:28 <rdieter> I could bikeshed that perhaps something under /usr/share/doc would be better, but meh.
16:24:47 <limburgher> tibbs|h: +1
16:24:53 <geppetto> Are there only five of us?
16:25:00 <rdieter> so far
16:25:19 <Rathann> what do other distros do in this case?
16:25:20 <tibbs|h> R, for example, has documentation as part of the module and that documentation is buried down under the module directory.
16:25:28 <rdieter> so, we'll have to be unanimous to approve anything
16:25:40 <geppetto> rdieter: yeh, that's what I was thinking
16:25:54 <tibbs|h> One thing to note is that nothing says that anything is wrong with putting the documentation where pear wants to find the documentation.
16:26:13 <limburgher> Which is why I think this is rational.
16:26:27 <tibbs|h> So, really, this guideline isn't a big dea.
16:26:40 <geppetto> tibbs|h: R itself seems to use: /usr/share/doc/R-2.12.2
16:26:57 <tibbs|h> Not really, no.
16:27:14 <tibbs|h> /usr/share/R/library/*/html/*, for example.
16:27:21 <geppetto> Ahh, a few of the modules use … /usr/share/R/library/<module>/html
16:27:56 <tibbs|h> RemiFedora: I don't understand why you need that guideline to be approved in order to fix the spec generator, though.
16:28:02 * geppetto sighs … I think we should at least require people to create aa symlink from /usr/share/doc to whatever other random place they are using
16:28:17 <tibbs|h> Even for manpages?
16:28:20 <RemiFedora> Just because, the move was a common pratice for a very long time
16:28:34 <tibbs|h> The symlink was mentioned, though.
16:28:44 <tibbs|h> In IRC discussion, though it's not in the ticket.
16:28:51 <tibbs|h> RemiFedora: Am I misremembering that?
16:28:53 <RemiFedora> And some of us (pear packages maintainer) think it should be "explicit"
16:29:34 <RemiFedora> Yes, (as you say) the symlink doesn't seems really usefull
16:30:05 <tibbs|h> I do think the argument would be stronger if there was a pear documentation browser of some sort.
16:30:20 <tibbs|h> R does what it does because it has documentation display methods built in.
16:30:44 <geppetto> Yes, if you could do: pear foo … to read the docs for foo, and that required it to be in /usr/share/pear … it still wouldn't be great, but I could understand it more
16:31:12 <tibbs|h> Currently the point is to keep from breaking the pear manifest, I think.
16:31:24 <RemiFedora> the "pear list-files foo" gives you a list of installed, which is actually broken (when doc are moved)
16:31:24 <geppetto> yeh, but I can't say I care about that
16:31:28 <Rathann> so... there is no pear foo to read the docs?
16:32:04 <rdieter> does "pear list-files foo" being broken have any non-cosmetic impact?
16:32:22 <RemiFedora> I don't think
16:32:41 <rdieter> ok, if it did, I was going to argue these should not be marked %doc then
16:33:03 <Rathann> hm apparently debian has /usr/share/doc/php-pear
16:33:03 <tibbs|h> right, otherwise a nodocs install would break things.
16:33:59 <rdieter> are we ready for a vote, or do folks have more questions or comments to make?
16:34:07 <limburgher> ready.
16:34:21 <Rathann> could php-pear be patched to look in /usr/share/doc/php-pear instead?
16:34:27 <Rathann> I'm guessing yes
16:34:28 <RemiFedora> yes
16:34:31 <geppetto> Can they just do a reverse symlink … so /usr/share/pear/doc/blah => /usr/share/doc/blah
16:34:40 <tibbs|h> I think you'd have to patch each package manifest.
16:34:48 <Rathann> ah
16:35:00 <Rathann> that's a bit too much work to put on maintainers
16:35:21 <geppetto> adding a single symlink at %install time?
16:35:34 <RemiFedora> probably we should write %[pear_docdir} (instead of /usr/share/pear/doc) in the guidelines, then, if we want to change this, we patch php-pear, and then all packahe will be redirected to the new path
16:35:42 <tibbs|h> I thought we did.
16:35:56 <RemiFedora> (the %{pear_docdir} macros already provided by php-pear)
16:36:04 <tibbs|h> And already mentioned in the guidelines.
16:36:26 <rdieter> RemiFedora: +1 (in this proposal, yes)
16:36:28 <tibbs|h> I see no instance of /usr/share/pear/doc in the guidelines.
16:36:45 <rdieter> in the ticket 69 it mentions /usr/share/pear/doc
16:36:58 <tibbs|h> Ah, yes, the proposal.
16:37:17 <Rathann> debian packaging doesn't do any patching of the manifest and still puts docs in /usr/share/doc AFAICT
16:37:45 <tibbs|h> If it's a simple patch to pear, that would I think be preferable.
16:38:11 <geppetto> Rathann: What is /usr/ahre/doc/php-pear then?
16:38:22 <geppetto> Oh, nevermind … I didn't read that right
16:38:49 * Rathann is just looking at a couple of random php pear packages in debian
16:39:05 <rdieter> I'll update it with that substitution.
16:39:10 <geppetto> Yeh, so -1 on 69 as it is … +1 is it's changed to /usr/share/doc/php-pear/blah
16:39:17 <Rathann> geppetto: for example http://packages.debian.org/sid/all/php-mail/filelist
16:39:28 <tibbs|h> I'd go for putting the files where pear wants but including a symlink in /usr/share/doc, or patching pear to just look where we put the files.
16:39:39 <rdieter> now the draft mentions only %{pear_docdir} , so we can consider what it's value is separately
16:39:43 <geppetto> Rathann: *nods*
16:39:45 <tibbs|h> But I don't know how reasonable the latter is; RemiFedora would have to tell us.
16:39:47 <Rathann> tibbs|h: I kind of dislike putting symlinks in packages
16:40:04 <rdieter> Rathann: +1, that's asking for trouble sometimes
16:40:08 <tibbs|h> Uh, do you also dislike putting files or directories in them?
16:40:40 <rdieter> the risk is accidentally packaging stuff from those symlinks instead of the real location
16:40:45 <limburgher> rdieter: You mean like when you replace a directory with a symlink? ;)
16:40:55 <rdieter> limburgher: that's one of the dangers
16:41:07 <racor> i am against of /usr/share/doc/pear, because we use /usr/share/doc for "per-package" docs.
16:41:30 <rdieter> OK, I've ammended the draft to not mention path, can we vote on it now?
16:41:39 <RemiFedora> Rathann, php-pear-Mail doesnt install docfile (from its manifest)
16:41:47 * Rathann is of the opinion that if there's no special pear command for viewing docs then their docs should go into %{_docdir} as with all regular packages
16:41:51 <tibbs|h> racor: /usr/ahre/doc/HTML?
16:41:54 <racor> that said, /usr/share/pear/doc or similar would be OK with me.
16:41:58 <tibbs|h> Well, spelled right.
16:42:01 <racor> tibb|h: Bug
16:42:01 <Rathann> RemiFedora: can you give me an example of a package which does?
16:42:50 <RemiFedora> php-pear-Date php-pear-DB
16:42:54 <geppetto> This one appears to have html http://packages.debian.org/sid/all/php/php-geshi/filelist
16:43:02 <tibbs|h> racor: Care to quote any guideline or standard that mentions that?  It would be useful to know.
16:43:28 <racor> tibbs|h: No standard, just convention ever since rpm is around.
16:43:42 <tibbs|h> OK, so no.
16:44:16 <racor> tibbs|h: Yes, it's not against the law, nevertheless /usr/share/HTML is stupid
16:44:16 <Rathann> geppetto: but no html under /usr/share/php, only under /usr/share/doc
16:44:45 <geppetto> Rathann: yes, that's what I meant
16:45:03 <rdieter> ok, let's go ahead and vote, and continue discussion if this does not pass as-is: "PEAR documentation provided by upstream are installed in %{pear_docdir}, should stay there, and must be marked as %doc"
16:45:11 <rdieter> +1
16:45:15 <geppetto> -1
16:45:23 <Rathann> racor: well, since we think it's stupid and some people don't, let's pass a guideline that says all docs must be under /usr/share/doc unless necessary for program operation (but then they shouldn't be mared as %doc)
16:45:33 <rdieter> geppetto: care to mention why?
16:46:00 <tibbs|h> I guess if nothing actually cares where these files go, they should go where users will look for them.
16:46:17 <racor> +1
16:46:18 <geppetto> Rathann: What Rathann said, basically … I don't think the benifit of making pear list-files happy outweighs people "knowing" docs are in /usr/share/docs
16:46:37 <geppetto> rdieter: ^
16:46:38 <rdieter> to be clear, the draft now does not mention a specific location, only %{pear_docdir}
16:46:53 <rdieter> unless you're arguing that %{pear_docdir} macro should not be used?
16:47:16 <geppetto> Well if pear_docdir was changed to be under /usr/share/doc … then I'd be fine
16:47:19 <racor> my vote was for ticket #69 which explicitly mentions /usr/share/pear/doc
16:47:48 <rdieter> sigh, ok, I was hoping to consider these issues separately, but I seem  to be in the minority
16:47:59 <tibbs|h> I don't think explicitly listing the directory will fly in any case.
16:48:10 <tibbs|h> Since everything else about pear file locations is macro-ized.
16:48:45 <tibbs|h> It would really be helpful to know if pear can simply be fixed to cope with the current arrangement.
16:48:51 <rdieter> racor: so, does the ammended wording change your vote?
16:50:30 <limburgher> tibbs|h: Maybe, can it check multiple locations?
16:50:51 <tibbs|h> I have no idea; I'm not the expert here.
16:51:01 <Rathann> -1 from me unless there are comments from users confused about the location of the docs
16:51:09 <RemiFedora> doc_dir is a pear configurable option
16:51:21 <limburgher> Rathann: Good point, are there BZs or anything on this?
16:51:23 <Rathann> but since Debian is putting the docs in /usr/share/doc then I think there aren't
16:52:00 <racor> rdieter: yes, it changes my vote, I am not willing to card-blanche changing this directory
16:52:04 <Rathann> being close to upstream is good, but pear upstream has their own packaging system and we have ours
16:52:22 <limburgher> <cough>Perl<cough>
16:53:08 <tibbs|h> Perl packaging is completely regular and rarely conflicts with our packaging.
16:53:09 <racor> limburgher: yes, I changed my vote, exactly because of experiences with perl
16:53:46 <tibbs|h> Oh, well, this is going nowhere fast.
16:53:48 <rdieter> ok, looks like we're at a stand-still then, those with objections, please mention your grievances in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/69 for posterity
16:54:43 <rdieter> #info ticket #69 , php guidelines changes for doc files placement, nack'd
16:55:01 <rdieter> anything else we should look at?
16:55:08 <tibbs|h> But I'm dismayed if we now have one person who will always vote against a guideline with a macro-ized directory location.
16:56:00 <geppetto> Well … it depends on where the macro points
16:56:10 <racor> tibbs|h: Then lets specify this macro-ized directory.
16:56:28 <tibbs|h> We don't specify the majority of the ones we have now.
16:56:49 <tibbs|h> "The php-pear package in Fedora Core 5 and above (version 1:1.4.9-1.2) provides several useful macros:"
16:56:51 <racor> racor: correct, a mistake, which is close to having run down eg. perl
16:57:04 <geppetto> But if they point to the correct place already, it doesn't matter as much
16:57:06 <tibbs|h> And lists five of them, without mentioning their values at all.
16:57:19 * abadger1999 here now
16:57:30 * abadger1999 reads back
16:57:31 <rdieter> abadger1999: hi
16:58:43 <Rathann> argh, trac looses your text when you try to commit in conflict with someone else
16:59:00 <rdieter> imo, by rejecting the *current* value of %{php_docdir}, we pretty much invalidate the current php guidelines as well
16:59:17 <rdieter> this proposal was only an addition and clarification
16:59:33 <Rathann> rdieter: well, nobody noticed before, apparently
16:59:47 <tibbs|h> Not necessarily.
17:00:05 <rdieter> just sayin
17:00:41 <limburgher> racor:  Can you elaborate a bit on why the macro(s) is/are a mistake and the resulting issues?
17:00:47 <rdieter> or, I can collate folks responses and post into the ticket, if you give a one-line summary here.
17:01:17 <Rathann> *sigh* /me writes his text again
17:01:45 <gholms|work> Copy it to the clipboard before you submit it.
17:03:46 <RemiFedora> someone should probably open a bug against php-pear to ask for "doc_dir" relocation ?
17:03:51 <racor> limburgher: Some people have repeatedly changed many of the perl macros during f15's development cycle.
17:04:48 <tibbs|h> Nothing would stop them from doing that anyway.
17:04:56 <racor> the result is inconsistency and caos when looking into the details of f15's perl packages.
17:05:24 <tibbs|h> And I don't think they changed the macros; they just changed internal Perl configuration values.
17:05:40 <limburgher> racor: Wouldn't a rebuild fix that, if the perl packages are consistently macroized?
17:05:52 <Rathann> ok, posted
17:05:53 <racor> an attempt to bring some order into the caos by a mass rebuilt causes further havoc due to rpm's dep checker changes.
17:06:03 <tibbs|h> If anything, I expect that any macros would be dynamically defined by calling perl or pear or whatever.
17:06:07 <racor> s/causes/caused/
17:06:12 <limburgher> ah.
17:06:17 <tibbs|h> We certainly shouldn't be hardcoding their locations in the guidelines.
17:06:48 <racor> tibbs|h: yes, they changed perl, from which (all?) of these macros are derived from.
17:06:53 <limburgher> tibbs|h: agreed.
17:07:53 <RemiFedora> Rathann, FYI, we can change (easily) php-pear to put/look for doc in %{_docdir}/pear/foo  but probably not in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}
17:08:28 <Rathann> RemiFedora: that'd be acceptable as well I guess
17:08:45 <tibbs|h> Rathann: racor already indicated that he'd reject that.
17:08:59 <tibbs|h> Personally I'd be for it.
17:09:09 <rdieter> me too
17:09:16 <rdieter> (for)
17:09:29 <limburgher> ditto, macros are good if used for good and not evil.
17:09:35 <racor> yes, I am opposed to this (c.f. rpm'd DEFAULTDOCDIR and the implicit %doc behavior)
17:09:46 <Rathann> racor: why?
17:10:13 <tibbs|h> He pretty much covered that already.
17:10:17 <racor> Rathann: To put it very simplistic: I can't find a package called HTML
17:10:56 <tibbs|h> Of course, nothing says that you have to.
17:11:11 <tibbs|h> But it seems there's an unwritten rule that we're supposed to abide by.
17:11:26 <racor> tibbs|h: except of 15 years of history
17:12:26 <rdieter> we're approaching an hour, abadger1999, did you catch up or have anything to add?
17:12:59 <Rathann> $ repoquery -qf /usr/share/doc/HTML
17:12:59 <Rathann> fedora-release-notes-0:13.2-2.fc13.noarch
17:12:59 <Rathann> kde-filesystem-0:4-35.fc13.noarch
17:13:20 <Rathann> racor: file bugs against those three
17:13:21 <geppetto> fwiw … I don't mind %{_docdir}/pear/foo
17:13:38 <gholms|work> Three?
17:13:46 <Rathann> and all the others, too
17:13:46 <abadger1999> +1 to guideline
17:13:57 <tibbs|h> abadger1999: Sorry, which one?
17:14:08 <tibbs|h> Unfortunately it's been revised a bit.
17:14:22 <abadger1999> Really... I'm okay with any of the proposals.
17:15:08 <abadger1999> Best: Use %{pear_docdir} and define it to %{_docdir}/pear/foo
17:15:11 <Rathann> gholms|work: looks like it's kde-{i18n,l10n}-$lang packages which keep docs there
17:16:32 <tibbs|h> So... we done?
17:16:45 <rdieter> I think so, I can't stay much longer
17:16:48 <limburgher> looks that way.
17:16:52 <Rathann> yep
17:16:53 <rdieter> thanks all.
17:16:58 <rdieter> #endmeeting