17:00:17 #startmeeting FESCo meeting 20091218 17:00:17 Meeting started Fri Dec 18 17:00:17 2009 UTC. The chair is jds2001. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:21 #meetingname fesco 17:00:21 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:00:23 #chair dgilmore dwmw2 notting nirik sharkcz jds2001 j-rod skvidal Kevin_Kofler 17:00:23 Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler dgilmore dwmw2 j-rod jds2001 nirik notting sharkcz skvidal 17:00:25 * nirik is here. 17:00:34 ok, so I'm lame 17:00:42 gday gday gday 17:00:50 I didn't send out an agenda or anything :( 17:00:52 * sharkcz is back in few minutes 17:00:58 * skvidal is present 17:01:57 unfortunately, due to no agenda, no notification went to the feature owners that are up today :( 17:02:31 but we can just go through em, and if there are any questions, let's just defer em to next meeting. 17:03:00 Present. 17:03:14 #topic better hostname 17:03:31 .fesco 278 17:03:42 jds2001: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. 17:03:47 .fesco 278 17:03:57 jds2001: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. 17:04:05 alrighty, zoddy not working all that well today for url's :) 17:04:14 * jds2001 will look into that later. 17:04:19 fedorahosted.org seems not to respond at the moment. 17:04:30 ahh, that would be why. 17:04:40 doomed. ;( 17:04:48 sorry i'm late 17:04:51 The joys of technology… 17:05:05 anyhow, there havent been any updates to this 17:05:20 and mclasen said it was pretty much off their radar for right now. 17:05:32 so let's move on..... 17:05:58 #topic change in implicit DSO linking 17:05:59 * sharkcz is back 17:06:17 due to no agenda, this didnt get seen. 17:06:17 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ChangeInImplicitDSOLinking 17:06:58 this makes sense to me, +1 17:06:59 I'm not convinced this change is a good idea at all. It breaks backwards compatibility, and it might also break API compatibility with upstream due to us removing .la files. 17:07:10 why? 17:07:26 I guess this is being done because gold doesn't implement the old behavior for performance reasons, so they're trying to get apps prepared for that. 17:07:29 it removes implicit linking, such that you have to explicitly link against what you use. 17:07:37 if you don't, I'd consider that an upstream bug. 17:07:52 Imagine 2 packages, a-devel and b-devel, providing liba.so resp. libb.so. 17:08:04 Upstream ships a liba.la which does -la -lb. 17:08:24 To avoid a-devel having to drag in b-devel, we delete liba.la (that's even required in our guidelines). 17:08:46 Upstream apps which do -la get -la -lb with the upstream .la file and they can use functions from -lb. 17:09:17 this will require a mass rebuild right? How far away is gold from usable? 17:09:21 With us deleting liba.la, with the old ld behavior, they still could, now they can't (without passing extra ld flags which are certainly not encouraged). 17:09:33 right. 17:09:44 but if a drops it's dep on b 17:09:50 they dont get the functions from b anymore. 17:10:35 nirik: it doesn't *require* a mass rebuild for any functionality. it just may require packages to change when they rebuild 17:10:42 But as upstream liba implicitly links in -lb in its .la file, I'm not sure upstream projects using liba will care. 17:11:05 notting: ok. 17:11:22 but what if upstream liba decides to stop doing that? 17:11:26 that's the concern here. 17:11:34 Then the apps will adapt. 17:12:00 But if it's us removing liba.la, they'll just blame us. 17:12:13 The old ld behavior made it work anyway without .la files. 17:12:22 Now we'll have to ship .la files or patch upstream projects. 17:12:30 if this is a precursor to gold usage, should we just wait for that to do this? (along with any other weird things it needs) 17:13:14 Well, I think the idea is that the regular ld still sees the symbols and can tell what libraries need to be linked to. 17:13:25 AFAIK gold will just not find them. 17:13:53 frankly, it makes programs be more correct, so i'm +1 to this. 17:13:57 (IMHO that's gold not complying to the ELF spec, but I guess my opinion doesn't matter much.) 17:14:04 sure, but this change makes the current ld behave more like gold will? 17:14:20 * nirik looks at the list of affected packages. 17:14:36 nirik: Yes. 17:14:47 (at least AFAIU) 17:16:34 * nirik wonders if we still have quorum... 17:16:55 * jds2001 somehow doubts it 17:17:06 quorum++ 17:17:11 i see me, Kevin_Kofler, nirik, jds2001, and skvidal 17:17:29 and /me 17:17:35 so we do...if everyone is in favor :) 17:17:37 * dgilmore is torn on this 17:17:57 I guess I am a marginal +1 here... it seems like we should be educating upstream about this issue and fixing our stuff. They would have gold breakage down the road anyhow if they didn't fix things. 17:18:04 I think current Rawhide already has this, or at least had for a while. 17:18:18 It already caused some FTBFSes. 17:19:37 so we have 3 +1 thus far (me, notting, and nirik) 17:20:09 * skvidal reads some more 17:20:14 * dgilmore is unsure of impact and if its really a big win 17:20:25 but in theory it should be better 17:20:41 though will mean work for developers to resolve FTBFS 17:20:52 i guess +1 17:21:13 * skvidal decides to go with the crowd. If it is a mistake, we'll all get screwed 17:21:14 +1 17:21:17 +1 17:21:20 w00t 17:21:22 passes 17:21:23 move alon 17:21:24 g 17:21:35 -1 here just to make this not unanimous. ;-) 17:22:01 I'm still worried about the impact of this, no list of FTBFS issues has been provided. 17:22:10 But I guess I'm alone there. 17:22:10 #agreed Change in implicit dynamic DSO linking is accepted. 17:22:14 Kevin_Kofler: he did 17:22:14 oh, in that case then I know it's right, if Kevin_Kofler is against it :) 17:22:14 So let's move on. 17:22:31 "Incomplete list" 17:22:43 And it's a bazillion packages already. 17:23:08 anyhow... 17:23:15 #topic open floor 17:23:20 anyone got anything else? 17:23:32 so is this the last meeting with the current fesco lineup? 17:23:37 * jds2001 guesses this is my last official FESCo meeting....been great :) 17:24:00 yeah, the results were just announced by stickster 17:24:03 jds2001: we dont have official results yet 17:24:14 my last too, it was a good time :-) 17:24:14 we do now 17:24:14 we need at least a transition meeting 17:24:25 yeah 17:24:26 Seeing how many packages are affected, I think the DSO change is an awful idea. But I can't do more than vote -1 as I already did. :-( 17:24:35 i was planning on showing up next week 17:24:36 what's the schedule for the rest of the year? 17:24:39 skvidal: i missed that. we still need a transition meeting 17:24:44 so yall get 1 more 17:24:44 and at least starting the meeting. 17:24:49 dgilmore: they JUST came out 17:24:51 Kevin_Kofler: there are a number, but how hard are they going to be to fix? shouldn't be that bad I wouldn't think... 17:25:05 jds2001: i am not showing up next week, fyi 17:25:14 Next week will be Dec 25. 17:25:22 oops, yeah 17:25:24 Who will actually be present? 17:25:27 week after will be the 1st. 17:25:43 hahahah 17:25:47 * skvidal is not going to be here either day 17:25:50 tough noogies 17:26:05 * jds2001 really doesnt wanna go two weeks without meeting, and i dont wanna meet on christmas, and will be in no condition to meet on new years :D 17:26:10 dec 25 == oct 31, so I'll be out trick-or-treating 17:26:14 I probably won't be there on Dec 25, so far I guess I should be online on Jan 1, but I don't expect quorum on either. ;-) 17:26:41 so, jan 8th looks like the next regular meeting time? 17:27:02 We'll all be celebrating Grav-mass . ;-) 17:27:26 * dgilmore guesses that the first friday in January should be the next meeting 17:27:56 which would be jan 1 :) 17:28:01 so jan 8 :) 17:28:07 jds2001: the one after that 17:28:35 Kevin_Kofler: ha. Hadn't seen that one. 17:28:40 btw 17:28:45 results from the election 17:28:46 1. Adam Jackson (ajax) 1028 17:28:46 2. Christoph Wickert (cwickert) 934 17:28:46 3. Peter Jones (pjones) 820 17:28:46 4. Matthew Garrett (mjg59) 753 17:28:46 * * * * * 17:28:47 5. Robert Scheck (rsc) 663 17:28:51 6. Justin M. Forbes (jforbes) 535 17:28:54 7. Richard June (rjune) 415 17:29:01 top 4 are in 17:29:19 congrats to all. 17:29:34 and thanks for running to those who didn't make it this time. 17:29:50 nirik: agreed on both counts 17:30:45 same here :) 17:31:25 anything else? 17:31:35 * jds2001 on $DAYJOB concall 17:31:40 So who's being replaced? 17:32:02 "The seats open are currently held by Jon Stanley, Dan Horák, Jarod Wilson, and David Woodhouse (Josh Boyer's original seat)." 17:32:27 wait, so fesco needs a new leader? 17:32:29 sharkcz: jds2001: j-rod: dwmw2: thanks for serving on FESCo 17:32:35 you now are forced to elect a new chair 17:32:37 Oxf13: yes and we've decided it should be you 17:32:39 Oxf13: yeah, we will need a new chair. 17:32:47 we can do that at the first meeting of the new fesco 17:32:53 * nirik notes we usually do that the first meeting of the new fesco 17:32:53 skvidal: neat, given that I'm not even in FESCo. I disapprove of every measure. 17:32:54 notting: with everyone here, yah 17:32:56 yeah.... 17:32:58 Oxf13: good, good 17:33:02 Oxf13: that's the spirit 17:33:07 * nirik hands Oxf13 a big rubber "NO" stamp. 17:33:17 nirik: man, this still has Jeremy's name all over it 17:33:22 i vote for zodbot for chair 17:33:43 ha 17:34:43 .chair zodbot 17:34:58 #chair zodbot 17:34:58 Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler dgilmore dwmw2 j-rod jds2001 nirik notting sharkcz skvidal zodbot 17:35:18 h <- meeting chair ^^ 17:35:24 ha. Anything else, or shall we close down the meeting for today? 17:35:37 lets close and meet on Jan 8th 17:35:43 * nirik nods. 17:35:46 +1 17:36:04 #endmeeting