2026-01-20 18:01:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> !startmeeting FESCO (2026-01-20)
2026-01-20 18:01:23 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2026-01-20 18:01:23 UTC
2026-01-20 18:01:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2026-01-20)'
2026-01-20 18:01:29 <@salimma:fedora.im> !meetingname fesco
2026-01-20 18:01:31 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now fesco
2026-01-20 18:01:34 <@salimma:fedora.im> !group members fesco
2026-01-20 18:01:36 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Members of fesco: Dave Cantrell, Fabio Valentini, Máirín Duffy, Jef Spaleta, Kevin Fenzi, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), salimma (@michel-slm:matrix.org, @salimma:fedora.im), Stephen Gallagher, Timothée Ravier, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
2026-01-20 18:01:39 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2026-01-20 18:01:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic Init Process
2026-01-20 18:01:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi\
2026-01-20 18:01:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:01:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:01:50 <@salimma:fedora.im> morning Nirik
2026-01-20 18:02:00 <@siosm:matrix.org> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:01 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:02:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Timothée Ravier (siosm) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:02:07 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Mohan Boddu (mohanboddu)
2026-01-20 18:02:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> up to 4 fesco members already, we are close to quorum
2026-01-20 18:02:24 <@mheon:matrix.org> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> No Fedora Accounts users have the @mheon:matrix.org Matrix Account defined
2026-01-20 18:02:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:36 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:02:45 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Dave Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:02:48 <@duffy:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:02:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Máirín Duffy (duffy) - she / her / hers
2026-01-20 18:02:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Matt Heon: you should add your MXID to your FAS account to get it recognized
2026-01-20 18:03:00 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:03:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:03:04 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> !hi
2026-01-20 18:03:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Paul Holzinger (luap99)
2026-01-20 18:03:07 <@mjw:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:03:32 <@salimma:fedora.im> I count 8 ... are we missing someone?
2026-01-20 18:03:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Mark Wielaard (mjw) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:03:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> (we can wait a bit longer)
2026-01-20 18:03:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> oh zbyszek
2026-01-20 18:04:42 <@amerey:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:04:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Aaron Merey (amerey)
2026-01-20 18:05:09 <@salimma:fedora.im> I called the meeting at 1 past, so let's move to tickets at 6 past (in 1 minute)
2026-01-20 18:06:20 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'm here.
2026-01-20 18:06:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> sweet
2026-01-20 18:06:39 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sorry, computer trouble.
2026-01-20 18:06:46 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:06:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
2026-01-20 18:07:07 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic #3520 F44 Change Proposal: Restrict ptrace for unprivileged users to child processes to match kernel default
2026-01-20 18:07:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3520
2026-01-20 18:07:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** py0xc3
2026-01-20 18:07:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3520** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3520):**F44 Change Proposal: Restrict ptrace for unprivileged users to child processes to match kernel default [SystemWide]**
2026-01-20 18:07:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 4 hours ago
2026-01-20 18:07:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** a month ago by alking
2026-01-20 18:07:13 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 18:07:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ping Mark Wielaard 
2026-01-20 18:07:51 <@mjw:fedora.im> pong
2026-01-20 18:09:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> do we have Chris (py0xc3)here?
2026-01-20 18:09:29 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> Yes.
2026-01-20 18:09:33 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> !hi
2026-01-20 18:09:34 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Christopher Klooz (py0xc3) - he / him / his
2026-01-20 18:10:46 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> I try to be more passive and only answer questions, and leave things to FESCo, as I think most things have been discussed and documented quite often at this time. Not increasing repetition :)
2026-01-20 18:11:09 <@duffy:fedora.im> this ticket seems really fraught with governance disagreement and technical disagreement
2026-01-20 18:11:45 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> on the other hand, I do think the clarity of the proposal suffers a bit from wanting to incorporate too much feedback 😅
2026-01-20 18:12:44 <@duffy:fedora.im> do we have a general principle of favoring development needs over user needs?
2026-01-20 18:13:11 <@mjw:fedora.im> yes, I tried to help out clarify things, but that just got reverted and "summarized" in a way I felt didn't match reality, so I gave up.
2026-01-20 18:13:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> not sure if this is a general principle but we did do frame pointers which favor developers
2026-01-20 18:13:21 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> no, I don't think so
2026-01-20 18:14:32 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> speaking for myself: I think wanting to align on a "more secure" default (with other popular distributions) is worthwhile, so I am +1 to the "desirable end state". the thing that is less clear ... is how to get there.
2026-01-20 18:14:44 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> I don't agree to this "reality" but let's focus on the final proposal.
2026-01-20 18:15:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: That didn't really *penalize* users, though. (The minor performance impact didn't really seem to get noticed by anyone)
2026-01-20 18:15:16 <@siosm:matrix.org> I'm +1 as well to the direction but the route is confusig
2026-01-20 18:15:21 <@siosm:matrix.org> I'm +1 as well to the direction but the route is confusing
2026-01-20 18:15:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> true
2026-01-20 18:16:02 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> The proposal is to remove the package. That does the job. The file is an addition, a secondary thing, that can go along with it or not.
2026-01-20 18:16:36 <@mjw:fedora.im> We have a policy right now that is maintainer by various package maintainers that would break when this proposal would be "approved"
2026-01-20 18:16:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we do?
2026-01-20 18:16:55 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> So getting the kernel default is achieved by removing the package.
2026-01-20 18:17:01 <@duffy:fedora.im> that other popular distros do what's being proposed, and we want our users to be more secure... that seems like the user vote and users might unknowingly be at risk for the sake of developer convenience. 
2026-01-20 18:17:10 <@duffy:fedora.im> but how much is the risk
2026-01-20 18:17:18 <@duffy:fedora.im> is there a risk assessment, what's the worst case scenario
2026-01-20 18:17:27 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> can you rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say.
2026-01-20 18:17:39 <@mjw:fedora.im> We do things different from other distros
2026-01-20 18:18:01 <@fche:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: methinks what he means is that this change would cause regressions in several tools, their maintainers should be involved.
2026-01-20 18:18:01 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> At this point, the scope of the change is so unclear, that I think approving it would be just bad governance.
2026-01-20 18:18:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It's important to note that our risk profile is different from other distributions
2026-01-20 18:18:20 <@py0xc3:fedora.im>  If a user has third party software that is broken or captured (e.g. security updates not done), that package could take over e.g., firefox with credentials etc. Our own packages, the same, but I assume here the risk is lower. The problem is we have many users with third party needs. more than other distros
2026-01-20 18:18:29 <@py0xc3:fedora.im>  If a user has third party software that is broken, malicious or captured (e.g. security updates not done), that package could take over e.g., firefox with credentials etc. Our own packages, the same, but I assume here the risk is lower. The problem is we have many users with third party needs. more than other distros
2026-01-20 18:18:42 <@py0xc3:fedora.im>  If a user has third party software that is broken, malicious or captured (e.g. security updates not done), that package could take over dataof e.g., firefox with credentials etc. Our own packages, the same, but I assume here the risk is lower. The problem is we have many users with third party needs. more than other distros
2026-01-20 18:18:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we have fairly strong system wide MAC, among other things
2026-01-20 18:18:45 <@py0xc3:fedora.im>  If a user has third party software that is broken, malicious or captured (e.g. security updates not done), that package could take over data of e.g., firefox with credentials etc. Our own packages, the same, but I assume here the risk is lower. The problem is we have many users with third party needs. more than other distros
2026-01-20 18:18:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> most distributions don't have that
2026-01-20 18:18:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> we're 12 minutes in - the agenda is a bit short today so I'll let this discussion continue a bit longer, but let's wrap it up by 25 past
2026-01-20 18:19:09 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> MAC does not much within the account. SELinux confinement cannot be used within. We test that for years.
2026-01-20 18:19:15 <@mjw:fedora.im> We have an existing package that provides a default yama scope which other packages can rely on if they need the default nterprocess syscalls to work.
2026-01-20 18:20:00 <@siosm:matrix.org> elfutils-libs-0.194-1.fc43.x86_64
2026-01-20 18:20:00 <@siosm:matrix.org> $ rpm -q --whatrequires default-yama-scope
2026-01-20 18:20:00 <@siosm:matrix.org> gdb-headless-16.3-6.fc43.x86_64
2026-01-20 18:20:00 <@siosm:matrix.org> $ rpm -q --whatrecommends default-yama-scope
2026-01-20 18:20:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I can give a concrete example - sequoia-pgp upstream devs were confused to see that we're the "odd distro out" and don't restrict ptrace by default. they were worried that this can be used to exfiltrate secret key material from processes even if they are "encrypted at rest" (i.e. ssh-agent / gpg-agent / etc.)
2026-01-20 18:20:24 <@siosm:matrix.org> it should be a recommends for both here, not a require.
2026-01-20 18:20:42 <@mjw:fedora.im> The issue is that we would certainly like to make this policy/package better match requirements, but just removing the package doesn't do that.
2026-01-20 18:20:53 <@amerey:fedora.im> Debian does not restrict ptrace either I believe
2026-01-20 18:21:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> debian does not, but ubuntu and Arch do, AIUI.
2026-01-20 18:21:19 <@mjw:fedora.im> Right. When the policy was created we didn't have weak dependencies yet
2026-01-20 18:21:21 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> Yes, Debian is the only one I could identify that also disabled the kernel default. Also due to breaking developer needs.
2026-01-20 18:21:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: Can ptrace read arbitrary memory locations? I'm woefully under-educated on this API.
2026-01-20 18:21:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: I'm not sure about the details, but apparently this is a concern, yes.
2026-01-20 18:21:52 <@duffy:fedora.im> zbyszek: by scope of change incomplete - you mean there isn't a clear plan to remove elfutils-default-yama-scope? 
2026-01-20 18:22:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think at the least this change should have all the involved parties on board. Right now that doesn't seem like the case...
2026-01-20 18:22:31 <@mjw:fedora.im> There are various ways to limit that though.
2026-01-20 18:22:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my core concern is that automatic backtracing and problem reporting for the KDE Edition to upstream KDE should not break regardless of what we're doing
2026-01-20 18:22:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> DrKonqi needs to continue working
2026-01-20 18:22:55 <@fche:fedora.im> i'm certainly biased in favour of the status quo, but wouldn't mind putting together a new Change proposal that makes the yama bit optional but also embraces developer needs, a compromoise
2026-01-20 18:22:59 <@fche:fedora.im> would promise not to be too wordy
2026-01-20 18:23:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> I'd be happy voting for a more minimal change that basically converts all the requires on default-yama-scope to recommends / suggests
2026-01-20 18:23:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> and it further sounds like we don't want to just remove the package entirely, we want to change it from always installed to only when developers need it?
2026-01-20 18:23:19 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> sure, there are mitigations (like making a prctrl from the process to disable external tracing, or making an SELinux policy for it?) 
2026-01-20 18:23:20 <@salimma:fedora.im> so users who feel strongly for this (or spins) can have that package removed properly
2026-01-20 18:23:54 <@mjw:fedora.im> So I agree, I just don't know how to get there. I feel I have tried to help get us somewhere that the existing package maintainers agree on, but the proposal is such a massive wall of text it is hard to explain things clearly
2026-01-20 18:23:58 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> I wonder about this. We have a default way to achieve the disabling. The existing file for systemd. 
2026-01-20 18:24:12 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: how do ubuntu, arch, et. al. who've done what the change proposal asks handle dr konqi
2026-01-20 18:24:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'd like this change to be resubmitted for F45 with a version that has Mark Wielaard and Chris (py0xc3) as co-owners, and thus implicitly agree on what we should be doing
2026-01-20 18:24:16 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> I wonder about this. We have a default way to achieve the disabling. The existing file for systemd. 20-yama-ptrace.conf
2026-01-20 18:24:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but we want it to NOT be disabled when developers need to use it...
2026-01-20 18:24:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well, a lot of them have variations of "it doesn't work" or "doesn't give useful data"
2026-01-20 18:24:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'd rather not have us be in that pile
2026-01-20 18:24:54 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes. There is no discussion of how this is handled in gdb and others, what happens on existing systems in upgrade.
2026-01-20 18:25:00 <@salimma:fedora.im> being able to remove the override sounds better to me than installing a second override to override the first override :P
2026-01-20 18:25:06 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: ok and what kind of user base does dr konqi have in fedora
2026-01-20 18:25:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 100% of KDE users have it as we install it and configure it with Plasma desktop and mobile
2026-01-20 18:25:33 <@siosm:matrix.org> it's the second desktop in terms of users
2026-01-20 18:25:37 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> not *quite* true - I think it was mentioned on the mailing list that services like abrt already use CAP_USE_PTRACE (?) and would not be affected by this
2026-01-20 18:25:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's how crash reporting and feedback reporting works for Plasma
2026-01-20 18:25:42 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> By the default, the kernel enables ptrace_scope which disables ptrace in many cases, the file 20-yama-ptrace.conf disables ptrace_scope so that ptrace can be used freely. Given we have the file explicitly with documentation for developers, I was wondering about the need for the package. That's what I just meant :)
2026-01-20 18:25:49 <@salimma:fedora.im> we're 19 mins in - do folks want to continue discussing this, or should we carry on in the fesco issue until next week?
2026-01-20 18:26:04 <@salimma:fedora.im> Please +1 if we want to continue this for 15 mins
2026-01-20 18:26:05 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> (so 20-yama-ptrace.conf is not enabled by default)
2026-01-20 18:26:19 <@mjw:fedora.im> Yes, concetrating on just yama is kind of odd. There are multiple layers that interact.
2026-01-20 18:26:21 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: I don't think punting to next week will buy us anything, we need to decide what to do
2026-01-20 18:26:31 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Chris (py0xc3): but we don;'t want them to have to read thru stuff and find a magic file, we want to set it for them when they have say gdb installed or whatever
2026-01-20 18:26:34 <@siosm:matrix.org> -1 to discussing. I think we agree that the proposal needs to be trimmed down in size to be more to the point
2026-01-20 18:27:04 <@salimma:fedora.im> I count that as a +1 to continue discussing now
2026-01-20 18:27:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Proposal: FESCo kicks the proposal back and Chris (py0xc3), Mark Wielaard, and Frank Ch. Eigler figure out a new proposal for F45 that FESCo can vote on.
2026-01-20 18:27:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> So, perhaps we should take Frank Ch. Eigler up on making a new proposal and trying to get all others onboard?
2026-01-20 18:27:08 <@siosm:matrix.org> and include an impact assesment for the most common tools
2026-01-20 18:27:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: The Change is rejected as-is. It may be resubmitted for Fedora 45 after being revised for clarity.
2026-01-20 18:27:24 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: dr konqi is installed by default for kde users, kde is the 2nd desktop in terms of user base size, so this is a desktop-specific tool? (as opposed to abrt which i dont believe is desktop specific?)
2026-01-20 18:27:27 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> do we? I mean ... how is this handled on ubuntu / Arch? I doubt that they ship an override file with gdb to disable a "security feature" ...
2026-01-20 18:27:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yes.
2026-01-20 18:27:36 <@mjw:fedora.im> I am OK with that, but can we then please start from scratch?
2026-01-20 18:27:39 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> As my proposal is functionally the same as Conan Kudo 's, I withdraw it
2026-01-20 18:27:53 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Mark Wielaard: that's up to y'all to figure out
2026-01-20 18:27:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:27:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> thanks. I was about to ask that one of you withdraw
2026-01-20 18:28:04 <@mjw:fedora.im> The current Change Proposal is such a massive wall of text, I don't know where to start...
2026-01-20 18:28:10 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1 for Conan Kudo's proposal
2026-01-20 18:28:12 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1
2026-01-20 18:28:18 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:28:26 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:28:30 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:28:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 to the proposal
2026-01-20 18:29:02 <@mjw:fedora.im> But I think I can work with Frank to get a more precise text. I just don't know if Chris agrees with that.
2026-01-20 18:29:11 <@fche:fedora.im> let's try.
2026-01-20 18:29:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> we have 6 - Máirín DuffyStephen Gallagher?
2026-01-20 18:29:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> why am I short one person
2026-01-20 18:29:52 <@duffy:fedora.im> +1 to kick it back
2026-01-20 18:30:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I count +8
2026-01-20 18:30:36 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah I missed Neal's vote, sorry
2026-01-20 18:30:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1 for my own proposal
2026-01-20 18:30:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> stephen?
2026-01-20 18:30:44 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> We have done this many times. It ends up with me earning thumbs down and others reformulating texts that "I claim things" etc. Every discussion starts with fixing that ptrace_scope must remain disabled. So it is ok if others want to do a proposal. I am happy if it develops to something useful. But I have done this now 6 or 7 times. I hope you understand. But if there is anything concrete to be done in this way, feel free to let me know, I am happy to contribute, PR or so
2026-01-20 18:30:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Oh right, +9
2026-01-20 18:30:55 <@salimma:fedora.im> I assume +1 since you had a similar one
2026-01-20 18:31:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: I also made an explicit +1 vote
2026-01-20 18:31:32 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1 for own proposal is implicit,
2026-01-20 18:31:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> !agreed FESCo rejects the current proposal, and asks Chris (py0xc3), Mark Wielaardand Frank Ch. Eiglerto figure out a new proposal for F45
2026-01-20 18:31:39 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Chris (py0xc3): perhaps this time let the others write the framework and then just review/input on it later?
2026-01-20 18:31:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this time, FESCo is saying _we expect an F45 proposal with all three of you on it_
2026-01-20 18:32:02 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but however it can work
2026-01-20 18:32:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so there's some incentive hopefully to get it figured out
2026-01-20 18:32:09 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> I am happy to any proposal I have knowledge about to give feedback ;)
2026-01-20 18:32:40 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I don't think we should be so prescriptive about details.
2026-01-20 18:32:59 <@py0xc3:fedora.im> Sure 👍️
2026-01-20 18:33:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, I would like more consensus next time but I don't necessarily require three people to be forced to co-write something :)
2026-01-20 18:33:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> anyway, let's move on
2026-01-20 18:33:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic #3526 Change: Java21RemovedEarlierThenScheduled
2026-01-20 18:33:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3526
2026-01-20 18:33:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** a month ago by alking
2026-01-20 18:33:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 5 hours ago
2026-01-20 18:33:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** jvanek
2026-01-20 18:33:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 18:33:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3526** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3526):**Change: Java21RemovedEarlierThenScheduled**
2026-01-20 18:34:04 <@salimma:fedora.im> we were just trying to figure out the details about the logging iirc? otherwise we're ok with the proposal
2026-01-20 18:34:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I mean, I don't understand the proposal either, but I'm fine handwaving that a bit
2026-01-20 18:34:22 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1 to the proposal, minus doing weird RPM scriptlets
2026-01-20 18:34:30 <@fche:fedora.im> s/Then/Than/ eeek :)
2026-01-20 18:34:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm still +1 to the change, but would love the scriptlets sorted... but that doesn't need to be in this ticket? or does it if it's continent on approval?
2026-01-20 18:34:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well, we can't have scriptlets that have a chance of failing for whatever reason
2026-01-20 18:35:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> as long as it doesn't break immutable systems ... at this stage I'm ok with just +1 ing it 
2026-01-20 18:35:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> rpm now fails the transaction on any nonzero error code
2026-01-20 18:35:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I agree: +1 to the change and the details can be worked out as it is implemented
2026-01-20 18:35:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> They don
2026-01-20 18:35:23 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I'm pretty sure they just don't do anything there 
2026-01-20 18:35:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so things like accessing devices and ttys and whatever can randomly cause failure
2026-01-20 18:35:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Obviously, if this fails to work on immutable OSes, that's a detail to work out :)
2026-01-20 18:35:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> They don't fail, they just are useless and print to stdout
2026-01-20 18:35:38 <@siosm:matrix.org> No atomic variants include java AFAIK
2026-01-20 18:35:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah
2026-01-20 18:35:59 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> it's a dep of LibreOffice? isn't that preinstalled on Silverblue?
2026-01-20 18:36:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my only concern is that unnecessary scriptlets create a risk of catastrophic failure
2026-01-20 18:36:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> No.
2026-01-20 18:36:12 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> oh 
2026-01-20 18:36:13 <@siosm:matrix.org> I agree that the scriplet things is not great but I don't think we should block the proposal on that
2026-01-20 18:36:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> we have the FPC request from Fabio Valentinito clarify scriptlet usage anyway
2026-01-20 18:36:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1518
2026-01-20 18:36:29 <@salimma:fedora.im> so we can just not focus on that since I don't think we should decide that here
2026-01-20 18:36:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> beside the horrifying scriptlet, it's fine +1
2026-01-20 18:36:49 <@siosm:matrix.org> LibreOffice would be a Flatpak but we don't enven include it (it's too big)
2026-01-20 18:36:55 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> besides the horrifying scriptlet, it's fine +1
2026-01-20 18:36:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> so I see a +1 in the ticket from nirikand a -1 from Fabio
2026-01-20 18:37:06 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I updated that to +1 I think 
2026-01-20 18:37:10 <@salimma:fedora.im> ah
2026-01-20 18:37:20 <@duffy:fedora.im> is there any concern about precedent setting here
2026-01-20 18:37:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> two +1s - anyone else? @!zbyszekI'm not sure if your +1 was to the whole proposal
2026-01-20 18:37:28 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> +1 from me
2026-01-20 18:37:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> what precedent are you thinking of?
2026-01-20 18:37:45 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> It was.
2026-01-20 18:37:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> earlier removal in the form of a Change is perfectly reasonable
2026-01-20 18:37:57 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: using rpm scriptlets as a user messaging system for change mgmt
2026-01-20 18:37:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's been done before, even if it's a bit rare
2026-01-20 18:38:00 <@salimma:fedora.im> I just realized I forgot to do the vote count for the previous ticket, will fix in the summary
2026-01-20 18:38:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh yes, this is not allowed in Fedora at all
2026-01-20 18:38:29 <@duffy:fedora.im> i'm +1 if we can say something like "approval of this proposal does not amount to approval of scriplets as user change management"
2026-01-20 18:38:38 <@duffy:fedora.im> or something just to make sure this isnt brought back up later as a set precedent
2026-01-20 18:38:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there are both philosophical and technical problems with those scriptlets
2026-01-20 18:38:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes I'm fine with that
2026-01-20 18:39:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, we can note that... hopefully it will be addressed by fpc.
2026-01-20 18:39:12 <@salimma:fedora.im> we can say "we approve this proposal, noting that FPC will decide on the proposed usage of scriptlets"
2026-01-20 18:39:20 <@salimma:fedora.im> ah nirik got there first
2026-01-20 18:39:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it is important we do explicitly deny that part since it is scoped in the Change
2026-01-20 18:39:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok - someone want to wordsmith it now and we can re-vote, just to be sure?
2026-01-20 18:39:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Revised Proposal: "This Change is approved conditionally so long as it does not use RPM scriptlets to communicate with the user."
2026-01-20 18:40:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> wfm +1
2026-01-20 18:40:24 <@salimma:fedora.im> that's an explicit rejection of the scriptlets though - I thought we want FPC to decide that
2026-01-20 18:40:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but thats us taking over for fpc isn't it?
2026-01-20 18:40:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah
2026-01-20 18:40:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can make it a one-off and have FPC smith a dedicated rule
2026-01-20 18:40:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't think that part if controversial
2026-01-20 18:41:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm not sure we need to really worry about it... if we approve this and fpc later approves a 'no don't do that' the package will need to obey that like every other package
2026-01-20 18:41:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: I'm viewing it as a technical architecture decision. As Neal Gompa (Fedora) mentioned: it can break DNF pretty badly
2026-01-20 18:41:14 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> -1 to the revised version
2026-01-20 18:41:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, that's why I want to just note that FPC will be weighing on that part, we should not pre-judge what will happen
2026-01-20 18:41:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we already have bad things from third party ISVs, we don't need it from our own packages too
2026-01-20 18:42:01 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I think the wording is sloppy
2026-01-20 18:42:34 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> The wording in the fpc proposal is also bad.
2026-01-20 18:42:37 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I'm strong -1 to put things into log files that should just be part of the Release Notes / Upgrade Docs, and this is what should happen here too 
2026-01-20 18:42:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> Proposal: FESCo approves this Change Proposal, noting that the use of scriptlet for notification is subject to the FPC review of https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1518
2026-01-20 18:43:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1 to this updated proposal, this is fine with me.
2026-01-20 18:43:33 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2026-01-20 18:43:39 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:43:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> and if zbyszek does not like that PR he can suggest changes there :)
2026-01-20 18:43:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2026-01-20 18:43:48 <@duffy:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:43:49 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:44:13 <@salimma:fedora.im> we're on +7 - Timothée Ravier (travier)Stephen Gallagher?
2026-01-20 18:44:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:44:54 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1
2026-01-20 18:44:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> !agreed (+9, 0, -0) FESCo approves this Change Proposal, noting that the use of scriptlet for notification is subject to the FPC review of https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1518
2026-01-20 18:45:15 <@salimma:fedora.im> thanks! moving on
2026-01-20 18:45:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic #3497 Update qtkeychain, qxmpp and Kaidan on f43 and f42
2026-01-20 18:45:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3497
2026-01-20 18:45:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3497** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3497):**Update qtkeychain, qxmpp and Kaidan on f43 and f42**
2026-01-20 18:45:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2026-01-20 18:45:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 58 minutes ago
2026-01-20 18:45:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 months ago by fed500
2026-01-20 18:45:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 18:45:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> last week we were waiting on the COPR impact check IIRC
2026-01-20 18:45:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> this just had a new comment asking for more time 
2026-01-20 18:45:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> ah woops, I missed that
2026-01-20 18:45:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah, asking for one more week
2026-01-20 18:46:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> just an hour ago
2026-01-20 18:46:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so not surprising you missed it
2026-01-20 18:46:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> we don't need to vote for this do we?
2026-01-20 18:46:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nope
2026-01-20 18:46:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> just defer
2026-01-20 18:46:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah ok, moving on
2026-01-20 18:46:34 <@salimma:fedora.im> !info this ticket will be discussed next week
2026-01-20 18:46:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> probably put an info though for logs
2026-01-20 18:46:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> for a sec I thought I got the command wrong
2026-01-20 18:46:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol no race of messages
2026-01-20 18:46:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> I should have said next meeting, oh well. next week is close to Connect
2026-01-20 18:47:12 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic #3530 Change: Podman6
2026-01-20 18:47:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3530
2026-01-20 18:47:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3530** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3530):**Change: Podman6**
2026-01-20 18:47:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 18:47:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** a month ago by alking
2026-01-20 18:47:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
2026-01-20 18:47:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** lsm5
2026-01-20 18:47:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ping Matt Heon Mohan Boddu lsm5 
2026-01-20 18:47:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> omg I might be able to go home at a sane hour
2026-01-20 18:47:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I discussed this with Mohan Boddu recently. I have *concerns*
2026-01-20 18:47:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the discussion I've seen so far worries me
2026-01-20 18:48:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> I don't see this discussed yet (apologies if I miss it) - what will be the concern if we delay this to F45?
2026-01-20 18:48:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Michel Lind UTC: you just jinxed it. ;)
2026-01-20 18:48:11 <@mheon:matrix.org> Here and ready to answer questions
2026-01-20 18:48:17 <@dcantrell:fedora.im> (I have a hard stop in 10 mins, fwiw)
2026-01-20 18:48:20 <@salimma:fedora.im> :P
2026-01-20 18:48:28 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: There's a lot of pressure from our big sponsor to get this in for F44
2026-01-20 18:48:30 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> I am here and so does Matt Heon and Paul Holzinger 
2026-01-20 18:48:32 <@duffy:fedora.im> (i have a hard stop in 10 as well)
2026-01-20 18:48:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> we're on our penultimate issue luckily and this is the last serious one (hopefully. I'm not insulting anyone as I wrote the next change proposal)
2026-01-20 18:49:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> However the reality is that they will definitely not meet the Beta timeline and might not even meet the GA timeframe for landing all of the incompatible changes
2026-01-20 18:49:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm +1 to this, but... I think we need to carefully watch things and if it doesn't end up in time for beta, we defer...
2026-01-20 18:49:14 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> the timeline for the 6.0 update looks concerningly tight to me. I don't think F44 Beta should ship with a version that doesn't handle the migration 
2026-01-20 18:49:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> nuclear option: delay F44 :P
2026-01-20 18:49:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah, I might not be up on all the latest of the discussion then. I thought there was still a hope to make beta for things.
2026-01-20 18:50:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my biggest concern is that the N-2 upgrade path is basically gauranteed to be broken
2026-01-20 18:50:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> only in beta, or also in final?
2026-01-20 18:50:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there is no salvaging that with the current plans
2026-01-20 18:50:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Without any guarantees on how long it would be delayed, I won't vote for that.
2026-01-20 18:50:44 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> As I mentioned in the change proposal, the only breaking change that might not be able to land is the config change, which should be ready for the final GA
2026-01-20 18:50:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and I've personally been bitten by Podman upgrades like this before, and I'm extremely wary of the fact it isn't handled at all
2026-01-20 18:51:03 <@mheon:matrix.org> To be clear: N-2 is only broken for users on Bolt, which from everything I've seen is a very small minority.
2026-01-20 18:51:18 <@mheon:matrix.org> Not contending we shouldn't do anything about it
2026-01-20 18:51:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Mohan Boddu: Last week you told me you were very concerned that it would *not* make GA. And I told you that a major change in config formats is not something I'm comfortable landing after Beta.
2026-01-20 18:51:48 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> users must upgrade to 5.8 first (and run podman after reboot) which then handles the migration, but yes if users skip that which are still on boltddb the upgrade path gets broken
2026-01-20 18:52:00 <@duffy:fedora.im> "Users still relying on deprecated components (slirp4netns, cgroups v1, BoltDB) will need to migrate to the supported alternatives before upgrading." <= is the impact here that users will need to take longer to upgrade to fedora, or that they'll be broken and it'll be a *surprise* migration for them
2026-01-20 18:52:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my line in the sand here is that you need to come up with a way to handle automatic transitions even at beta time, even if it means shipping two versions of podman in the same source package and creating a wrapper to trigger upgrades
2026-01-20 18:52:08 <@duffy:fedora.im> because taking longer to upgrade - ok. 
2026-01-20 18:52:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my line in the sand here is that you need to come up with a way to handle automatic transitions even at beta time, even if it means shipping two versions of podman in the same source package and creating a wrapper to trigger upgrades (like how PgSQL used to do it)
2026-01-20 18:52:39 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant that it wont be ready for Beta release not the final release
2026-01-20 18:52:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it is not okay to require stepwise upgrades in Fedora without automatic handling of that case
2026-01-20 18:53:09 <@siosm:matrix.org> As much as I would like those changes as well, it's difficult to approve this if this is not ready by beta time.
2026-01-20 18:53:10 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> This would be easier if there was a standalone command to migrate the db. Having to install and run a specific OS version is a very heavyweight requirement.
2026-01-20 18:53:11 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: by n-2 do you mean say an f42=>f44 direct upgrade with no f43 in the middle? or what do you mean by n-2
2026-01-20 18:53:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2026-01-20 18:53:34 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> but f42 also will have podman 5.8
2026-01-20 18:53:36 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: is that a common path? do we state we support that?
2026-01-20 18:53:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2026-01-20 18:53:49 <@salimma:fedora.im> so if we say podman 6 require podman 5.8 if podman is installed, that should be safe to prevent an accidnetal upgrade right?
2026-01-20 18:53:50 <@duffy:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: yes to which and where is your data from
2026-01-20 18:53:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Mohan Boddu: OK, if there's a *chance* of the config change landing before Beta, I'm listening.
2026-01-20 18:54:01 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> Well, as part of the OS upgrade, we suggest updating before upgrading, so this should be caught by that update.
2026-01-20 18:54:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> if you have the old one it will refuse to do the transaction
2026-01-20 18:54:18 <@mheon:matrix.org> Other maintainers have some reservations about shipping >1 Podman version in the same package - in the case someone actually finds it, even if it's not in PATH, they can potentially make bad things happen. Having different versions of the same underlying libraries acting at the same time has caused serious problems in the past.
2026-01-20 18:54:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it is supported and documented, commonality does not matter (though I am aware that it is a thing people recommend somewhat frequently)
2026-01-20 18:54:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> err
2026-01-20 18:54:32 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> Well, as part of the OS upgrade, we suggest updating before upgrading, so this should be caught by that.
2026-01-20 18:54:35 <@siosm:matrix.org> Máirín DuffyThe official update policy is that updates form N-2 to N are supported.
2026-01-20 18:54:51 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> as for as migration on f44 we could offer a copr package or something with podman 5.8 still I suppose. I am not sure we can reasonably extract the migration code in a stand alsoe tool
2026-01-20 18:55:04 <@siosm:matrix.org> we don't support that for Atomic Desktops variants and CoreOS has a different update model
2026-01-20 18:55:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we do not require it, and we cannot enforce it, so it's advisory at best
2026-01-20 18:55:28 <@jspaleta:fedora.im> im not sure that's true... because it requires a restart of the podman service to trigger the migration.. updating on the commandline toolks..doesnt ensure that.
2026-01-20 18:55:28 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> shipping podman 6 and podman 5.8 as part of the same rpm runs into problems as we cannot guarantee that things work when you run two different version in parallel
2026-01-20 18:55:30 <@duffy:fedora.im> we shuold require it. it's like asking for your arm to be gnawed off by angry gnomes to not
2026-01-20 18:55:42 <@mheon:matrix.org> I was thinking about that Paul, and in theory it should be possible to do a very stripped-down 5.8 binary that basically removes every entrypoint except `system migrate`...
2026-01-20 18:55:52 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We (FESCo) don't need to architect the upgrade path here. It's sufficient to say that we require that it works.
2026-01-20 18:55:59 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> also, just doing the update won't actually trigger the migration, only all users *running* podman before doing the upgrade would? 
2026-01-20 18:56:08 <@mheon:matrix.org> But that would take time, and I think our biggest concern about the 44 timeframe is already not having enough time to deliver certain things
2026-01-20 18:56:09 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yep.
2026-01-20 18:56:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> can we run the migration in scriptlets on upgrade to 6 from 5.8?
2026-01-20 18:56:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fwiw, you can make the old version a non-path binary and just use some kind of check to run the old version first, then switch to the new version
2026-01-20 18:56:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's what pgsql used to do because it has the same problem
2026-01-20 18:56:50 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> yes and after a reboot, or you need to run the migration command explicitly 
2026-01-20 18:56:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: Please, no scriptlets. A systemd unit run on the first time podman.service starts would be great, though
2026-01-20 18:57:10 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, that works too.
2026-01-20 18:57:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (I keep saying used to, because they accidentally on purpose didn't for f43 and we got a bunch of people complaining about broken databases on upgrade)
2026-01-20 18:57:15 <@salimma:fedora.im> let's try to get somewhere in the next 3 mins, since dcantrell and duffy need to leave
2026-01-20 18:57:34 <@siosm:matrix.org> I think that's the plan (service on boot)
2026-01-20 18:57:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Conan Kudo: they actually ship the old binaries in the upgrade package...
2026-01-20 18:57:56 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> hmm then it didn't fire or something? anyway for later
2026-01-20 18:58:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> OK, I'd like to submit a proposal. Give me a moment to wordsmith it.
2026-01-20 18:58:14 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Conan Kudo: they _skipped_ a version is what happened. ;(
2026-01-20 18:58:16 <@duffy:fedora.im> im going to say what one of my unstated assumptions are here - i think the podman 6 upgrade is important and strategic. freedom friends FEATURES FIRST. it sounds like a feature that would be a headliner in release notes and in the press when we release. the sort of thing that *might* (i think this is council purview) be worth pushing dates out for.
2026-01-20 18:58:29 <@duffy:fedora.im> if that understanding / assumption is incorrect LMK
2026-01-20 18:58:33 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> we cannot really do scriptlets and the likes, podman's db is per user which means root, and all regular users need to get migrated so all users which use podman need to run it after the update
2026-01-20 18:58:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> Máirín Duffyyeah I'm with you there
2026-01-20 18:59:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Máirín Duffy: that sounds about right. it still shouldn't land if it breaks stuff though
2026-01-20 18:59:08 <@mheon:matrix.org> Paul beat me to it, but I'll add that our ability to migrate users who explicitly opted into the old database in the config file is also limited
2026-01-20 18:59:10 <@duffy:fedora.im> im +1 if my assumption is correct, and maybe a caveat can we have a checkpoint / revisit around beta time?
2026-01-20 18:59:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's reason enough to say these kinds of transitions need to be handled with even more care than the average
2026-01-20 18:59:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> I think if there's a reasonable plan (let's wait for Stephen's wordsmithing) I'm fine approving it, and we can deal with it later if we need to either delay F44 or abort the change - obviously we won't delay the release forever
2026-01-20 18:59:22 <@duffy:fedora.im> i have to go ☹️
2026-01-20 18:59:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Proposal: Podman 6 is approved to land in Fedora 44 with the following conditions:
2026-01-20 18:59:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 1. If the complete set of incompatible changes is not at least in the updates-testing repo by Beta Freeze, the Contingency Plan must be invoked.
2026-01-20 18:59:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 2. Upgrades must be cleanly supported from Fedora 42.
2026-01-20 18:59:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 18:59:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Stephen Gallagher: F42 GA, but otherwise +1
2026-01-20 19:00:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2026-01-20 19:00:10 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> clarify: by Beta Freeze -> at the *start* or *during* the beta freeze? 
2026-01-20 19:00:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> uh I wonder how a paragraph will look in the agreed command :P
2026-01-20 19:00:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (the reason is anyone can downgrade to the GA package at any time)
2026-01-20 19:00:39 <@siosm:matrix.org> F42 GA would be very difficult
2026-01-20 19:00:52 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: I'm not committing to that. If we need to put out an update in F42 to make it work and document that, I consider it acceptible (though not ideal)
2026-01-20 19:00:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> if the upgrade fails if you have the wrong version that's good enough for me fwiw
2026-01-20 19:00:54 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> I would like to know what the second point means in practise? what does cleanly supported mean?
2026-01-20 19:00:59 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> (that sounds like an edge case of an edge case of an edge case now)
2026-01-20 19:01:03 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Can we make that "end of beta freeze"?
2026-01-20 19:01:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> just don't leave people in a broken state
2026-01-20 19:01:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, if 6 requires 5.8, it would just not upgrade until the user upgraded to 5.8
2026-01-20 19:01:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we're already in that state now, the problem is that if an upgrade is starting from GA podman then it's broken
2026-01-20 19:01:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and GA podman + everything else upgrade is a reasonable case
2026-01-20 19:01:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because you can _always_ downgrade to GA
2026-01-20 19:01:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> ideally we can also check if the configs are already migrated but idk if that'd be possible in RPM
2026-01-20 19:01:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> not sure I follow what you mean here?
2026-01-20 19:01:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> also it wouldn't account for atomic systems AIUI 
2026-01-20 19:01:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 19:02:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it is possible with triggers
2026-01-20 19:02:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I do this for fedora upgrade transitions in KDE
2026-01-20 19:02:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> I guess nirik and I are talking about the same thing - have podman 6 Requires: (podman >= 5.8 if podman)
2026-01-20 19:02:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> but it's not "nice"
2026-01-20 19:02:28 <@siosm:matrix.org> you can do this migration in scriplets, this must happen in a service unit
2026-01-20 19:02:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes, that same thing...
2026-01-20 19:02:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> ideally we can also test if the system is migrated or not - idk, a %pre check that fails if it finds the old settings?
2026-01-20 19:02:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If they can make it work with the GA package, great. If it works with F42+latest updates, that's good enough for mo
2026-01-20 19:02:56 <@siosm:matrix.org> there are details about that in the discussion on github
2026-01-20 19:02:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If they can make it work with the GA package, great. If it works with F42+latest updates, that's good enough for me
2026-01-20 19:03:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the thing is, it's already the case it works with F42 latest updates
2026-01-20 19:03:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Good vs. Good Enough
2026-01-20 19:03:25 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> would that have any effect on ostree systems at all? 
2026-01-20 19:03:37 <@mheon:matrix.org> We can test if root is migrated easily enough, but each user has an independent database; I don't think we can reasonably verify each user's Podman installation is safe in the RPM
2026-01-20 19:03:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> hmm, not sure
2026-01-20 19:03:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I will also note that we have no critera for GA upgrades.
2026-01-20 19:03:54 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> well the issue is each db is per user, so you would need to query all user which doesn't seem realistic?
2026-01-20 19:04:02 <@salimma:fedora.im> that's probably good enough
2026-01-20 19:04:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my suggestion is to wrap the podman executable with a script that calls podman to test and check, then do the needful
2026-01-20 19:04:12 <@salimma:fedora.im> perfect is the enemy of good etc
2026-01-20 19:04:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> "For each one of the release-blocking package sets, it must be possible to successfully complete a direct upgrade from a fully updated, clean default installation of each of the last two stable Fedora releases with that package set installed. "
2026-01-20 19:04:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok we're over 15 mins in on this, let's vote on one of the proposals
2026-01-20 19:04:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> should we do nirik's?
2026-01-20 19:05:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm not sure I had one? you mean Stephen Gallagher's ?
2026-01-20 19:05:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Accessing home areas might not even be possible, e.g. with NFS or homed. 
2026-01-20 19:05:25 <@salimma:fedora.im> the "for each one". but yeah we can vote on Stephen's
2026-01-20 19:05:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> this
2026-01-20 19:05:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I was just quoting our actual release critera that QE actually tests.
2026-01-20 19:06:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 still to that proposal
2026-01-20 19:06:08 <@siosm:matrix.org> https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/27628#issuecomment-3612525963
2026-01-20 19:06:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Matt Heon, Paul Holzinger: let's talk after the meeting about how to do this, I think this is doable to solve so even GA people or folks manually selecting boltdb are correctly handled
2026-01-20 19:06:34 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Once again, can we make that end of beta freeze?
2026-01-20 19:06:37 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1
2026-01-20 19:06:44 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: If you can make it work, that's *great*. I'm all for it. I just don't want to block on it.
2026-01-20 19:06:54 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1 for end of beta freeze
2026-01-20 19:06:54 <@salimma:fedora.im> I think fabio was waiting to vote on whether this si beginning or end of beta freeze
2026-01-20 19:06:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> why end? end of freeze is the release for updates
2026-01-20 19:06:58 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> That'd give more time
2026-01-20 19:06:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: I missed that comment.
2026-01-20 19:07:09 <@luap99:holzinger.dev> Conan Kudo: sounds good
2026-01-20 19:07:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> not fixing this is way too dangerous and speculative
2026-01-20 19:07:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yes. because "by beta freeze" was too vague for me 
2026-01-20 19:07:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> so I have +5 at the moment (stephen, me, Conan Kudo, nirik, Timothée Ravier (travier))
2026-01-20 19:07:41 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> How would that work? if it's not ready we couldn't pull it from beta.. you mean pull it after beta already goes out?
2026-01-20 19:07:44 <@siosm:matrix.org> This is the issue the talks about the details of the design for the database migration
2026-01-20 19:07:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> and I guess we lost dcantrell and duffy
2026-01-20 19:07:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we'd look sloppy for breaking podman installs
2026-01-20 19:07:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I picked "beginning" because I figured we might need the Freeze period to invoke the Contingency Plan
2026-01-20 19:07:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> is that ... at the start? at the end? in between?
2026-01-20 19:07:55 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, so podman6 could go out in that batch
2026-01-20 19:08:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah but we explicitly don't want that
2026-01-20 19:08:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because then there's basically no stabilization time
2026-01-20 19:08:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> we can do it end of freeze with a test day
2026-01-20 19:08:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think there might be slight wiggle room after beta freeze starts, but definitely end is too late.
2026-01-20 19:08:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> no more than two weeks after beta freeze starts
2026-01-20 19:09:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> freeze is a month, we need some ice in the churn
2026-01-20 19:09:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I don't think we should add this here.
2026-01-20 19:09:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> if more time is needed we can address it then
2026-01-20 19:09:29 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: Counter-Proposal, then?
2026-01-20 19:09:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> freeze is 3 weeks I thought?
2026-01-20 19:09:41 <@salimma:fedora.im> checking the schedule
2026-01-20 19:09:44 <@siosm:matrix.org> freeze is 3 weeks
2026-01-20 19:09:50 <@siosm:matrix.org> 2 weeks in sounds good
2026-01-20 19:09:54 <@salimma:fedora.im> beta 02-17 freeze, early target 03-10, target date 1 03-17
2026-01-20 19:09:57 <@siosm:matrix.org> https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-44/f-44-key-tasks.html
2026-01-20 19:10:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> so 3 weeks to early target
2026-01-20 19:10:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> 4 weeks to target date 1
2026-01-20 19:10:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2026-01-20 19:10:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we usually miss early target anyway :)
2026-01-20 19:10:25 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Counter: by beta freeze.
2026-01-20 19:10:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> start
2026-01-20 19:10:33 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 2 weeks sounds good
2026-01-20 19:10:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm also fine with start of freeze, but two weeks in is the latest I think is reasonable
2026-01-20 19:10:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> If more time is needed, we can discuss that then
2026-01-20 19:11:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I don't think we should now because we don't know what state things will be then
2026-01-20 19:11:05 <@salimma:fedora.im> if we are pretty sure podman would miss it we are just wasting another vote though
2026-01-20 19:11:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> though I guess that will be the QA people voting not us
2026-01-20 19:11:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: That's exactly what I wrote in my proposal, no?
2026-01-20 19:11:52 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> If everyone is okay, then we would like to have that wiggle room, if we miss it we miss the F44 release
2026-01-20 19:12:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes, I do not support moving it _now_ to end of beta freeze or two weeks into beta freeze or anything like that
2026-01-20 19:12:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> we can say we approve if it's ready at the beginning of beta freeze, but would recommend QA allows slippage of up to 2 weeks?
2026-01-20 19:12:35 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Ok. So +1 to the proposal that was voted
2026-01-20 19:12:42 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Mohan Boddu: Is that your way of saying "we definitely won't be ready in time for the start of Beta Freeze"?
2026-01-20 19:14:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I cannot speak for QE, but landing some big thing 2 weeks into beta freeze probibly isn't something that would like. ;)
2026-01-20 19:14:30 <@siosm:matrix.org> yeah :/
2026-01-20 19:14:37 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: Not exactly
2026-01-20 19:14:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> I count +6 in - let's say this is for the beginning of the freeze and the proposal owners can sort out delays later with QE
2026-01-20 19:14:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> Fabio Valentinilast vote?
2026-01-20 19:15:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we have an entire exception process for freezes even.
2026-01-20 19:15:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> yep
2026-01-20 19:15:58 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: can I have a final version of the proposal please? 
2026-01-20 19:16:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> Podman 6 is approved to land in Fedora 44 with the following conditions:
2026-01-20 19:16:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> 2. Upgrades must be cleanly supported from Fedora 42.
2026-01-20 19:16:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> 1. If the complete set of incompatible changes is not at least in the updates-testing repo by beginning of Beta Freeze, the Contingency Plan must be invoked.
2026-01-20 19:16:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I lost track of FE start +~- 1/2/3 weeks ... 
2026-01-20 19:16:28 <@salimma:fedora.im> I think there's no consensus to pre-grant the delay, so we might as well vote for start of freeze first
2026-01-20 19:16:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1 to this, thanks.
2026-01-20 19:16:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> if people really want we can do a second vote just for pre-clearing a delay
2026-01-20 19:16:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> 1. If the complete set of incompatible changes is not at least in the updates-testing repo by beginning of Beta Freeze, the Contingency Plan must be invoked.
2026-01-20 19:16:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> 2. Upgrades must be cleanly supported from Fedora 42.
2026-01-20 19:16:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> !agreed (+7, 0, -0) Podman 6 is approved to land in Fedora 44 with the following conditions:
2026-01-20 19:17:00 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Probably best to let adamw and Kamil Páral know that this may be a risk. 
2026-01-20 19:17:21 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah - Mohan Boddudo you want to handle that?
2026-01-20 19:17:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> hi.
2026-01-20 19:17:55 <@salimma:fedora.im> we have summoned an Adam
2026-01-20 19:18:05 <@adamwill:fedora.im> major podman version landing two weeks after freeze? just file it on that pile of fire over there, thanks
2026-01-20 19:18:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> well, we punted that to QE :) - feel free to approve or deny if there's a request
2026-01-20 19:18:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> adamw: Early warning is better than a surprise, no?
2026-01-20 19:18:46 <@adamwill:fedora.im> note "two weeks after freeze" is "two days before go/no-go"
2026-01-20 19:18:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> now Adam won't sleep for the next few weeks
2026-01-20 19:19:09 <@mohanboddu:fedora.im> Hey adamw, I will let you know when we get close to the beta freeze, but yeah, just a heads up
2026-01-20 19:19:18 <@salimma:fedora.im> plot twist: Adam became a Podman developer to help implement the features
2026-01-20 19:19:41 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok - it's getting late in Europe and I guess Adam is already informed now, so let's go to our last topic?
2026-01-20 19:19:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> please
2026-01-20 19:19:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic #3541 Change: CommonLicenses
2026-01-20 19:20:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3541
2026-01-20 19:20:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** salimma
2026-01-20 19:20:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 19:20:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 4 days ago by alking
2026-01-20 19:20:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3541** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3541):**Change: CommonLicenses**
2026-01-20 19:20:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 3 hours ago
2026-01-20 19:20:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> there are some late updates from me and Neal on Discourse - apologies, the questions came at an inopportune time for me 
2026-01-20 19:20:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I have to say I don't understand David's comment on the ticket about "need to make sure licenses actually match" and "churn" 
2026-01-20 19:20:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm still -1... I think the yummy to trouble ratio isn't good enough.
2026-01-20 19:21:07 <@salimma:fedora.im> I took it to mean only convert packages if the license they ship exactly match, at least at the beginning? probably better to be safe
2026-01-20 19:21:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah the yummy to trouble ratio is the reason Conan Kudoand I wanted to make this an optional thing at the beginning - so basically it's a low effort "we package this, this is how to use it, you don't have to"
2026-01-20 19:22:05 <@salimma:fedora.im> but if asked for we can help do some conversions
2026-01-20 19:22:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> So, the gain here is some disk space? I suspect there may be better things to target for that...
2026-01-20 19:22:41 <@salimma:fedora.im> the concern.. zbyszek has I think? -- that if packagers manually opt in they do it inconsistently makes sense
2026-01-20 19:22:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> not just disk space
2026-01-20 19:23:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> also that if the upstream projects don't ship some license texts, and it's in common-licenses that's a signal that "you don't need to contact upstream"
2026-01-20 19:23:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> thats not great. Contacting upstream and getting them to fix their thing is a advantage IMHO
2026-01-20 19:24:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> in Rust land at least that's actually a big part of the manual process of packaging - this won't help for licenses like MIT but for some other licenses that do not contain the author copyrights this will save some time
2026-01-20 19:24:02 <@siosm:matrix.org> Ideally I would prefer we start pushing upstream to cleanup their license text to use the standard one instead of a customized one but that's going to take a while
2026-01-20 19:24:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> our packaging guidelines say SHOULD in that scenario iirc - we only require it for licenses like MIT where the license requires distribution
2026-01-20 19:25:20 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > this won't help for licenses like MIT
2026-01-20 19:25:20 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> if it's SPDX "MIT" then that's actually a well-defined license text and it *would* work for that - SPDX-MIT is not a family like old Fedora-MIT
2026-01-20 19:25:20 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 19:25:27 <@siosm:matrix.org> For Atomic variants, license files that are 100% the same are already de-duplicated so there will be no space gains
2026-01-20 19:25:34 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> The current proposal seems like a missed opportunity: a lot of work for small benefits. This should really be automated, not a chore.
2026-01-20 19:25:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> I might try and dig out how Debian adopts their policy, which the CP is inspires by - their debian/copyright file lists all license texts except for those in their shared common licenses package
2026-01-20 19:26:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> but they all require the author copyright to be in that file, right? that's the main problem even if the rest is standard
2026-01-20 19:26:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> SPDX-MIT is not well defined either
2026-01-20 19:26:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's an entire family of licenses
2026-01-20 19:26:30 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> that's not a mandatory part no 
2026-01-20 19:26:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> anyway ... yeah Conan Kudoshould we defer this to F45 and rethink? maybe we can focus on deduplication
2026-01-20 19:27:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the policy change and the package creation should be decoupled
2026-01-20 19:27:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> common-licenses can exist before we change anything
2026-01-20 19:27:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it probably _should_ be decoupled regardless
2026-01-20 19:27:50 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok - scope this down to making the new package as described in the Change Proposal, but expressly say this is for reference purpose only for other packagers?
2026-01-20 19:27:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> then we can have that policy talk later
2026-01-20 19:28:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> works for me
2026-01-20 19:28:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> wfm2
2026-01-20 19:28:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, you want to change the scope for f44 ? or resubmit for f45?
2026-01-20 19:28:48 <@salimma:fedora.im> Proposal: FESCo approves this change, but it must clearly indicates that for the time being, other packages must still ship their own license texts as before
2026-01-20 19:29:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> change the scope for f44 - no point deferring for a smaller scope
2026-01-20 19:29:15 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> at this point, does this really still need to be a CP? 
2026-01-20 19:29:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'm -1 to voting on a thing that is not the current proposal. Counter: edit the proposal and we revisit next week?
2026-01-20 19:29:24 <@salimma:fedora.im> additional context: we submitted a Flock talk on this topic, so maybe the discussion there can inform any policy implementation for f45
2026-01-20 19:29:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> I think it can be a self-contained change at this point instead of system wide, or we can even skip that
2026-01-20 19:29:50 <@salimma:fedora.im> but yes we can vote on a revision at the next meeting
2026-01-20 19:30:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> or yeah, if it's just a package it could not be a proposal... depending
2026-01-20 19:30:08 <@salimma:fedora.im> should we vote to defer or we can just say if nobody object I'll defer
2026-01-20 19:30:31 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I think we can keep the proposal, since it's already there.
2026-01-20 19:30:32 <@salimma:fedora.im> I'm also happy just introducing a new package and skipping any additional vote
2026-01-20 19:31:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> probably not
2026-01-20 19:31:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, withdraw this for now and just do a new package and revisit new proposal for f45?
2026-01-20 19:31:38 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> fine with me
2026-01-20 19:31:41 <@salimma:fedora.im> sure
2026-01-20 19:31:41 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Ok, change owners decide. I think we'll approve whatever.
2026-01-20 19:32:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> !agreed Change Owners are withdrawing this change, and will just submit common-licenses as a package and defer policy changes to a new proposal for F45
2026-01-20 19:32:18 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1
2026-01-20 19:32:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> well that's easy
2026-01-20 19:32:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> now we need to find next week's chair
2026-01-20 19:32:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> one sec
2026-01-20 19:32:42 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic Next week's chair
2026-01-20 19:32:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I will or won't be on a train, a metro, or in a hotel room at this time next week, depending on ... *waves about*
2026-01-20 19:33:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> we should discuss when we get to open floor if we even have a meeting next week
2026-01-20 19:33:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> because yeah, I'll be in Brussels
2026-01-20 19:33:30 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'll be traveling next week too...
2026-01-20 19:33:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> traveling as well
2026-01-20 19:33:44 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> skip next week, meet in 14 days?
2026-01-20 19:33:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I am not going to FOSDEM and will be around, so if we have a meeting, I can chair it
2026-01-20 19:33:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> should we decide first on when we'll have the next meeting? or we can just try to hold it and check for quorum
2026-01-20 19:34:09 <@salimma:fedora.im> we have stephen and nirik, we don't know about duffy and dcantrell
2026-01-20 19:34:25 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Stephen to hold a meeting all by himself!
2026-01-20 19:34:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> and fabio, neal, zbyszek and me are definitely out
2026-01-20 19:34:38 <@salimma:fedora.im> who did we miss? oh Timothée Ravier (travier)
2026-01-20 19:34:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> if travier is also definitely out we can basically say next meeting is in two weeks
2026-01-20 19:34:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: I talk to myself all the time, what else is new?
2026-01-20 19:35:10 <@salimma:fedora.im> stephen suddenly passes 100 changes next week
2026-01-20 19:35:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> Benevolent Dictator of Fedora Linux
2026-01-20 19:35:33 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2026-01-20 19:35:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC: Benevolent? 👀
2026-01-20 19:35:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> Bandit?
2026-01-20 19:35:45 <@siosm:matrix.org> I should be available next weel. I'm not going to FOSDEM. OK to skipping as well
2026-01-20 19:36:00 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok, any of you who are around want to chair?
2026-01-20 19:36:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> I count three people
2026-01-20 19:36:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think I can do Feb 3
2026-01-20 19:36:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so we could try next week and if no quorum, then oh well
2026-01-20 19:36:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> I guess ideally someone who can chair either next week or the week after
2026-01-20 19:36:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah
2026-01-20 19:36:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> or have two volunteers, one for each week
2026-01-20 19:36:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> if nobody volunteers for Jan 27 let's just skip it
2026-01-20 19:37:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm available to chair both
2026-01-20 19:37:27 <@siosm:matrix.org> I can try chairing at one point but maybe not right now as I definitely need to refresh my memory on some rules
2026-01-20 19:37:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But if we do have it next week, I'd prefer not to do both
2026-01-20 19:37:32 <@siosm:matrix.org> and the process
2026-01-20 19:37:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> !action Stephen Gallagherwill chair next meeting. If there is no quorum on Jan 27 Stephen will chair on Feb 3
2026-01-20 19:37:53 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, if next week there is a meeting you can pick someone else to do the next one
2026-01-20 19:37:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> thanks Stephen!
2026-01-20 19:38:03 <@salimma:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2026-01-20 19:38:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> salimma gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 256 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
2026-01-20 19:38:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> sorry this took longer than expected
2026-01-20 19:38:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> zbyszek gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 257 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
2026-01-20 19:38:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> yselkowitz gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 258 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 43 release cycle
2026-01-20 19:39:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I've got one thing to ask
2026-01-20 19:39:40 <@salimma:fedora.im> go for it
2026-01-20 19:39:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'd like to ask if it'd be okay to mark the PK-DNF5 change as FastTrack approved
2026-01-20 19:40:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the dnf5 backend code was merged upstream today and I'm preparing to rip out the dnf4 code upstream too
2026-01-20 19:40:24 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3542
2026-01-20 19:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3542** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3542):**Change: PackageKit-DNF5**
2026-01-20 19:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2026-01-20 19:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 4 days ago by alking
2026-01-20 19:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** an hour ago
2026-01-20 19:40:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** ngompa
2026-01-20 19:40:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's already got +7
2026-01-20 19:40:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> we should vote on whether to make it fast track I guess?
2026-01-20 19:40:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Is there a particular reason to rush it?
2026-01-20 19:41:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> mostly the squishy time-squeeze thing going on with FOSDEM and afterward
2026-01-20 19:41:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's okay if the answer is no, but I figured I'd ask
2026-01-20 19:41:50 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think with +7 we can mark it approved now?
2026-01-20 19:41:56 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> If you set it to fast track, it'd get approved immediately, by the procedure.
2026-01-20 19:42:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah, that's why I'm asking rather than just doing it 😅
2026-01-20 19:42:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The week is nominally there to allow time for dissent.
2026-01-20 19:42:24 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But I'm ambivalent about this particular case.
2026-01-20 19:42:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> It's not particularly controversial
2026-01-20 19:42:38 <@salimma:fedora.im> for completeness let's vote on it? if nobody -1s now we can say we approve
2026-01-20 19:42:45 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1 to approve now
2026-01-20 19:42:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> not sure we still have quorum, but +1
2026-01-20 19:43:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1
2026-01-20 19:43:09 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Maybe do that, @--mention those who didn't vote, and mark it as approved tomorrow?
2026-01-20 19:43:31 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1 to the vote
2026-01-20 19:43:37 <@siosm:matrix.org> +1 from me. I don't think this is controversial
2026-01-20 19:43:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah - worst case Neal has to wait 3 days then we can mark it approved in 7 days
2026-01-20 19:43:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Huh... I thought I'd +1 ed the ticket
2026-01-20 19:44:09 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sorry, my laptop has issues, and I'm doing the meeting on a phone and hating it.
2026-01-20 19:44:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah but we didn't +1 for a fast track in the ticket
2026-01-20 19:44:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I can do that
2026-01-20 19:44:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So that makes it +8, missing only duffy.
2026-01-20 19:44:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Everything is slow.
2026-01-20 19:44:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it also auto approves if all nine +1
2026-01-20 19:44:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> regardless of fast track
2026-01-20 19:44:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if I remember rightly
2026-01-20 19:44:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> No, it doesn't
2026-01-20 19:45:02 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Again, the point is to allow for a full week of possible counterpoints to land
2026-01-20 19:45:34 <@salimma:fedora.im> should we just wait 3 days, that seems cleaner than trying to think through the procedure right now
2026-01-20 19:45:47 <@salimma:fedora.im> we can approve it immediately (I can do that) instead of waiting for the next meeting
2026-01-20 19:46:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> sorry, not immediately, I meant as soon as it gets to 7 days
2026-01-20 19:46:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Once it's approved in the ticket, it's approved.
2026-01-20 19:46:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> yup. we just need someone to remember to do that
2026-01-20 19:46:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The email is just a formal announcement to the rest of the project.
2026-01-20 19:46:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> rather than next monday when "oh I'm running the meeting tomorrow"
2026-01-20 19:47:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But like I said, if we want to just say "go ahead, it's approved" right now, I don't care enough to stop it
2026-01-20 19:47:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> ok - just to be safe I'll ping the ones who have not voted and give them a day
2026-01-20 19:48:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> any other topic before we close?
2026-01-20 19:49:03 <@siosm:matrix.org> nothing from me
2026-01-20 19:49:10 <@siosm:matrix.org> leaving for dinner :)
2026-01-20 19:49:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> alright, thank you everyone for coming!
2026-01-20 19:49:23 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 🏃
2026-01-20 19:49:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> !endmeeting