2026-06-25 16:00:43 <@james:fedora.im> !startmeeting fpc

2026-06-25 16:00:44 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2026-06-25 16:00:43 UTC
2026-06-25 16:00:44 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'fpc'
2026-06-25 16:00:46 <@james:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2026-06-25 16:00:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2026-06-25 16:00:52 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Hello.
2026-06-25 16:00:54 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2026-06-25 16:00:54 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini 🌈: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2026-06-25 16:00:55 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2026-06-25 16:01:12 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> !hi
2026-06-25 16:01:12 <@zodbot:fedora.im> gotmax23: Maxwell G (gotmax23) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
2026-06-25 16:01:25 <@mschorm:fedora.im> !hi
2026-06-25 16:01:28 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michal Schorm: None (mschorm)
2026-06-25 16:01:37 <@james:fedora.im> Hey
2026-06-25 16:01:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> [@mschorm:fedora.im](https://matrix.to/#/@mschorm:fedora.im) that's a brave name to have - None 😅
2026-06-25 16:02:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> Reminds me of the guy with the NULL license plate in California 
2026-06-25 16:02:41 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> IRL little bobby tables 
2026-06-25 16:04:04 <@mschorm:fedora.im> IDK, I should have "displayed name" set to my full name. Any idea where to change this "None"?
2026-06-25 16:04:14 <@james:fedora.im> Hopefully costs Michal a lot less ;)
2026-06-25 16:04:38 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/user/mschorm/
2026-06-25 16:04:42 <@james:fedora.im> Pretty sure this is reading FAS data, so go there.
2026-06-25 16:05:46 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !hi
2026-06-25 16:05:47 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> there's also a privacy toggle that might prevent usage of the data set there. 
2026-06-25 16:05:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George: Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
2026-06-25 16:07:26 <@james:fedora.im> !topic FPC#1551 https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/guidelines/issues/1551
2026-06-25 16:07:39 <@james:fedora.im> Michal Schorm: I guess this is what you are here for? ;)
2026-06-25 16:07:56 <@mschorm:fedora.im> yup
2026-06-25 16:08:23 <@mschorm:fedora.im> In the spirit of a similar request for MariaDB few months ago
2026-06-25 16:08:36 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> versioned packages have an automatic exception
2026-06-25 16:09:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah that should be fine, just request the package with `--exception` instead of a bug number 
2026-06-25 16:09:19 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> but if you want to have it in writing, +1 :)
2026-06-25 16:09:28 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> this is documented somewhere, trying to find it...
2026-06-25 16:09:40 <@mschorm:fedora.im> Doesn't the `--exception` need accepted FPC ticket ?
2026-06-25 16:09:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_exceptions 
2026-06-25 16:10:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Not if there's already an approved exception
2026-06-25 16:10:28 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> 
2026-06-25 16:10:28 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> But I think the wording was problematic here?
2026-06-25 16:10:28 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> > The package is being created so that multiple versions of the same package can coexist in the distribution (or coexist between EPEL and RHEL). The package MUST be properly named according to the naming guidelines and ***MUST NOT conflict with all other versions of the same package***.
2026-06-25 16:10:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> hm ... 🤔
2026-06-25 16:11:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> good point
2026-06-25 16:12:45 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Should we remove that last part from the guidelines? Or grant a special exception here? Or something else?
2026-06-25 16:13:28 <@salimma:fedora.im> for packages like Django and Python I think we use the normal review process instead of the exception
2026-06-25 16:13:35 <@james:fedora.im> I'm confused about the reason for that part.
2026-06-25 16:13:52 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> git blame is not telling me anything useful about that last clause, it's been there since it was converted from the wiki
2026-06-25 16:14:30 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> yeah, I've kinda given up trying to git blame things in the guidelines for that reason
2026-06-25 16:15:00 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I would probably be in favor of changing the text here
2026-06-25 16:15:26 <@james:fedora.im> My _guess_ is that it's trying to avoid problems like: X requires Y; user installs Y6.6; user installs X and it fails?
2026-06-25 16:15:30 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i'm fine just dropping it.  the general guidelines already cover conflicts (should avoid if possible)
2026-06-25 16:16:26 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah I'm guessing it's "if it does funny things it needs full review"
2026-06-25 16:16:38 <@salimma:fedora.im> too bad wiki history is harder to search
2026-06-25 16:16:52 <@james:fedora.im> I can see how it'd be bad to conflict with a heavily required package, but at the same time I don't think many people want to run two versions of mysql.
2026-06-25 16:17:44 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Well, it has to be a different version of the same package
2026-06-25 16:17:45 <@james:fedora.im> Michal Schorm: Either way, your review is excepted ;)
2026-06-25 16:18:46 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/guidelines/pulls/1552
2026-06-25 16:18:47 <@james:fedora.im> If nobody else wants to tweak the wording, I'm fine just dropping it and waiting to see what blows up as a result ;)
2026-06-25 16:19:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> carlwgeorge has already given cookies to gotmax23 during the F44 timeframe
2026-06-25 16:19:42 <@tibbs:fedora.im> I do recall that we added this just to avoid weird issues.
2026-06-25 16:20:08 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Plus a general dislike of conflicts.
2026-06-25 16:20:24 <@tibbs:fedora.im> (Something that's since been lost, I guess.)
2026-06-25 16:20:59 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> In many cases, it's unavoidable without patching upstream software
2026-06-25 16:21:36 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> if you want to have multiple versions packaged
2026-06-25 16:23:31 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> even on compat libraries where the main package can be parallel, the devel subpackage usually has to conflict
2026-06-25 16:23:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah
2026-06-25 16:24:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> devel not conflicting is possible but it is a hard ask (and might require patching all the dependents, not fun)
2026-06-25 16:24:10 <@james:fedora.im> Yeh, there are a couple of exceptions like GCC ... but in general it's probably not great.
2026-06-25 16:24:34 <@james:fedora.im> At the time we wrote it we likley had very few versioned packages.
2026-06-25 16:25:12 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Do we want to discuss distro conditionals or NodeJS (again)?
2026-06-25 16:25:52 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> "want"? probably not? :)
2026-06-25 16:26:21 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I really need to stop asking you questions that start with "want" ;)
2026-06-25 16:27:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> as to nodejs - I think it makes sense to require stripping executables and package applications needed to build things from source in separate RPMs
2026-06-25 16:27:35 <@james:fedora.im> FWIW There have been 9 new issues opened since our last meeting ... including the above mysql one.
2026-06-25 16:28:12 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> (kind of obviously, since that is outlined in other parts of the guidelines ... but apparently this hasn't been applied consistently to nodejs packages?)
2026-06-25 16:28:23 <@james:fedora.im> FWIW There have been 7 new issues opened since our last meeting ... including the above mysql one.
2026-06-25 16:29:20 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> yeah, the tooling doesn't enforce it though, so I guess people thought it was okay/didn't realize
2026-06-25 16:29:47 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I'm not sure if this is better or worse than just shipping pre-built JS blobs and not trying to build anything at all...
2026-06-25 16:30:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I wonder how this even worked. are pre-built executables included for all architectures? or are those packages only built for x86_64?
2026-06-25 16:30:46 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I do think removing that exception probably makes sense for SPAs like Cockpit where the JS is a significant part of the package functionality, but this is probably not as important for copies of jquery in sphinx docs...
2026-06-25 16:31:13 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> yes, they are built for multiple arches and uploaded to npm as separate packages I think 🤷
2026-06-25 16:31:21 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> apparently this is a common practice
2026-06-25 16:31:50 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> oh ew
2026-06-25 16:32:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> well I'm all for not allowing that then 😂
2026-06-25 16:32:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> https://www.npmjs.com/search?q=esbuild%2Flinux-
2026-06-25 16:32:30 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> esbuild is at least packaged as a separate package now in Fedora
2026-06-25 16:32:47 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> which I'm not even sure is technically allowed by the Guidelines that require bundling nodejs
2026-06-25 16:33:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> and people want to package nodejs stuff, and there's no clear way to do it properly, and it's frustrating
2026-06-25 16:33:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> absolutely :(
2026-06-25 16:33:35 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> and now FESCo has a list of packages that don't follow this rule, and I'm not sure what to do about them
2026-06-25 16:34:06 <@james:fedora.im> I guess the only viable options are: 1) Shrug and give up. 2) Get the ban hammer out ;)
2026-06-25 16:34:21 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> another common build tool I think is https://github.com/rollup/rollup which now has rust components
2026-06-25 16:34:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> 3) deprecate
2026-06-25 16:34:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> and do a Change Proposal to clean up
2026-06-25 16:34:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 2.5: fix guidelines and tooling and banhammer for anything that doesn't get fixed?
2026-06-25 16:34:59 <@james:fedora.im> I think I've found the glaring problem with option 3.
2026-06-25 16:35:50 <@salimma:fedora.im> banhammer given enough time is fine, yeah
2026-06-25 16:35:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> but we need to figure out some realistic guidelines
2026-06-25 16:35:57 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> The NodeJS maintainers did acknowledge the problem and express willingness to fix things/accept contributions to the tooling on the devel thread
2026-06-25 16:36:09 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> but someone needs to find time to work on it...
2026-06-25 16:36:11 <@james:fedora.im> Yeh, this is mostly what I meant (what do you mean I can't just ban JS packages ;).
2026-06-25 16:36:17 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> and the npm ecosystem isn't doing us any favors here
2026-06-25 16:36:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> not if we want an installer
2026-06-25 16:36:28 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> that's true...
2026-06-25 16:36:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> if only I have more spare time I want to know how guix handles it
2026-06-25 16:36:51 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> or Debian?
2026-06-25 16:36:55 <@salimma:fedora.im> I remember they have a ranty talk about how bad some packaging ecosystems are
2026-06-25 16:37:07 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah but guix iirc has consistent tooling for generating packages in different language ecosystems
2026-06-25 16:37:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> Debian... trust me, they don't :)
2026-06-25 16:37:29 <@salimma:fedora.im> but both are good to study nonetheless, true
2026-06-25 16:37:58 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I just meant Debian generally has a stricter stance on bundling
2026-06-25 16:38:00 <@james:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (Fedora): Might know.
2026-06-25 16:38:21 <@james:fedora.im> But not here this meeting.
2026-06-25 16:38:26 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Like looking at Arch that builds everything with internet access enabled is probably not going to be very enlightening on how to solve our problem
2026-06-25 16:39:05 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Anyways, I guess we can keep this on our radar and hope something improves
2026-06-25 16:39:33 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Not sure what to do about the FESCo ticket. Retiring those packages if nothing gets fixed doesn't feel productive
2026-06-25 16:39:59 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> But we don't really have much else
2026-06-25 16:40:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> having a flag date might help 
2026-06-25 16:40:49 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> yeah but then we have to do something when we get to the flag date 😱
2026-06-25 16:41:28 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 🤫 that's the idea
2026-06-25 16:41:29 <@salimma:fedora.im> flag date driven development
2026-06-25 16:41:37 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> FDDD
2026-06-25 16:43:51 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Shall we move on?
2026-06-25 16:43:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> moveon.org
2026-06-25 16:44:47 <@james:fedora.im> Sure
2026-06-25 16:45:11 <@james:fedora.im> !topic FPC#1546 https://forge.fedoraproject.org/packaging/guidelines/issues/1546
2026-06-25 16:46:08 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> So I don't want to allowlist certain distro macros, but I also don't want Fedora to get flooded with PRs to add separate conditionals for every single downstream
2026-06-25 16:46:29 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I know that Azure linux has a tool to automatically set existing bconds/make other small changes
2026-06-25 16:46:47 <@tibbs:fedora.im> The original intent of this was to avoid having macros for suse and other RPM-based distros in Fedora packages.
2026-06-25 16:46:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> is Conan Kudo 😌around? he is one of the few that maintain multi-distro specs
2026-06-25 16:46:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2026-06-25 16:46:58 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> So even if %azurelinux or whatever isn't in the test bcond definition there, having the bcond at all is helpful
2026-06-25 16:47:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Conan Kudo 😌: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2026-06-25 16:47:06 <@james:fedora.im> I know when this comes up Jason ティビツ is usually the one who wants some wording so people don't try to do specfiles that can run on 666 different distros.
2026-06-25 16:47:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> So even if %azurelinux or whatever isn't in the test bcond definition in Fedora, having the bcond at all is helpful
2026-06-25 16:47:09 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Because Fedora maintainers can't be expected to understand or test packages for those distributions.
2026-06-25 16:47:26 <@salimma:fedora.im> if we have a preprocessor that can strip out the non-fedora parts it would be nice
2026-06-25 16:47:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> already Fedora maintainers don't even test for the distributions we do offer builds
2026-06-25 16:47:38 <@salimma:fedora.im> then as long as the spec is still valid we don't have to care about those
2026-06-25 16:47:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> like if there are RHEL conditions, most Fedora maintainers in fact ignore them
2026-06-25 16:47:49 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Yeah, I don't want to allow conditionals for RPM distributions with completely different guidelines or macro systems
2026-06-25 16:47:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> wait, what do you mean here?
2026-06-25 16:47:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2026-06-25 16:48:00 <@salimma:fedora.im> we at least make sure it builds, no
2026-06-25 16:48:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nobody has to do that
2026-06-25 16:48:11 <@tibbs:fedora.im> The only real issue is that maintainability just goes out the window if you have to account for and comprehend so many distributions just to fix a bug in a packages.
2026-06-25 16:48:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I encounter packages in Fedora where the package is broken on RHEL with the Fedora SRPM/spec
2026-06-25 16:48:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because it does bad things like conditionalizing patch lines
2026-06-25 16:49:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Or conditionalizing `Name:`
2026-06-25 16:49:13 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> We should really make that not allowed...
2026-06-25 16:49:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes I'm looking at you freeipa
2026-06-25 16:49:28 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> and linux-system-roles
2026-06-25 16:49:33 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> and I think there's more
2026-06-25 16:49:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> conditionalizing patch application, sure, but patch naming, heck yeah that should probably be banned outright
2026-06-25 16:49:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there are many tortured packages in fedora that are either half broken or insane to review because of RHEL
2026-06-25 16:49:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> it just bites you later
2026-06-25 16:50:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so I don't really buy any legibility or testability argument because people don't do it _now_
2026-06-25 16:50:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> with the restrictions we have currently
2026-06-25 16:50:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm much more in favor of throwing out the distro conditional block and explicitly outlining where and how distro conditionals are permitted to be used
2026-06-25 16:51:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because frankly policing which dist macro is allowed or not is just a rabbithole of crazy
2026-06-25 16:51:13 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> fyi, there are 95 rawhide spec files that reference suse_version
2026-06-25 16:51:26 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> yeah, I do think that creates a legibility issue
2026-06-25 16:51:37 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> suse is not derived from Fedora at all
2026-06-25 16:51:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> so ban it completely? well if even Neal is in favor...
2026-06-25 16:51:50 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> technically, it is currently banned
2026-06-25 16:51:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> the suse thing is probably maintainers who also use OBS
2026-06-25 16:51:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> like the toolchain packages have SCL macroization _just for RHEL_
2026-06-25 16:51:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> so they like having One Spec to Build Them ALl
2026-06-25 16:52:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and that makes it completely miserable to look at
2026-06-25 16:52:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> copr too
2026-06-25 16:52:15 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I would be open to encouraging separate ELN branches for this kind of thing
2026-06-25 16:52:20 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i brought this up a few weeks/months ago that reality doesn't match the policy, and it's hard to align them without an enforcement mechanism
2026-06-25 16:52:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the kernel spec is a special brand of crazy because it uses fedora conditionals because fedora is not the default case
2026-06-25 16:52:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> when it changed to ark, fedora stopped being the default for the kernel package
2026-06-25 16:53:00 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> But some RHEL maintainers in Fedora really insist on keeping ancient things (or just blocks of code not applicable to Fedora) in Fedora packages
2026-06-25 16:53:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that should have never been permitted
2026-06-25 16:53:07 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> And it makes it really difficult for anyone else to work with
2026-06-25 16:53:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this is why I think the right approach is restricting what distro conditionals can be used for
2026-06-25 16:54:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and as someone who does multi-distro work, it's a lot rarer than you'd think to have to do any more than just wrapping BR lists
2026-06-25 16:54:28 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> so, status quo as far as the policy?  "only macros and conditionals for Fedora and EPEL" covers fedora/rhel/epel
2026-06-25 16:54:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well no
2026-06-25 16:54:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if it's for rhel but not epel, then it's out of policy
2026-06-25 16:54:53 <@james:fedora.im> I would say that also covers centos at this point.
2026-06-25 16:54:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ie rhel core packages aren't supposed to have it
2026-06-25 16:55:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's the strict reading
2026-06-25 16:55:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ie rhel core packages in fedora aren't supposed to have it
2026-06-25 16:55:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> obviously we don't want to do that
2026-06-25 16:55:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but that's the strict reading
2026-06-25 16:55:41 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Well, I don't like these complicated RHEL conditionals, but I'm also don't want to have long bcond conditionals that explicitly disables test for every single downstream and is 200 characters long
2026-06-25 16:55:55 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> I think %rhel is covered for packages in EPEL and in ELN
2026-06-25 16:56:04 <@gotmax23:fedora.im> Well, I don't like these complicated RHEL conditionals, but I also don't want to have long bcond conditionals that explicitly disables test for every single downstream and is 200 characters long
2026-06-25 16:56:17 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i mean, that can just be an else condition for `%{defined rhel} && %{defined epel}`, no real burden there
2026-06-25 16:58:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> again, my belief is that smithing for specific distro macros is just a crappy idea
2026-06-25 16:58:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm happy to propose a rule that provides multi-distro guidance
2026-06-25 16:58:32 <@salimma:fedora.im> I tend to do the conditionals based on the underlying issues if possible
2026-06-25 16:58:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm happy to propose a doc that provides multi-distro guidance
2026-06-25 16:58:34 <@salimma:fedora.im> like the Python version
2026-06-25 16:58:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> otherwise there's too much craziness to guess which distro has which 
2026-06-25 16:59:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I wrote one many years ago for $dayjob internal work and I could write a new one for Fedora
2026-06-25 16:59:32 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes please, i can review and give feedback.  lots of ideas for best practices rolling around in my head.
2026-06-25 16:59:40 <@zodbot:fedora.im> salimma gave a cookie to ngompa. They now have 210 cookies, 6 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle
2026-06-25 16:59:53 <@james:fedora.im> I think if you did a PR that changed it from talking about specific macros to just "things which have the same guidelines root" ... that might work?
2026-06-25 17:00:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure
2026-06-25 17:00:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fun fact, that covers almost all rpm distros :P
2026-06-25 17:00:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> SUSE reforked Fedora's packaging guidelines twice and realigned their packaging to be similar to ours years ago
2026-06-25 17:00:45 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i think removing the legibility guidance we have now won't affect things materially one way or the other, since this rule is already widely ignored
2026-06-25 17:00:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2026-06-25 17:00:57 <@james:fedora.im> Huh, I did not know that.
2026-06-25 17:01:10 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i do think we need to remove suse_version usage, as that isn't a downstream or related at all
2026-06-25 17:01:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think the only RPM distros I know of that isn't rooted in Fedora packaging is ALT and PLD
2026-06-25 17:01:24 <@james:fedora.im> To be fair that does make me a lot more open to allowing suse macros, either way.
2026-06-25 17:01:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> they are Mandrake descendents that went their own way
2026-06-25 17:02:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes, I actually helped implement some of it the second time
2026-06-25 17:02:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I've also brought things from SUSE to Fedora too in that process
2026-06-25 17:03:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the interface for the cmake macros came from openSUSE, even if the implementation is very different
2026-06-25 17:03:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and I'm working with the openSUSE guys to replace their implementation with ours
2026-06-25 17:03:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> since ours are better :P
2026-06-25 17:03:59 <@james:fedora.im> Having a distributed FS for `/usr` has seemed like a viable idea to me a few times ;)
2026-06-25 17:04:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but anyway, I'll work on a write up as a pull request
2026-06-25 17:04:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> gotmax23 has already given cookies to ngompa during the F44 timeframe
2026-06-25 17:04:12 <@zodbot:fedora.im> james gave a cookie to ngompa. They now have 211 cookies, 7 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle
2026-06-25 17:04:20 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> let us know when you get suse to switch to dnf 😛
2026-06-25 17:04:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> carlwgeorge gave a cookie to ngompa. They now have 212 cookies, 8 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle
2026-06-25 17:04:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh man, you should see my talk tomorrow on livestream at oSC
2026-06-25 17:04:39 <@james:fedora.im> Cool, we are at time ... so unless anyone has anything else that needs to be talked about very quickly then we should end.
2026-06-25 17:05:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> https://events.opensuse.org/conferences/oSC26/program/proposals/5143
2026-06-25 17:06:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the talk earlier today (https://events.opensuse.org/conferences/oSC26/program/proposals/5142) by SFaulken already announced Kalpa Desktop is switching to DNF5
2026-06-25 17:06:09 <@james:fedora.im> Are "transactional systems" like ostree?
2026-06-25 17:06:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> no
2026-06-25 17:06:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> btrfs
2026-06-25 17:06:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> I dream of making a centos hyperscale image with it
2026-06-25 17:06:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> maybe when things are less insane at work
2026-06-25 17:07:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> Conan Kudo 😌we have one year after c9 EOL and before we're busy with c11 :)
2026-06-25 17:07:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Shawn is interested in helping :)
2026-06-25 17:08:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> he's in the #btrfs:fedoraproject.org room so you can ask him about it :)
2026-06-25 17:08:24 <@james:fedora.im> On that note...
2026-06-25 17:08:25 <@james:fedora.im> !endmeeting