17:30:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2011-03-23)
17:30:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Mar 23 17:30:01 2011 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:30:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:30:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:30:01 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano
17:30:01 <nirik> #topic init process
17:30:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:30:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting
17:30:06 <kylem> ah, cool
17:30:16 <kylem> i was worried i'd have to remember meetbot.
17:30:23 <nirik> :)
17:30:40 <nirik> I'm here and on for now, but have been having network issues today, so if I drop off someone might have to take over.
17:30:43 <gholms|work> Your Internet working properly yet?
17:30:52 <gholms|work> Oof
17:31:12 * cwickert is here
17:31:15 * notting is here
17:32:02 <SMParrish_mobile> here but mobile
17:32:31 * mmaslano here
17:32:49 <nirik> ok, I guess lets go ahead and dive in.
17:32:57 <nirik> #topic #516 Updates policy adjustments/changes
17:32:57 <nirik> .fesco 516
17:32:58 <zodbot> nirik: #516 (Updates policy adjustments/changes) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/516
17:33:16 <nirik> I didn't add any new items this week, because it's kinda getting to the bottom of the barrel on suggestions. ;)
17:33:29 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Changes_Ideas_Container
17:33:58 <nirik> many of the ones left are really "hey this would be nice if someone would implement it"
17:34:19 <nirik> like more testers, or notifying testers more, or having test instances.
17:34:31 <nirik> or implementing packagekit integration in testing more.
17:34:45 <nirik> or improve fedora-easy-karma
17:35:08 <nirik> These are more "great, please work on them" rather than policy we can add, IMHO.
17:35:22 <nirik> So, does anyone see anything left in the ideas container we should look at adding to policy?
17:35:23 <cwickert> +1
17:35:30 <cwickert> not ATM
17:36:59 <nirik> proposal: close out the ideas container, ask people to file new ideas as a new ticket to be addressed.
17:37:15 <notting> +1
17:37:59 <cwickert> +1
17:38:09 <kylem> +1.
17:38:16 <nirik> +1 from me on my own proposal. ;)
17:38:58 <nirik> more votes?
17:39:37 <ajax> +1
17:39:46 <nirik> #agreed will close out the ideas container, ask people to file new ideas as a new ticket to be addressed.
17:39:53 <nirik> #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
17:39:53 <nirik> .fesco 515
17:39:54 <zodbot> nirik: #515 (Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515
17:39:58 <nirik> cwickert: any news on this?
17:40:11 <cwickert> well, at least I have started
17:40:21 <cwickert> but it's not ready for discussion yet
17:40:23 <cwickert> sorry
17:40:52 <nirik> ok, no problem at all.
17:41:03 <nirik> #topic #517 Updates Metrics
17:41:03 <nirik> .fesco 517
17:41:04 <zodbot> nirik: #517 (Updates Metrics) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/517
17:41:15 <nirik> kylem: were you going to look more into this? anything to report?
17:41:48 <kylem> i think i'll have to give it back to the pool, i've still not had a chance for this
17:42:03 <nirik> ok, no worries. ;)
17:42:11 <nirik> #topic #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
17:42:11 <nirik> .fesco 563
17:42:13 <zodbot> nirik: #563 (suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/563
17:42:14 <nirik> how about this one? ;)
17:42:21 <kylem> i just need to write this one up, i'll geto n that today
17:42:32 <kylem> i keep putting things off thinkign i'll get them on monday or tuesday
17:42:40 <kylem> and then it's suddenly wednesday again :)
17:42:41 <nirik> what was the end result? we should just make it default?
17:42:48 <nirik> yeah, time flies.
17:43:20 <kylem> relro sure, pie has a few percent overhead on large stuff
17:43:27 <mjg59> Hey, sorry
17:43:31 <mjg59> Distracted by other things
17:43:58 <nirik> ok, so relro=default, pie=targeted only some packages?
17:44:11 <mjg59> Sounds like some kind of progress
17:44:25 <mjg59> The alternative would be pie on everything but allow packages to disable it
17:44:27 <kylem> yeah, it has to be very large (iirc OOorg)
17:44:34 <kylem> before you even see it really
17:44:40 <kylem> i'll make some graphs and mail them out
17:44:46 <nirik> mjg59: ah, thats an option to think about too.
17:44:47 <mjg59> And, ironically, the largest ones are probably also the ones that deal with the most untrusted data
17:44:50 <kylem> (i shoudl really game it.)
17:45:00 <mjg59> ie, we probably *want* OO.o to be pie
17:45:04 <kylem> yeah
17:45:04 <mjg59> (mm, pie)
17:45:12 <nirik> #action kylem to write up notes from benchmarking and update ticket.
17:45:21 <nirik> thanks kylem
17:45:22 <mjg59> So perhaps default and allow per-package optouts, perhaps with fesco approval?
17:45:36 <nirik> sounds pretty reasonable to me.
17:46:15 <nirik> do we want to wait for the full info? or just vote on that now?
17:46:32 <kylem> i'd say wait a week, btu :)
17:46:43 <nirik> I don't think there's a great hurry...
17:46:51 * nirik will move on in a few then.
17:47:18 <ajax> the thing we'll find, if we say it's the default, is how many build systems fail to propagate -fPIE
17:47:33 <ajax> quite sure autotools only recently learned about that
17:47:43 <mjg59> Oh hey now we can't let reality stand in the way of our policies
17:48:01 <mjg59> I'm sure we can write an autoqa test
17:48:28 <nirik> #topic #298 Revoke Paul Johnsons pacakger access and put him on probation.
17:48:28 <nirik> .fesco 298
17:48:29 <zodbot> nirik: #298 (Revoke Paul Johnsons pacakger access and put him on probation.) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/298
17:48:39 <nirik> so, I exchanged a few emails with Paul...
17:49:16 <nirik> I'm not sure we got too far. He agreed to try and learn workflow better and read docs, and was going to try and get on irc so he could meet with other mono sig folks and get help with workflow.
17:49:39 <mjg59> nirik: I think we've heard this story before
17:49:52 <nirik> yeah.
17:50:27 <cwickert> why didn't he speak up in the ticket?
17:50:41 <nirik> also, he is a sponsor still...
17:50:42 <kylem> how did we get to this point? did he just get grandfathered along?
17:50:49 <nirik> cwickert: not sure.
17:51:04 <nirik> kylem: he's been involved for a long time...
17:51:21 <nirik> proposal: remove (at least for now) his sponsor status.
17:51:24 <mjg59> +1
17:51:27 <cwickert> +1
17:51:31 <mmaslano> +1
17:51:34 <cwickert> also proven packager please
17:51:41 <kylem> +1...
17:51:45 <kylem> cwickert, we did that last week iirc
17:51:49 <SMParrish_mobile> +1
17:51:50 <notting> +1 to removing sponsor
17:51:52 <cwickert> kylem: ah, ok
17:51:52 <nirik> cwickert: we agreed to remove that last week, and I did so.
17:52:05 <cwickert> ok, then we all agree here, nice
17:52:07 <nirik> #agreed remove (at least for now) Pauls sponsor status.
17:52:30 <nirik> ok, what do we wish to do about his packager status/workflow issues?
17:53:11 <cwickert> what can we do?
17:53:14 <nirik> do we wish to remove packager? remove commits on packages so maintainers need to add him back in? or something else?
17:53:17 <mjg59> I'd prefer to see someone else uploading his packages
17:53:25 <mjg59> At least for a probationary period
17:53:31 <abadger1999> he was up for provenpackager once and was rejected.  Was up for provenpackager a second time and was granted.  He stepped up when no one else was working on mono so became heavily involved with that stack. </endhistory>
17:53:37 <kylem> i'm worried about the precedent we set if we drop that, since i'm sure there's a lot of other questionable people who could use a refresher on things
17:53:42 <nirik> abadger1999: yeah.
17:54:05 <mjg59> But for anything where there are co-maintainers, then I guess we can leave that decision up to them
17:54:11 <nirik> I'll note for the record he seems like a very nice guy... just doesn't get our workflow or how to work with others too well.
17:54:22 <mjg59> If we've dropped provenpackager then they can decide how much of a problem it is
17:54:41 <cwickert> I think removing packager is too much
17:54:59 <SMParrish_mobile> i suggest we get his original sponsor towirk withhom
17:55:06 <cwickert> yepp
17:55:36 <SMParrish_mobile> typing on a cellphone is murder
17:56:03 <nirik> who is that? can we even determine it?
17:56:52 * nirik looks
17:57:00 <SMParrish_mobile> if not we should find someone who was willing to sponsor him in monitor is work
17:58:16 <spot> FAS says it is Paul Howarth
17:58:18 * mclasen apologizes for missing the meeting so far
17:58:19 <nirik> yeah.
17:58:25 <nirik> just got there.
17:58:31 <nirik> pghmcfc is his sponsor
17:58:45 <cwickert> Paul Howarth
18:00:17 <nirik> proposal: ask pghmcfc if he could help pfj and mentor him in workflow and working with others
18:00:26 <mjg59> +1
18:00:27 <nirik> (I have no idea how active pghmcfc is these days)
18:00:32 <notting> +1
18:00:46 <SMParrish_mobile> +1
18:00:51 <mmaslano> Paul is active
18:00:54 <notting> i'd agree... yanking his packager access seems overkill, and if co-maintainers have issues, they can bring them up
18:00:58 <mmaslano> ok +1
18:01:27 <nirik> ok.
18:01:35 <kylem> +1.
18:01:39 <nirik> #agreed ask pghmcfc if he could help pfj and mentor him in workflow and working with others
18:02:00 <nirik> ok, any further action people would like to proposel with pfj?
18:02:14 <mjg59> None for now
18:02:48 <nirik> ok, that goes on to the git binary issue related to this. ;)
18:03:25 <nirik> One thing Oxf13 proposed was that when we rewrite history and remove blobs, we add a tag named with the old hash to koji
18:03:38 <nirik> that way we know where to find the src.rpm's for those and we keep them.
18:03:50 <Oxf13> or we can at least find them again to regenerate them.
18:04:28 <nirik> so, that sounds good to me, but my outstanding questions are:
18:04:47 <nirik> 1. Is there a way we can identify problem commits to do this to them?
18:05:07 <nirik> 2. who is going to do the fixing/koji tag on the ones identified. ;)
18:06:01 <nirik> I guess we can ask scmadmins to work on it... unless someone else would like to step up to do so?
18:06:04 <kylem> is mono the only problematic package or?
18:06:12 <nirik> no.
18:06:16 <kylem> oh foo.
18:06:25 <nirik> the ticket has some more.
18:06:30 <Oxf13> yeah, there could be many more
18:06:39 <ajax> i can work on getting the upload hook to refuse pushes of tarballs or stupidly large files
18:06:49 <nirik> and I think clamav is affected. At least It has 35MB or so on a clone, which seems way too high.
18:06:51 <Oxf13> this was something of a failure on my part not filtering those commits out when I did the conversion
18:07:02 <Oxf13> I'd volunteer to do something here, but I've got a tight deadline on my internal project :(
18:07:06 <nirik> yeah, thats 3. Decide policy for and implement hooks to prevent this.
18:07:26 <nirik> ajax: I think tibbs|h might have started looking at it, but you guys could coordinate on it.
18:07:31 <ajax> though it might be a week or two, i'm a little under the gun until beta freeze
18:07:43 * cwickert needs to leave. brb
18:08:06 <nirik> proposal: file tickets on the 3 outstanding items and get folks working on them.
18:08:11 <mjg59> +1
18:08:16 <ajax> +1
18:08:26 <nirik> I guess they could be fesco tickets or infrastructure...
18:08:52 <Oxf13> or even FES tickets
18:09:03 <kylem> +1
18:09:11 <nirik> yeah, true.
18:09:21 <SMParrish_mobile> +1
18:09:31 <notting> +1
18:09:34 <nirik> #agreed file tickets on the 3 outstanding items around binaries in git repos and get folks working on them.
18:09:43 <nirik> #action nirik will file tickets somewhere.
18:09:59 <nirik> ok, anything else on this?
18:10:03 * nirik will move on in a minute.
18:11:13 <nirik> #topic #572 NetworkManager-0.9
18:11:13 <nirik> .fesco 572
18:11:14 <zodbot> nirik: #572 (NetworkManager-0.9) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/572
18:11:17 <nirik> ok, fun topic time. ;)
18:11:34 * rbergeron tunes in to the channel
18:11:38 * mmaslano will leave in few minutes
18:11:51 <ajax> this sounded like we got api compatibility  for 0.8, yes?
18:12:04 <mmaslano> nirik: I'd like to add -1 because last qa comment. They did a lot of work, but still it's late.
18:12:11 <ajax> (still in a way that needs patching, but at least they're trivial patches)
18:12:13 <nirik> ajax: yes, but unless we slip it won't be ready.
18:12:35 <mmaslano> yes, but testing could take a long time
18:13:07 <mjg59> Every option we have here is bad
18:13:09 * adamw is here for a qa take.
18:13:31 * mclasen tries to lure dcbw over
18:13:32 <ajax> who makes the 'slip' call?
18:13:32 <nirik> yeah, a maze of doom.
18:13:39 <jsmith> ajax: Typically, the FPL
18:14:02 <jsmith> And for the record, I'd really prefer not to slip the schedule
18:14:13 <ajax> i like how you answered in the third person ;)
18:14:19 <mjg59> The other side of this is obviously that going to nm0.9 means that we also have the new network panel for gnome3
18:14:19 <adamw> jsmith: er, afaik, not really; it's usually made at the go/no-go meeting, with qa/releng present. before your term the fpl didn't always even come to that meeting, and didn't consider it their decision.
18:14:34 <adamw> jsmith: my reading, anyway.
18:14:40 * bpepple takes a seat in the bleachers.
18:14:53 <mjg59> mclasen: How much are we compromising things by staying with nm0.8 and not shipping the new network panel?
18:15:05 <jsmith> adamw: Yeah, that's fair -- From a "who makes the decision" standpoint, it's the go/no-go meeting
18:15:07 <mjg59> ie, how much does that impact the overall vision
18:15:07 <walters> then we're not shipping GNOME 3
18:15:09 <mclasen> we are breaking the gnome-shell experience pretty badly
18:15:18 <jsmith> adamw: From the "who announces it, etc." side, it's the FPL
18:15:25 <adamw> jsmith: sure.
18:15:27 <jsmith> adamw: I guess I read the other meaning of "call"
18:15:30 <adamw> =)
18:15:30 <mclasen> and as walters said, basically aren't shipping gnome3 at that point
18:15:40 <walters> not sure what to call it then
18:15:58 <mjg59> Ok
18:16:01 <adamw> so, to make it clear - qa isn't saying 'don't wait for 0.9 + fallback'
18:16:12 <adamw> but we just want it to be understood that if we wait, the release will almost certainly slip
18:16:13 <mclasen> lets ask dcbw
18:16:17 <mjg59> So we have the choice of shipping with a broken flagship desktop, shipping with a broken KDE or slipping
18:16:27 <mclasen> dcbw: when do you think we can have nm09+compat packages that are testable ?
18:16:32 <bpepple> mjg59: empathy will need to be backported to the nm-0.8 api.
18:16:34 <jsmith> mjg59: I think that's a fair assumption
18:16:49 <mjg59> bpepple: It uses 0.9 now?
18:16:50 <adamw> in fact, we'd like to make it explicit: if fesco decides to wait for the 0.9+fallback build, we'd like to make a firm decision to slip the release at the same time, and adjust the schedules
18:16:50 <dcbw> mclasen: I will commit to that by Friday morning
18:17:09 <dcbw> mclasen: we'll need to rebuild kdebase-workspace and kde-plasma-networkmanagement with the compat patches
18:17:32 <mclasen> dcbw: but you'll have those patches ready by Friday morning too ?
18:17:33 <bpepple> mjg59: yes. latest stable version that came out uses the 0.9 api.
18:17:37 <dcbw> bpepple: I think empathy will work with just a compile rebuild
18:17:44 <jsmith> We already missed the TC last week, haven't yet been able to do a TC this week, and as adamw stated, this seriously puts us in jeopardy of slipping the beta at least a week
18:17:51 <Kevin_Kofler> dcbw: That shouldn't be a problem, assuming the patches work. Both packages should be in buildable state.
18:18:12 <jsmith> From the technical standpoint, I really don't care whether we ship 0.8 or 0.9 -- I'll let FESCo folks (who are obviously smarter than me) make that call
18:18:12 <mjg59> Ok, so sticking with 0.8 isn't really an option either
18:18:15 <dcbw> Kevin_Kofler: yeah, I've built them both locally for testing and they seem ok
18:18:16 <bpepple> dcbw: they merged your nm-0.9 patch with the latest stable version that came out yesterday.
18:18:19 <abadger1999> Do other apps in general need changes or will they work with the compat layer too?
18:18:20 <jsmith> My concern is in the schedule
18:18:28 <mjg59> Which means the choice is pretty much "Break KDE" or "Slip"
18:18:32 <Kevin_Kofler> We also need kdebase-runtime rebuilt with the small patch which is already in dist-git master, along with the other client apps.
18:18:38 <abadger1999> (See dgilmore's comment about pidgin)
18:18:47 <dcbw> Kevin_Kofler: that talks to nm too?
18:18:51 <mjg59> Or is there any other subtlety I'm missing?
18:19:01 <nirik> mjg59: yes, and I think "break kde" is unfair and bad.
18:19:04 <Kevin_Kofler> dcbw: Yes, as a client, see solid-networkstatus.
18:19:07 <adamw> mjg59: even with the 'break kde' option there's a chance of a slip; we're _already_ behind schedule. so it's more 'break kde and possibly slip' or 'do it all right and definitely slip'. just for info.
18:19:11 <notting> abadger1999: dcbw has already prepared 0.9 patchs for most things
18:19:19 <mjg59> nirik: Yeah, it's not KDE's fault that this change wasn't well communicated
18:19:21 <Kevin_Kofler> But we already have the patch for that one to support 0.9 in upstream master and in dist-git master.
18:19:28 <abadger1999> notting: k.  And anything that was missed will require similar patches?
18:19:49 * nirik fears he is leaning toward 0.9 + compat patches and if that means slip, so be it. ;(
18:19:55 <notting> abadger1999: http://developer.pidgin.im/attachment/ticket/13505/nm09-pidgin.patch for example
18:19:59 <mjg59> Proposal: We ship 0.9 and fix up KDE with the 0.8 compatibility patches. Whether we slip or not is up to QA/releng.
18:20:01 <dcbw> mjg59: tbh, system settings have been around since 2008 too, so it's not like the kde stuff is up-to-date in any way...
18:20:19 <Kevin_Kofler> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=kdebase-runtime.git;a=blob;f=kdebase-runtime-4.6.1-nm09.patch;h=29e1c5c6097eef54ed0041d933c33acc72b1f2ce;hb=HEAD is the kdebase-runtime patch, very similar to the Pidgin one.
18:20:24 <mjg59> dcbw: Well, that's a separate discussion
18:20:29 <notting> abadger1999: things that use nm-glib should just need rebuilt, i think. things that use dbus directly might need tweaks like the pidgin patch
18:20:39 <notting> mjg59: i'm +1 to that
18:21:03 <mclasen> dcbw: what are your weekend plans ? :-)
18:21:31 <dcbw> getting drunk at a firkin fest on Saturday, other than that, working on NM 0.9 compat + KDE? :)
18:21:32 <nirik> mjg59: +1
18:21:33 <Kevin_Kofler> To add to what notting said, things that use Solid should need no rebuild at all, only the kdebase-runtime patch (which is similar to the Pidgin patch).
18:21:38 <abadger1999> notting: <nod> /me adds that info to ticket
18:21:46 <adamw> if fesco decides to go with the compat patch plan, i will probably propose a special schedule meeting at which we can agree to a slip without waiting for go/no-go.
18:22:07 * mclasen is momentarily disoriented about current looming deadlines
18:22:14 <rbergeron> adamw: how soon do you want to do that?
18:22:18 <rbergeron> :)
18:22:25 <mjg59> Any other votes?
18:22:40 <kylem> +1.
18:22:52 <ajax> i'm in favor of mjg59's proposal, but (as with last week) abstaining due to possible conflict of interest unless we can't get a quorum
18:22:52 <jsmith> adamw: +1 to your schedule meeting proposal
18:23:01 <SMParrish_mobile> +1
18:23:19 <mclasen> +1, too
18:24:21 <nirik> so, that looks like it passed then...
18:24:26 <cwickert> mjg59: what exactly are we voting about`
18:24:27 <cwickert> ?
18:24:33 * cwickert just rushed in again
18:24:36 <nirik> cwickert: "We ship 0.9 and fix up KDE with the 0.8 compatibility patches. Whether we slip or not is up to QA/releng."
18:24:41 <mjg59> 18:19 <+mjg59> Proposal: We ship 0.9 and fix up KDE with the 0.8 compatibility patches. Whether we slip or not is up to QA/releng.
18:25:11 <cwickert> this means we make KDE running with 0.9?
18:25:29 <dcbw> cwickert: see the ticket for more details
18:25:33 <mclasen> dcbw has been working on adding nm 08 compat back in
18:25:42 <mclasen> so kde will only need fairly minimal patches
18:25:42 <Kevin_Kofler> With a heavily-patched NM 0.9, with the NM patches already sorta working and expected to be complete by Friday morning.
18:25:43 <abadger1999> nm-0.9 with a compatibility patch applied to our nm.
18:25:56 <jsmith> cwickert: No, it means adding 0.8 compatibility layer back in for KDE + other apps
18:26:20 <cwickert> ok, I missed that part, the last think I read was porting KDE to 0.9
18:26:35 <cwickert> so this is fine with me, as long as KDE is not breaking
18:26:36 <dcbw> jsmith: to be clear, it's only meant for KDE, and would be pulled out when KDE bits are updated to NM 0.9 upstream
18:26:43 <dcbw> it is not a "public" API so to speak
18:27:04 <nirik> #agreed We ship 0.9 and fix up KDE with the 0.8 compatibility patches. Whether we slip or not is up to QA/releng.
18:27:09 <jsmith> dcbw: How many other apps use the 0.8 api (pidgin, etc.) that are likely to be affected?
18:27:12 <nirik> ok, anything more on this topic?
18:27:21 <cwickert> +1 (for the record)
18:27:28 <nirik> I'd like to thank everyone who worked to find a solution here. ;)
18:29:05 <mclasen> thanks for being agreeable here
18:29:12 <nirik> So, whats the timeline again here? have working bits landed by friday?
18:29:17 * mclasen takes the blame for not having this on the radar for the gnome3 feature page
18:29:17 <nirik> test over weekend?
18:29:28 <mclasen> yes, packages by friday
18:29:49 <adamw> that should work for a one week slip
18:29:58 <adamw> gives us until wednesday to smooth out any problems for a tc compose
18:30:03 <adamw> er, tuesday
18:30:33 <nirik> yeah, better communication betweeen NM and it's downstream consumers might be worth persuing down the road...
18:30:37 <dcbw> jsmith: I've got a list, hang on
18:31:05 <dcbw> jsmith: most are patched or have patches in bug trackers already
18:31:25 <jsmith> adamw: Assuming we don't have any other blockers or unforseen issues, of course :-/
18:31:31 <jsmith> dcbw: Thanks :-)
18:31:35 <dcbw> nirik: agreed
18:31:46 <nirik> ok, shall we move on then?
18:32:29 <adamw> jsmith: we're on top of all other known issues, this is the last one blocking tc.
18:32:40 <dcbw> jsmith: anaconda, kde, balsa, empathy, geoclue, krb5-auth-dialog, libsocialweb, liferea, nntpgrab-core, evolution, firefox, pidgin, clawsmail
18:32:44 <jsmith> adamw: Yay!
18:32:53 <dcbw> of those nntpgrab-core does not have a patch
18:33:09 <jsmith> dcbw: And anaconda is using the new 0.9 bits, correct?
18:33:34 <adamw> jsmith: right now, no, it backed out to 0.8.
18:33:44 <adamw> jsmith: but only because 0.9 hasn't landed :)
18:33:53 <mclasen> they have a patch that was backed out until nm09 lands
18:33:53 <adamw> the patch for 0.9 will be put back into anaconda when 0.9 lands.
18:33:58 <dcbw> anaconda was the first thing I sent a patch for
18:34:06 <jsmith> OK.
18:34:28 * jsmith doesn't want to hold up the meeting any longer -- I'll take any other questions offline
18:38:11 <nirik> ok, anything further for now? Go forth and make it all work! :)
18:38:17 <nirik> #topic #573 Request to approve deluge bug fix update
18:38:17 <nirik> .fesco 573
18:38:18 <zodbot> nirik: #573 (Request to approve deluge bug fix update) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/573
18:38:27 <nirik> zodbot seems lagging
18:38:30 <cwickert> +1 from me for the fix
18:38:30 <nirik> or me
18:38:31 <nirik> or both of us. ;)
18:38:35 <nirik> I'm +1 for this update.
18:38:48 * notting is fine with this; it's a leaf app.
18:38:59 <SMParrish_mobile> +1 as well
18:38:59 <kylem> +1
18:39:11 <nirik> #agreed exception approved.
18:39:15 <notting> yeah, it's a packaging split, but *shrug*
18:39:32 <nirik> RobbieAB: you around today? anything from FES? or should we move on...
18:39:55 <RobbieAB> I'm semi here...
18:40:10 <nirik> #topic FES report
18:40:24 <nirik> Not too much activity this last week...
18:40:38 <RobbieAB> But I have had other RL related matters on my mind for the past couple of weeks, as I am preparing to relocate to London.
18:41:11 <nirik> yeah, understandable.
18:41:19 <nirik> we'll get things moving at some point...
18:41:24 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
18:41:31 <nirik> anyone have anything for open floor?
18:41:35 <RobbieAB> I am really sorry to do this, but I don't see myself having mental energy to spare before the end of April. :(
18:41:39 <abadger1999> Need to add Networkmanager here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/DefaultServices
18:42:21 <nirik> RobbieAB: thats ok. ;)
18:42:32 <nirik> abadger1999: yeah. I had a note about that, but then forgot about it.
18:42:40 <nirik> abadger1999: where should that page live long term?
18:43:34 <abadger1999> I don't know "Default services policy" "Autostart services policy"?
18:43:51 <abadger1999> FESCo policies aren't in their own namespace like Packaging Guidelines.
18:43:56 <nirik> ok. yeah. ;(
18:44:01 <abadger1999> So it just needs to have a proper category.
18:45:10 <nirik> Services Starting Policy ?
18:45:22 * nirik is having trouble coming up with a good name here.
18:46:28 <nirik> I'll come up with something... ideas welcome.
18:46:32 <nirik> anything else for open floor?
18:47:20 <ajax> nothing here
18:47:32 <nirik> ok, will close out in a minute then...
18:48:18 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone!
18:48:22 <nirik> #endmeeting