15:00:58 #startmeeting Fedora Packaging Committee 15:00:58 Meeting started Wed May 18 15:00:58 2011 UTC. The chair is spot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:00:58 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:01:04 #topic Roll Call 15:01:19 Howdy. 15:01:27 hey 15:02:08 * abadger1999 here 15:02:47 fpc ping: limburgher, rdieter, SmootherFrOgZ 15:03:15 * limburgher here, distracted, sorry. 15:05:21 well, we have a light agenda this week, so its not the end of the world that we don't have quorum 15:05:33 i will wait for a bit 15:07:01 I haven't been able to do anything Fedora-related this week anyway. 15:07:44 * SmootherFrOgZ here 15:11:21 spot: okay, that's 6 15:13:28 since tibbs says he hasn't had time to do anything this week 15:13:41 and i'm still talking with perl folks 15:13:47 there are no pending items on the agenda 15:13:52 #topic Open Floor 15:14:25 Ouch. 15:14:42 The semester has now actually ended, so hopefully I'll have more free time. 15:15:38 There was the mingw thing. 15:15:53 It turns out that when I wrote the draft, I took the spec that was linked in our existing guidelines. 15:15:58 But that spec was terribly outdated. 15:16:17 yeah, i think the change modernizing that spec is a no-brainer 15:16:21 Does the new spec still match the guidelines? If so, +1 to updating 15:16:36 i had planned to simply apply that change 15:17:03 I did run a quick pass over all of the guidelines to take out %defattr. 15:19:32 That's all I have. 15:20:24 i have nothing... 15:20:32 nada. 15:20:45 I have one: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/84 15:20:58 * abadger1999 justwrote that up as requested from last meeting 15:21:02 oh, how did i miss that... 15:21:46 hmm, did we decide that EPEL guidelines were up to the EPEL folks? 15:21:51 Time machine broken? 15:21:55 spot: I wrote that up just now. 15:22:02 abadger1999: that would be why. :) 15:22:05 :-) 15:22:36 Yeah, the EPEL stuff might be better offloaded to an EPEL document with a note in the main guidelines that doesn't mention specifics. 15:22:58 That way EPEL gets to make its own policy without having to go through us. 15:23:00 Sort of a "yo, this is different in EPEL, go check that if applicable" 15:23:06 tibbs|h: *nod* that was my understanding 15:24:17 abadger1999: so, i think this one needs to go to EPEL 15:24:50 abadger1999: and if they are okay with it, you can go ahead and add a note pointing to the relevant section in the EPEL guidelines 15:25:07 https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/84#comment:1 15:25:19 +1 to that. 15:25:25 +1 15:25:32 +1 15:25:46 +1 15:26:32 +1 15:27:02 +1 15:27:24 #action EPEL note approved, meat to go to EPEL for consideration (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) 15:27:52 So, perhaps we can talk about the perl ticket a bit 15:27:59 since i have some feedback from upstream now 15:28:27 #topic Perl paths @inc change - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/73 15:28:59 The feedback from some perl committers has been basically that it is a no-op change 15:29:38 They're not quite sure why we would make the change, to be honest. 15:29:58 But so far, no one has been opposed to it 15:30:23 I don't think we're sure why we would make that change, either. 15:30:23 If it's no-op, why bother? That implied no harm, but also no benefit. 15:30:38 Sell me the benfit. 15:30:43 There's nothing in the ticket that gives any kind of reasoning. 15:30:52 mmaslano thinks that having vendorlib and vendorarch as a separate directory is a benefit 15:31:09 tibbs|h: If you overlook "I'd like to" 15:31:17 But I'd expect that if so, someone would be able to articulate the benefit. 15:31:25 spot: Right. Because. . . . . . . 15:31:26 it seems to me that is only true if you are worried about a third party package conflicting 15:31:43 and even then, i would think separating out the directory makes the problem... bigger 15:31:58 Is it possible there's some RHEL-related reason? 15:32:06 I got that impression from some other discussion. 15:32:17 tibbs|h: maybe. i'd like for those folks to be up front about that if so 15:32:27 Sure. 15:32:35 let me try to talk to people inside Red Hat and see if i can get more rationale 15:32:40 and we'll revisit this item 15:32:41 I wouldn't particularly have a problem with that, but maybe it can't be discussed in public for some reason. 15:32:47 spot: They should be up front about the reasoning, period, RHEL or no. 15:33:06 i can't fathom how there would be any need for privacy here, but i guess i'll find out when i ask 15:33:18 tibbs|h: Maybe a gag order from George Soros and the Reptilians? 15:33:32 * limburgher thinks: good band name 15:33:37 that guy needs to stop calling me. he creeps me out with his forked tongue. 15:33:46 Ugh, I have a logged private discussion with some info but since it was in a /query I don't want to just dump it here. 15:33:53 spot: explains the lithp, though. 15:34:07 tibbs|h: if you are comfortable emailing it to me... 15:35:02 tibbs|h: Does it make sense? 15:35:28 tibbs|h: Or worded better … does it convince you of a benefit? 15:35:38 No. 15:36:05 Screw it. All it really says is that people have asked for it. 15:36:17 okay, well, let me dig around and see what i can find out 15:36:25 if there is a reason for RHEL, we'll consider it fairly. 15:36:32 People have asked for patent-encumbered codec and unicorns, as well. 15:36:54 And those don't require rebuilding 666 packages :) 15:37:30 okay. back to open floor. :) 15:37:33 #topic Open Floor 15:38:28 If there is nothing by, oh, 1540 UTC, I'll close it out 15:38:40 Did the systemd stuff get written up? 15:38:54 except for last week's revisions, yes 15:39:06 I was looking for it but my ability to search the wiki is so poor for some reason. 15:39:09 i had intended to write it up sooner, but well, it will happen today 15:39:20 Are they linked off of the main guidelines page at all? 15:39:20 f-15 kindof took priority 15:39:28 * abadger1999 notes that some systemd unit file containing packages don't conform. 15:39:29 spot: Oh, that. 15:39:45 For instance, the rsyslog package that people were talking about (and Lennart made the patch for) 15:40:02 abadger1999: file bugs, i guess. 15:40:03 abadger1999: Well, judging from the number of problems that are cropping up, either we screwed up badly or people aren't following the guidelines. 15:40:18 Can I fix them as a provenpackager? 15:40:26 Definitely. 15:40:34 i suppose so. 15:40:42 There was some abrt thing as well that broke the composes. 15:41:00 I'm concerned that people just aren't finding the guidelines for this. 15:41:02 The reason I ask is some of it is the enable or don't enable if runlevel 3 thing. 15:41:16 Since I can't find them myself. 15:41:49 Oh, they're at the end of scriptletsnippets. 15:42:18 and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd 15:42:32 (which needs to be linked from the main page, yes) 15:42:49 And of course I was looking for Packaging:System{D,d} 15:43:02 Why the extra "Guidelines:" there? 15:43:04 I should move it to Packaging:Systemd 15:43:07 i don't know 15:43:07 Also... rsyslog was converted for F15. 15:43:09 i'm moving it now 15:43:16 * abadger1999 sighs at the mess 15:43:44 Nobody should be surprised at the mess. 15:44:12 It's basically the cost of doing business when people can basically do what they want. 15:44:15 * abadger1999 not surprised just.... unhappy. 15:45:00 Some folks went off and did whatever instead of trying to follow the guidelines we put together. 15:47:43 okay, well, on that note, i think we're done for today 15:47:46 thanks everyone 15:47:58 #endmeeting