2024-09-19 16:00:35 <@james:fedora.im> !startmeeting fpc 2024-09-19 16:00:38 <@james:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call 2024-09-19 16:00:38 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-09-19 16:00:35 UTC 2024-09-19 16:00:38 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'fpc' 2024-09-19 16:00:46 <@limb:fedora.im> !hi 2024-09-19 16:00:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Gwyn Ciesla (limb) - she / her / hers 2024-09-19 16:01:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi 2024-09-19 16:01:12 <@james:fedora.im> !hi 2024-09-19 16:01:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> James Antill (james) 2024-09-19 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his 2024-09-19 16:01:32 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !ji 2024-09-19 16:01:38 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> *sigh* 2024-09-19 16:01:41 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi 2024-09-19 16:01:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his 2024-09-19 16:01:50 <@james:fedora.im> ja 2024-09-19 16:05:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !hi 2024-09-19 16:05:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his 2024-09-19 16:05:34 <@james:fedora.im> And then there were 5! 2024-09-19 16:05:55 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi 2024-09-19 16:05:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his 2024-09-19 16:11:54 <@james:fedora.im> !topic FPC#1049 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1049 2024-09-19 16:12:16 <@james:fedora.im> Someone volunteered to comment on this last week ... I can't remember who though (hopefully it wasn't me). 2024-09-19 16:12:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah I put writing guidelines for this onto my todo list last weke 2024-09-19 16:12:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> weke weke eh eh ... 2024-09-19 16:12:50 <@james:fedora.im> Ahh, okay. Just making sure it wasn't forgotten. 2024-09-19 16:13:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> no, officially on my list :) 2024-09-19 16:13:38 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> oh, the dreaded list 2024-09-19 16:13:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I volunteered to port over the generators to fedora 2024-09-19 16:14:07 <@james:fedora.im> Okay, going to pull up some different old things now... 2024-09-19 16:14:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> honestly this has seriously irritated me for years, so I'm happy we want to solve this now :) 2024-09-19 16:14:20 <@james:fedora.im> !topic FPC PR#912 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/912 2024-09-19 16:14:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we're the only rpm distro without the generator 2024-09-19 16:15:46 <@james:fedora.im> This looks fine to me, but doesn't merge now :( 2024-09-19 16:17:29 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> at a glance, seems to be a semantic line break conflict, possible could be easy to rebase to resolve the conflicts 2024-09-19 16:18:18 <@james:fedora.im> Yeh, was hoping it'd be something like that. 2024-09-19 16:18:48 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> doesn't quite feel right to reply to a 5yo pr saying "hey can you rebase again", so perhaps we should just manually do it 2024-09-19 16:19:18 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i noticed in fedpkg that you can do "Merges: " in a commit message, and it will mark the pr as merged in pagure 2024-09-19 16:19:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> Oh nice 2024-09-19 16:19:47 <@james:fedora.im> Yeh, I know I can do it and push ... I'm less sure how to update the PR 2024-09-19 16:20:16 <@james:fedora.im> That's cool. 2024-09-19 16:22:11 <@james:fedora.im> !topic FPC PR#1097 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1097 2024-09-19 16:22:19 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i can take a stab at it, just need to move my versioning revamp aside temporarily 2024-09-19 16:23:08 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i don't think pagure has "allow maintainers to push to my fork", so if i can resolve bex's pr are we ok just pushing it to main? 2024-09-19 16:23:12 <@james:fedora.im> Another usage of ^ in versions ... maybe? I'm less sure why it's better than what we did, so tempted to just close. 2024-09-19 16:23:24 <@james:fedora.im> I am 2024-09-19 16:24:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it does, but you have to enable it when you create the PR 2024-09-19 16:24:26 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> did it 5 yrs ago when this pr was opened? lol 2024-09-19 16:24:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> no :) 2024-09-19 16:24:48 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> where's that time machine when you need it 2024-09-19 16:25:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if only :) 2024-09-19 16:25:19 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> alright i'm done derailing, back to 1097 2024-09-19 16:27:04 <@limb:fedora.im> Apologies, I have to bail. PIng me for ticket votes. 2024-09-19 16:27:54 <@james:fedora.im> No problem, see you next week. 2024-09-19 16:28:50 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> hey, I had a thing for open floor real quick... 2024-09-19 16:28:56 <@james:fedora.im> Keep Re-Reading the patch and comments and I'm not sure what it does better. Also seeing "foo < 1.0^" makes me want to hurt people. 2024-09-19 16:29:14 <@james:fedora.im> nirik: Sure 2024-09-19 16:29:42 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> wanted to make you all aware if you were not about https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3269 ( Re-evaluate ban on pre-compiled CSS ) if you wanted to weigh in, please do on ticket. 2024-09-19 16:31:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> thats it. 2024-09-19 16:32:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> seems reasonable to me 2024-09-19 16:32:26 <@james:fedora.im> Cool. I wasn't aware of it, but it seems reasonable to not be more strict about CSS than JS ... and all the comments make me want to agree faster. 2024-09-19 16:34:03 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i have a new thing too for open floor 2024-09-19 16:36:45 <@james:fedora.im> Cool ... I just commented and closed 1097 ... so go for it. 2024-09-19 16:36:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor 2024-09-19 16:37:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> james gave a cookie to decathorpe. They now have 106 cookies, 18 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle 2024-09-19 16:38:12 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> looking at rawhide, we have both llvm (version 18) and llvm18. this feels wrong, but i don't see any guidelines forbidding it. i think we need a consistent policy for this. 2024-09-19 16:39:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> we do? ah, the v19 builds are still in a side-tag 2024-09-19 16:39:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah v19 hasn't landed yet 2024-09-19 16:39:23 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> it feels like they were trying to emulate python's versioned srpms, but didn't finish retiring the unversioned package 2024-09-19 16:39:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the main llvm package is in the process of upgrading to v19 2024-09-19 16:39:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> they pushed v19.1.0 this morning 2024-09-19 16:40:11 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> and then the problem repeats with llvm19 2024-09-19 16:40:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, that is generally how we expect compatibility transitions to work though 2024-09-19 16:40:37 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> well, ideally the compat package and the new version would land in the same side-tag update 2024-09-19 16:40:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I did this when we shifted to appstream v1.0 in F40 2024-09-19 16:40:53 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> but it doesn't hurt (much) if they don't 2024-09-19 16:40:54 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> then i would argue llvm18 should have also been in the side tag 2024-09-19 16:41:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure i guess? 2024-09-19 16:41:34 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> f41 is in the same state, with llvm (18) and llvm18 2024-09-19 16:41:50 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> llvm 19 will be pushed to both 2024-09-19 16:41:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> it's an approved F41 Change 2024-09-19 16:42:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right 2024-09-19 16:42:03 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> and LLVM release schedule is *always* bad 2024-09-19 16:42:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and FESCo has also accepted that LLVM will always be late 2024-09-19 16:42:30 <@james:fedora.im> The idea being that if llvm19 doesn't work then people can buildreq llvm18 directly ... I guess I don't mind llvm18 landing early, so that people can premove their buildreqs if they know 19 is going to be a problem. 2024-09-19 16:42:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right 2024-09-19 16:42:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we actually kind of lucked out this time, the schedule slippage meant that llvm19 is landing outside of a freeze window 2024-09-19 16:43:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> normally it's kind of a mess because it lands right when final freeze kicks on 2024-09-19 16:43:40 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> in those cases i would recommend people use `llvm-devel(major) < 19` 2024-09-19 16:43:59 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that would work before and after the llvm 19 sidetag is merged 2024-09-19 16:44:06 <@james:fedora.im> I guess llvm should provide llvm18 until it becomes llvm19 ... but, meh. I'm really don't care enough about rawhide, and I'm not sure I care if it leaks into a release either. 2024-09-19 16:44:38 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I'm pretty sure we won't release F41 until llvm 19 has landed in it 2024-09-19 16:44:40 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> my main concern is it being exposed to users and them not knowing which one to install 2024-09-19 16:44:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm not sure it's really worth it to be overly prescriptive here either 2024-09-19 16:45:01 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> it helps that the intent is to have the unversioned one be the latest, and versioned older ones 2024-09-19 16:45:04 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> true, but still, this *is* beta and / or development branch. 2024-09-19 16:45:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> for all the faults around llvm upgrades, they do a relatively decent job of doing the transition 2024-09-19 16:46:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I mean, it won't hurt to ask them to push the compat packages in the same side-tag that they use for the main upgrade ... 2024-09-19 16:46:07 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> ok, without focusing too much on llvm specifics, do we want a policy about not doing two variants of the same version like this? 2024-09-19 16:46:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> (for next time, I mean) 2024-09-19 16:46:15 <@james:fedora.im> Carl George: Can you ping them privately and be like "hey, it'd be nice if you did it this way" and see what they say? 2024-09-19 16:46:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't think so. 2024-09-19 16:46:46 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i don't know any of the maintainers directly, but i can send an email 2024-09-19 16:46:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It makes transitions too hard if they need to be done in multiple phases. 2024-09-19 16:46:58 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah, I don't think we need to forbid any harmless temporary state 2024-09-19 16:47:07 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that seems fine with a SHOULD 2024-09-19 16:47:13 <@james:fedora.im> I think if it stays in rawhide (is temporary) I'm happy to accept it if it's easier for the maintainers 2024-09-19 16:47:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if it's in a development branch and won't be part of a frozen GA repo, I'm fine with it 2024-09-19 16:48:31 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> let me give you a hypothetical. let's say some reckless rhel maintainers wanted to have llvm18 in fedora as just a build test for rhel, not just in dev branches, and wanted fedora users to ignore it and use the unversioned llvm. would we allow them to co-exist? 2024-09-19 16:48:58 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> let me give you a hypothetical. let's say some reckless rhel maintainers wanted to have llvm19 in fedora as just a build test for rhel, not just in dev branches, and wanted fedora users to ignore it and use the unversioned llvm. would we allow them to co-exist? 2024-09-19 16:49:35 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> well, that's something entirely different then 2024-09-19 16:49:53 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> honestly that's what this looked like to me at first glance 2024-09-19 16:50:09 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i wasn't up to speed on the llvm schedule or the change proposal, so that context helps, but still 2024-09-19 16:50:11 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> well, it's not, though? 2024-09-19 16:50:30 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> to a user not following the change proposals, it does look like that 2024-09-19 16:50:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> is the only problem that the compat package and the update didn't land at the same time / in the same bodhi update? 2024-09-19 16:51:15 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i do think that would solve it, yeah. the problem is the confusion about two llvm packages that are version 18, and landing them together would solve that. 2024-09-19 16:53:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> it feels like an obvious thing to not have doubles (outside of transition periods), but i'm thinking a small clarification about it in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple would be worthwhile 2024-09-19 16:56:06 <@james:fedora.im> I guess I'm fine saying you should build foo in the side tag with foo-, and change them at the same time to avoid confusion. 2024-09-19 16:56:56 <@james:fedora.im> Or better words than that, that mean that. 2024-09-19 16:57:17 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i'll work up something as a pr, and we can nit pick the wording then 2024-09-19 16:57:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure 2024-09-19 16:57:50 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> speaking of prs i owe y'all, i'm not done with the snapshot one, but i have a preview if y'all want to see it 2024-09-19 16:57:54 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/docs/packaging-committee/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_snapshots 2024-09-19 16:58:25 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> still need to fixup the examples, and move the traditional/legacy stuff to an appendix page 2024-09-19 16:58:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> right off the bat, I'm firmly against dropping the VCS identifier from the snapshot guidelines 2024-09-19 16:59:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the rest of it, I'll look at later, but I really don't think it's a good idea to drop the VCS 2024-09-19 16:59:17 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> and we've discussed that in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1380 2024-09-19 16:59:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and that was not concluded 2024-09-19 16:59:56 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> do we even know how many packages in fedora have upstreams that aren't git? 2024-09-19 17:00:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that is not to point 2024-09-19 17:00:34 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> having extra characters for the 0.01% edge case is not really appealing to me 2024-09-19 17:00:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that is not the point 2024-09-19 17:00:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if we're going to be pedantic about snapshot versioning, this is a hill that I really do care about 2024-09-19 17:01:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> please don't belittle this as pedantry, it's just the nature of writing guidelines 2024-09-19 17:01:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this whole thing came out of pedantry 2024-09-19 17:01:47 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> fwiw, I would also prefer the `git` / `svn` / `hg` string to stay 2024-09-19 17:02:33 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> no, it came out of the fact that we officially allow like four different formats, and there are others in the wild 2024-09-19 17:03:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> you complained about my format that I used because I wanted the same convention across packages I maintain across 4 distributions 2024-09-19 17:03:33 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> then we just ban the ones without SCM identifier? 😉 2024-09-19 17:03:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and that we used to have in our guidance too 2024-09-19 17:04:11 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> the format you wanted to use isn't allowed by our current guidelines, so yes i pointed out that fact 2024-09-19 17:04:44 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> keeping things consistent with other distributions is not, and imo should not be, a goal for fedora guidelines 2024-09-19 17:04:44 <@james:fedora.im> Maybe say only use the VCS identifier for non-git upstreams? 2024-09-19 17:04:58 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i don't mind that as a compromise 2024-09-19 17:05:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't think it makes sense to omit it ever 2024-09-19 17:05:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> even for git 2024-09-19 17:05:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it makes it clear at a glance that it's a git snapshot 2024-09-19 17:06:03 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> so does `^` or `~` without a label like `rc`, `beta`, etc 2024-09-19 17:06:35 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> in fact, that's the only MUST in our current guidelines about snapshots is to use the `^` 2024-09-19 17:06:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah, and that's likely a mistake from when they were merged ... 2024-09-19 17:07:31 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> no, the mistake was not allowing `~`, but the point is that scm labels are not MUST 2024-09-19 17:07:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> they're not, but any reasonable person would add them 2024-09-19 17:08:12 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> so i guess i'm not a reasonable person 2024-09-19 17:08:42 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I don't understand why this is the hill you want to defend 2024-09-19 17:09:15 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i need a break, and we're over time anyways. let's put a pin in this. 2024-09-19 17:09:22 <@james:fedora.im> Given the proportion of the usage of git, I'm fine assuming it's git unless told otherwise. 2024-09-19 17:09:22 <@james:fedora.im> But I don't want to die on either hill. 2024-09-19 17:09:22 <@james:fedora.im> Also fine assuming no label means something like "beta" or "rc" depending on where the package is. 2024-09-19 17:09:39 <@james:fedora.im> Oh, yeh, didn't notice it was past the hour. My bad. 2024-09-19 17:10:03 <@james:fedora.im> See you all next week. 2024-09-19 17:10:08 <@james:fedora.im> !endmeeting