17:30:02 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2011-06-15)
17:30:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jun 15 17:30:02 2011 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:30:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:30:02 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:30:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:30:03 <nirik> #chair notting nirik ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones sgallagh
17:30:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
17:30:03 <nirik> #topic init process
17:30:35 <mjg59> Afternoon
17:30:40 <pjones> yo
17:30:41 <nirik> hello folks.
17:30:43 * gholms waves to all the new members
17:30:44 <pjones> ha ha suckers
17:30:46 <pjones> oh, wait.
17:30:49 <gholms> (and all the veterans)
17:31:02 <ajax> rocking chair, shotgun...
17:31:02 <sgallagh> Hello
17:31:03 <pjones> gholms: don't forget the veteran new members.
17:31:14 <gholms> pjones: They got *two* waves. :)
17:31:25 <pjones> is three too much to ask?
17:31:35 <gholms> pjones: Gotta make them last.
17:31:36 <pjones> I say the waving has gone not too far enough.
17:31:39 * notting is here
17:31:50 <mmaslano> hello
17:31:53 <mmaslano> hi t8m
17:31:55 <t8m> hello
17:32:11 <nirik> hello t8m
17:32:40 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and dive in then...
17:32:51 <nirik> #topic Welcome to new members, thanks to departing members
17:33:12 <nirik> Welcome to newly elected folks: pjones, sgallagh, t8m.
17:33:41 <sgallagh> Good to be here
17:33:44 <gholms> Crap, I waved too soon.
17:33:50 * gholms waves anyway
17:33:55 <nirik> Thanks to departing folks: kylem, SMParrish, mclasen
17:34:05 * kylem waves.
17:34:17 <t8m> Hello again
17:34:40 <nirik> #topic Elect Chair
17:34:55 <nirik> So, I've been doing chair stuff for a while... my time has become less of late.
17:35:11 <notting> i wonder how that happened. :)
17:35:12 <nirik> I wouldn't mind handing it off or having us switch to some kind of rotating duty on it.
17:35:20 <nirik> yeah, odd. ;)
17:35:36 <nirik> or we could delegate parts of it out more...
17:35:51 <mjg59> Rotation seems like a plan
17:35:52 <ajax> i don't mind rotating in, but i don't think i could take it on full time.
17:36:01 <mjg59> Yeah, ditto
17:36:46 <sgallagh> For the new kids: what are the chair's duties, besides running the meetings?
17:37:29 <nirik> sending out agenda a day or so before. Keeping track of sponsor/provenpackager requests (sending for feedback, dealing with after a week).
17:37:34 <nirik> running the meeting.
17:37:41 <nirik> sending out minutes to the list after
17:38:05 <mmaslano> nirik: do we have manual to creating minutes from irc etc?
17:38:20 <nirik> I could write up a wiki page on it...
17:38:35 <nirik> mmaslano: meetbot does that. ;) I just copy/paste to an email and reply to the agenda email.
17:38:37 <notting> handling sponsor/pp requests seems like sometihng that would be simpler to delegate than rotate. i'll do that
17:38:52 <nirik> notting: cool.
17:39:15 <nirik> #info notting to deal with sponsor / pp requests for now
17:39:50 * t8m would prefer keeping elected chair if someone steps up and agrees to be one
17:40:59 <ajax> everyone takes one step back...
17:41:07 <t8m> :)
17:41:09 <nirik> well, if people really want I suppose I could keep doing it... just takes time.
17:41:16 <mjg59> t8m: Well, if you're volunteering...
17:41:30 * t8m is not :)
17:41:36 <mjg59> Heh
17:41:43 <mmaslano> I agree with rotation
17:41:54 <nirik> so, how about this: I will try and write up a wiki page with tasks/workflow.
17:42:04 <pjones> sounds like a good start.
17:42:06 <nirik> someone else can try and use that next week to run things and we can adjust from there?
17:42:12 <sgallagh> +1
17:42:14 <t8m> +1
17:42:17 <mmaslano> 1
17:42:24 <mjg59> +1
17:42:31 <nirik> who would want to be the beta-tester for next week? ;)
17:43:01 <ajax> yeah, why not.
17:43:03 <sgallagh> If no one else wants to volunteer, I'll take that on
17:43:26 <nirik> oh, also needing doing: update FESCo wiki page with current members, update previous members pages, and update fesco list (I can do that last one)
17:44:02 * cwickert rushes in late
17:44:30 <notting> i'll update the wiki
17:45:03 <nirik> sgallagh / ajax: which of you would like next week?
17:45:19 <nirik> #action nirik to write up wiki page on running meetings
17:45:24 <ajax> nirik: i'll do it
17:45:35 <sgallagh> take it
17:45:38 <nirik> #action ajax to use that to run meeting next week.
17:45:57 <nirik> #action notting to update wiki pages.
17:46:03 <nirik> ok, anything else on chair stuff?
17:46:16 <notting> meeting time is a separate item?
17:46:59 <nirik> yeah
17:47:01 <nirik> next up
17:47:06 <nirik> #topic Change meeting time/day?
17:47:18 <nirik> so, does this time work for everyone? or should we try a whenisgood thing again?
17:47:20 <mjg59> Well, everyone's here now
17:47:26 <sgallagh> This time works fine for me
17:47:28 <cwickert> can we have the meeting a little later?
17:47:33 <mjg59> So it clearly works to some extent :)
17:47:38 <mmaslano> I'd like to change the day of meeting
17:47:39 <pjones> this time works for me as well.
17:47:39 <mjg59> But probably best to do another whenisgood
17:47:48 <mjg59> I'll set one up after the meeting
17:47:55 <mmaslano> thanks
17:47:56 <t8m> +1 to do another whenisgood
17:48:07 <sgallagh> Sure
17:48:13 <pjones> whatevs.
17:48:18 <notting> so, we're split between us eastern, us mountan, and CET?
17:48:29 <ajax> presumably whatever we decide on won't take effect until after next week.
17:48:30 <pjones> notting: and somebody from CET wants it later ;)
17:48:58 <pjones> ajax: presumably we use whenisgood as a recommendation and move it by vote.
17:49:02 <nirik> mjg59: thanks. Perhaps make a ticket with the whenisgood link, and we can chime in there when we have updated it?
17:49:59 <nirik> yeah, lets meet this same time next week, then change?
17:50:07 <ajax> ack.
17:50:19 <cwickert> ok
17:50:24 <mjg59> nirik: Sure
17:50:31 <sgallagh> +1
17:50:37 <mmaslano> ok
17:50:41 <pjones> yep
17:50:47 <nirik> #action mjg59 to file ticket on new meeting time, add whenisgood link and we will revisit next week about changing the time/day of meeting.
17:51:08 <nirik> ok, anything else on time/day/administravia?
17:51:37 <nirik> ok, moving on.
17:51:39 <nirik> #topic #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
17:51:40 <nirik> .fesco 563
17:51:41 <zodbot> nirik: #563 (suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/563
17:51:44 <nirik> any news here?
17:52:00 <kylem> last thing before i stepped aside
17:52:05 <mmaslano> in ticket are details from jakub
17:52:07 <pjones> This just seems like another PIE in the sky feature that...
17:52:13 <pjones> ;)
17:52:18 <mmaslano> he had some recommendation
17:52:21 <kylem> i got jakub to post to the ticket, and he supplied a bit more info to me and ajax
17:52:30 <kylem> (but didn't answer whether the bug is a bug.)
17:52:40 <nirik> ah, I didn't see his comment.
17:53:06 <kylem> i'd suggest you follow the original suggestion, enable PIE as necessary, and possibly add some tooling with upstream to ensure that symbols are resolved as intended
17:53:22 <kylem> (enable PIE where security relevant, long running daemons)
17:53:28 <ajax> relro is pretty trivially okay globally
17:53:39 <pjones> yeah
17:53:42 <kylem> yup.
17:53:55 <t8m> does relro without now bring actually any security?
17:54:09 <kylem> perhaps you can ask for a ftbfs-style test of them both
17:54:12 <pjones> t8m: you mean without PIE?
17:54:26 <nirik> proposal: enable relro in rawhide by default, ping FPC to see about adding a guideline to use PIE for long running or security relevant applications?
17:54:43 <sgallagh> pjones: No, there are two variants of RELRO
17:54:46 <t8m> pjones, no Partial relro (-Wl,-z,relro) instead of Full relro (-Wl,-z,relro,-z,now)
17:54:48 <ajax> t8m: yes.  imagine an array of function pointers, all bound to symbols provided by the executable.  relro lets you mark that const and have it actually work.
17:55:50 <ajax> full relro extends that to cases where the symbol you're taking the address of is provided by one of your libraries instead.
17:55:59 <nirik> wait, is he saying he also objects to relro?
17:56:10 <ajax> nirik: no, he's saying he objects to -z now.
17:56:30 <kylem> nirik, yes, that sounds like something that will keep the toolchain people happy (ie: what they intended) as well
17:56:31 <nirik> ah, so partial he's ok with...
17:56:35 <pjones> also note that systemd isn't on the list in the ticket
17:56:41 <pjones> (because it's newer than the ticket, looks like)
17:56:54 <nirik> pjones: I suspect we need to come up with a critera and ask it to be a packaging guideline...
17:56:59 <t8m> ok then -Wl,-z,relro should be in default flags at least on arches where it makes sense
17:56:59 <pjones> nirik: yes.
17:57:29 <pjones> nirik: does "long running" include, say, gnome-shell? :)
17:57:38 <ajax> t8m: i don't think there are any arches where it doesn't.  pretty sure that's an OSABI not PSABI thing.
17:57:46 <nirik> it could I suppose. ;)
17:58:00 <pjones> I guess we can leave that up to FPC.
17:58:04 <t8m> and for the -Wl,-z,now and PIE we should tell FPC to make a guideline that recommends (requires?) that for long running daemons
17:58:09 <ajax> anyway the answer here is that i still don't have a resolution on the thing that was keeping me from changing the rpm configs.
17:58:28 <nirik> so, we can't enable partial relro anyhow yet?
17:58:36 <t8m> ajax, and that was?
17:58:42 <pjones> t8m: requires; if there's genuine cause for exception, it can be granted.
17:58:44 <kylem> nirik, no, that was -pie that caused it
17:58:47 <ajax> t8m: -fPIE seems to imply -rdynamic.
17:58:55 <pjones> t8m: but we don't expect that to be common, so no reason not to.
17:59:19 <ajax> nirik: i suppose we can, yeah.
17:59:26 <ajax> i'll do that this week
17:59:39 <nirik> ok, so votes on my proposal? or alternates?
17:59:50 <nirik> proposal: enable partial relro in rawhide by default, ping FPC to see about adding a guideline to use PIE for long running or security relevant applications?
18:00:04 <t8m> nirik, +1
18:00:05 <ajax> +1
18:00:09 <mjg59> +1
18:00:10 <sgallagh> +1
18:00:11 <notting> +1
18:00:13 <cwickert> +1
18:00:15 <pjones> +1
18:00:18 <mmaslano> +1
18:00:41 <nirik> #agreed enable partial relro in rawhide by default, ping FPC to see about adding a guideline to use PIE for long running or security relevant applications?
18:00:56 <nirik> anything further on this?
18:00:57 <gholms> Wow, I haven't seen +8 here in a while.
18:01:50 <nirik> #topic #599 F16Feature: ConsoleKit Removal/Automatic Multi-Seat Support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval
18:01:50 <nirik> .fesco 599
18:01:51 <zodbot> nirik: #599 (F16Feature: ConsoleKit Removal/Automatic Multi-Seat Support - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/599
18:02:01 <nirik> we got answers on the talk page...
18:02:46 <pjones> I'm all for removing CK
18:02:53 <notting> given those answers, +1 from me
18:03:02 <cwickert> +1 same here
18:03:07 <ajax> +1
18:03:16 <nirik> +1 here.
18:03:36 <pjones> +1 from me as well.
18:03:43 <t8m> if the other desktops/*dms keep working (regardless of the multiseat support) then +1 from me
18:03:47 <sgallagh> As long as it's true that CK is parallel-installable.
18:03:47 <mjg59> +1
18:03:57 <mmaslano> +1 if destops are ok
18:04:28 <sgallagh> +1, conditional on compatibility with other desktops
18:04:35 <nirik> #agreed feature is approved.
18:04:51 <nirik> we had 2 features that came in this morning...
18:04:58 <nirik> should we do them now? or wait for next week on them?
18:05:16 <ajax> would prefer to wait, i've not had a chance to read them
18:05:30 <mjg59> I think the tboot one, especially, is going to require some examination
18:05:30 <pjones> I would argue for next week, since I haven't had a chance to read them, but I'm also gloriously unprepared for everything else today.
18:05:33 <pjones> (apologies)
18:05:42 <sgallagh> Yeah, let's get them next week, unless they've requested an urgent decision
18:05:44 <pjones> oh, tboot is on there.  definitely next week then.
18:06:00 <mjg59> pjones: You've been looking at tboot before - can you stick some questions on the talk page?
18:06:20 <pjones> mjg59: I've really not been looking at it; jreiden and his team have.
18:06:27 <pjones> of course, he'
18:06:31 <pjones> he's sitting 5 feet to my left.
18:06:34 <mjg59> Heh
18:06:38 * nirik is fine with defering them.
18:06:57 <nirik> any objections?
18:07:26 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
18:07:36 <nirik> ok, open floor time. Anyone have any open floor items?
18:07:43 <notting> mmaslano: how goes the perl rebuild?
18:08:12 <mmaslano> notting: I and my co-worker are working on automatical rebuild script.
18:08:35 <mmaslano> but I play in mu buildroot, so nothing should broke
18:09:34 * mmaslano is running out of battery
18:09:42 <sgallagh> There's been a lot of chatter on fedora-devel lately about systemd.
18:09:53 <nirik> sgallagh: yeah.
18:10:11 <sgallagh> I was thinking it might be prudent to discuss some milestones for the SYSV->systemd conversions
18:10:17 <drago01> sgallagh: s/lot of chatter/flamewar/
18:11:10 <nirik> sgallagh: ok. we do have a feature on it...
18:11:36 <notting> sgallagh: in the form of 'for any given package, do it by beta, or don't do it'? or some different sorts of milestones?
18:12:12 <t8m> notting, something like that would be nice
18:12:27 <sgallagh> notting: Well, the point of the feature is to be 100% converted by beta
18:12:44 <notting> and you'd prefer to not have 100% land directly at beta?
18:12:49 <sgallagh> I'm proposing that we should try to accomplish 100% of "base" by alpha
18:12:51 <notting> <thud>
18:13:05 <t8m> Is it realistic?
18:13:18 <sgallagh> Is it any less realistic than beta?
18:13:34 <nirik> having areas to concentrate on seems like a good idea.
18:13:41 <nirik> how many are there in base?
18:14:15 <notting> t8m: depends a bit on the implementation - if it's "wait until the service file is in upstream version", it will take longer
18:14:45 <sgallagh> notting: I don't think that's likely achievable by RC, let alone beta or alpha.
18:14:55 <t8m> notting, it might take forever for some upstreams :D
18:14:58 <sgallagh> Fedora is going to have to carry some private copies for a while (possibly several releases)
18:15:41 * cwickert is sorry but has to leave now.
18:15:43 * nirik nods.
18:16:00 <nirik> I think asking the folks working on that feature to concentrate on base seems fine...
18:16:01 <cwickert> before I leave: if you decide anything, I am +1 for converting everything to systemd asap
18:16:21 <notting> sgallagh: so, first step would be to audit services  to get the base & core list. anyone want to take that as an action item? (if it's not on the feature page already)
18:16:27 <pjones> yeah, I don't have a problem telling them to prioritize stuff in base
18:16:58 <t8m> cwickert, I do not agree with that.
18:17:24 <sgallagh> notting: I'll take an action item to get the base and core list. (Should be easy with a little mock-fu)
18:18:00 <sgallagh> I propose that once we have this list, we open a bug on each as-yet unconverted daemon in Bugzilla, blocking the alpha
18:18:20 <t8m> sgallagh, from the base and core lists I suppose?
18:18:26 <sgallagh> Yes
18:18:31 <t8m> OK then
18:19:14 <nirik> sgallagh: there already are bugs on things for converting.
18:19:17 <notting> sgallagh: just make the existing bugs block the alpha, but yes
18:19:20 <nirik> could we just update those to block?
18:19:22 <cwickert> t8m: you don't have to agree with me. it was just in case we vote whether we want to have base or everything converted by alpha, beta or whatever, I want the earliest milestone in this development cycle to give it as much testing as possible. understood?
18:19:39 <sgallagh> nirik: If they already exist, updating them to block is fine
18:19:48 <t8m> cwickert, OK
18:19:49 <nirik> +1 to that plan. seems fine to me.
18:19:58 <cwickert> +1
18:20:03 <pjones> +1
18:20:07 * cwickert is really afk now
18:20:07 <sgallagh> It'd be nice to have a keywork for SystemdConversion or similar in BZ as well, but it's probably too late for that.
18:20:31 <notting> sgallagh: abuse a whiteboard?
18:20:36 * notting is +1 to the plan
18:20:43 <nirik> #action sgallagh will collect base / core packages that need conversion to systemd and we will try and get those done by alpha.
18:20:46 <t8m> sgallagh, no need to add keyword, either abuse whiteboard or add a tracking bug
18:20:47 <cwickert> sgallagh: why is a tracker bug not enough?
18:21:00 <t8m> cwickert, still here? :D
18:21:06 <cwickert> :)
18:21:18 <sgallagh> cwickert: A tracker is fine. I should have been less specific: "An easy search filter for BZ"
18:21:29 <nirik> ok, anything else on this? or any other open floor item?
18:21:35 <cwickert> ok then
18:22:57 * nirik will close out the meeting in a minute if nothing else comes up
18:24:22 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone!
18:24:26 <nirik> #endmeeting