15:06:37 #startmeeting Fedora Packaging Committee 15:06:37 Meeting started Wed Sep 7 15:06:37 2011 UTC. The chair is spot. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:06:37 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:06:42 #meetingname fpc 15:06:42 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 15:06:47 #topic Roll Call 15:06:50 * abadger1999 here 15:06:55 * limburgher here 15:08:14 racor: ping? 15:08:36 SmootherFrOgZ: ping? 15:10:27 here (sorry, was temporarily distract) 15:11:14 ok, racor makes 5, just barely quorum 15:11:53 i think the only item on the agenda today is the revisions to the systemd guidelines 15:12:04 #topic Systemd cleanups, definitions 15:12:23 Where are we? 15:12:33 I'm still making some changes but it's mostly there. 15:12:36 tibbs|h: iirc, you were going to make the last pass of cleanups and we'd revisit it today 15:12:39 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:SystemdClarification 15:12:57 I pulled up the definitions and reworded the confusing stuff we discussed last week. 15:14:45 the definitions look good to me 15:14:59 we may want to reconsider this sentence from the socket activation section: 15:15:02 "Similar to inetd, using socket activation for on-demand loading will impose a startup time penalty so we currently do not use this feature in Fedora. " 15:15:07 Lately I've just been going over the thing making sure that stuff is consistently wrapped in

.
15:15:34  Hmm.
15:15:36  Is that still accurate?
15:15:55  (i believe the intent was to allow cups to use the socket to load on demand)
15:16:01  Well, the startup time penalty is as accurate as it always was.
15:16:14  But I never understood how that was a reason either way.
15:16:43  Perhaps just dropping that sentence entirely and the following "However," is appropriate.
15:16:58  I mean, there's talk of optionally socket activating things like the MTA or sshd, which I would generally agree with.
15:17:20  And as far as I know, nobody actually made any sort of decision that socket-activated services were banned.
15:17:43  Also, explicit mention of inetd is odd since Fedora has never used inetd.
15:18:03  Since FESCo has to review all packages that want to include a .socket file
15:18:12  i think it is safe to simply drop the sentence and the However,
15:18:21  well...
15:18:31  they don't have to review them anymore do they?
15:18:47  "In practical terms this means if the upstream tarball ships with a socket file you need to contact FESCo to get permission to enable your service on boot"
15:18:53  Didn't we decide that systemd actually doesn't do on-demand-loading of disabled services?
15:19:00  "Once you have permission, you can package the .socket file and use the systemd scriptlets that enable the service by default."
15:19:20  The implication there is that packaging the socket file requires permission
15:19:26  spot: That follows from the previous paragraph: "Since Fedora currently doesn't want any services to do on-demand loading, all socket activated services must autostart."
15:19:43  hmm, yes
15:20:15  So, i suppose the question is "Does Fedora want to permit on-demand loading of socket activated services?"
15:20:35  I'm not against taking this out... I just want to point out that hte assumption is present in that whole section.
15:20:50  abadger1999: yeah, its a good point, we would need to reword the whole section
15:20:51  I know my opinion, but I honestly do not recall the outcome of the most recent fesco discussion on the matter.
15:20:57  nirik: around?
15:21:24  sorta...
15:21:26 * nirik reads up
15:21:50  nirik: do you know if FESCo has said whether or not on-demand loading of socket activated services is permitted?
15:22:06  (if they have not decided, i'll open a ticket and we'll wait for their answer to proceed)
15:22:41  I'm not 100% sure on that either. I think we said 'not now, but we should revisit' and then we didn't revisit.
15:22:49  okay, i'll open a ticket
15:22:55  yeah, sounds good.
15:23:25  OK, so we should probably not go messing with this much currently.
15:25:00  What remains to do, then?
15:25:07  Or should we table this until FESCo gets to meet?
15:25:22  tibbs|h: i think thats fine
15:25:36  nirik: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/666
15:25:40  (oh, thats ominous)
15:25:43  Could somebody elaborate, why on-demand loading of socket activated services should be disallowed?
15:25:55  hurray. What a ticket number.
15:26:07  I can't think of a reason for a blanket denial.
15:26:16 * abadger1999 can't think of one either
15:26:22  The I really can't be arsed to dig up the whole history of that bit.
15:26:59  i don't remember writing that bit, perhaps it was lennart?
15:27:25  ... except of potential technical limitations of systemd, I can't imagine any, either.
15:27:49  I think there's a lot of confusion in the document. Which is kind of why we're messing with it.
15:27:56  
15:28:11  MmmHmmm.
15:28:27  OK, so... back on hold.
15:28:42  Anything else I can mess with in the meantime?
15:29:20  tibbs|h: i don't think so, the other cleanups look fine to me
15:30:16  Then I guess we can move on.
15:30:20  tibbs|h: If the other cleanups are done, I'd vote to put those in now.
15:30:37  (the definitions and updating the main doc to use the defined terms)
15:32:05 * spot is fine with that
15:32:26  I'm sure we can find some more minor things to tweak, but if everyone agrees I can go ahead and push the changes into the guidelines.
15:32:27  +1 on the cleanups as is, we'll revisit the socket activation part after FESCo responds
15:32:31  +1
15:32:39  +1
15:33:22  +1
15:33:46  +1
15:34:03  #action cleanups and definition changes approved (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
15:34:16  OK, I'll write it up.
15:34:33  #topic Bundle request for rtmidi - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/104
15:34:51  I have to run for a couple of minutes.  BRB.
15:35:12  Just FYI, in case you missed the comments here, I made an rtmidi package and the reporter on this ticket is following up with the rtmidi upstream
15:35:26  so this probably will not need a bundling exception
15:35:59  #topic Streflop bundling exception - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/105
15:36:18  I also made a streflop package, but the ticket reporter has not responded yet
15:37:10  #topic PIE - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/93
15:37:21  nirik: i think we are still waiting on FESCo/ajax here
15:37:36  yeah, he was going to add the macro stuff there...
15:37:44  which should be all finalized.
15:38:13  okay, can you ping him to complete the draft?
15:38:44  yep. Or I can try and just do so.
15:40:37  either way works
15:40:51  #topic Open Floor
15:42:15  If there is no topics on the floor by 1545, i'll close out the meeting
15:42:21  s/is/are
15:42:53  Nice work on all the bundled libs stuff!
15:43:35  thanks. not too hard, except for the CMake stuff.
15:44:55  Back.
15:45:19  okay, i see no topics on the floor
15:45:29  I do have a question.
15:45:36  okay, shoot
15:46:06  Well, it just seems that with our anti-bundling stance we're ignoring the whole deviation from upstream thing.
15:46:17  And I wonder if that balance has been articulated anywhere.
15:47:52  Anyway, it's no big deal.
15:48:17  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream is the closest place to a "stance"
15:48:54  probably okay to add a bullet point there to reference bundling removals as an exception
15:49:11  Yes, I think so.
15:49:22  I'll take care of it.
15:49:24  tibbs|h: thanks
15:50:49  okay, i think we're done
15:50:50  That's it for me.
15:50:51  thanks everyone
15:50:54  #endmeeting