17:01:21 <limburgher> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-40-30)
17:01:21 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Apr 30 17:01:21 2012 UTC.  The chair is limburgher. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:21 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:22 <limburgher> #meetingname fesco
17:01:22 <limburgher> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones sgallagh mitr limburgher
17:01:22 <limburgher> #topic init process
17:01:22 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:01:22 <zodbot> Current chairs: limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m
17:01:33 <limburgher> Roll?
17:01:44 <sgallagh> Rock and
17:01:55 * limburgher here
17:01:57 <pjones> yo
17:02:01 <pjones> mjg59 said he'd be a bit late
17:02:18 * notting is here
17:02:41 <mjg59> I'm here
17:03:13 <limburgher> mitr, mmaslano, nirik, t8m?
17:03:39 <jwb> nirik is out this week i believe
17:04:57 <limburgher> Ok, should be a short meeting.
17:05:01 <limburgher> #topic #839 Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model
17:05:34 <limburgher> .839
17:05:38 <limburgher> fesco .839
17:05:51 <gholms> .fesco 839
17:05:53 <zodbot> gholms: #839 (Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/839
17:06:00 <limburgher> Thanks.
17:06:35 <limburgher> So does anyone have any thoughts on the week's discussion of this?
17:07:26 <mjg59> I'm still broadly in favour of this, but I think it's probably the kind of thing we should discuss when we're not missing so many people
17:08:21 <limburgher> Makes sense, it's the sort of thing we not only want to get right, but to have as large a consensus around as possible.
17:09:54 <limburgher> #proposal Table sponsorship revitalization until next meeting in hopes of higher FESCO attendance, and an additional week's discussion?
17:10:02 <mjg59> +1
17:10:04 <notting> +1
17:10:05 <limburgher> +1
17:11:32 <limburgher> pjones, sgallagh?
17:11:46 <pjones> +1
17:11:59 <sgallagh> +1
17:12:02 <limburgher> Cool.
17:12:08 <limburgher> #agreed Proposal Table sponsorship revitalization until next meeting in hopes of higher FESCO attendance, and an additional week's discussion is accepted (+5,-:0,0:0)
17:12:23 <limburgher> #topic Next week's chair
17:13:07 <mjg59> I'm going to be out next week
17:13:10 <sgallagh> I may not make it next week
17:13:13 <mjg59> Wrong side of the dateline
17:13:14 <limburgher> I love that we're meeting in 2015 this week.
17:13:47 <mjg59> limburgher: Oh, we might want to look at 840 quickly
17:13:54 <mjg59> But we can do that after picking a chair
17:14:06 <limburgher> Right.
17:14:15 <notting> i can
17:14:23 <limburgher> Cool, thanks.
17:14:42 <limburgher> #action notting to chair next week 2012-05-07
17:14:49 <limburgher> #topic Open Floor
17:14:58 <limburgher> .fesco 840
17:15:00 <zodbot> limburgher: #840 (Packaging exception in software repos) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/840
17:15:26 <notting> -1, for reasons outlined in the ticket.
17:15:34 <mjg59> -1 for reasons that others outlined in the ticket
17:15:39 <limburgher> -1 Agreed.  No way.
17:15:46 <sgallagh> -1: They can take it to rpmfusion if they want
17:15:55 <pjones> -1 la la la.
17:16:34 <limburgher> #agreed #840 Packaging exception in software repos is rejected (+0,-:5,0:0)
17:16:55 * gholms raises hand for open floor stuff
17:17:02 <limburgher> gholms, go ahead.
17:17:27 <gholms> I'd just like to make you aware of a bug that is inevitably going to get escalated to fesco:
17:17:31 <gholms> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816818
17:18:34 <sgallagh> How did this ever pass review?
17:18:35 <gholms> It's an example of a disconnect between several of Fedora's more important packages and the packaging guidelines.
17:18:39 <limburgher> This looks more like an FPC issue to me.
17:18:42 <pjones> I don't think we really need to discuss that now; there's plenty of people already involved in the bug.
17:18:52 <gholms> It passed review before usrmove.
17:19:22 <gholms> FPC was against changing the guidelines the last time someone asked, so this is likely to be escalated to fesco soon to resolve the conflict.
17:19:36 <gholms> I'm just bringing it to your attention ahead of time.
17:19:42 <pjones> Proposal: discuss this if and when it becomes necessary, after the discussion in the bug actually finishes (or fails to) and fpc is consulted.
17:19:42 <mjg59> The argument is convincing
17:20:00 <mjg59> If they weren't in /lib they'd be in /libexec
17:20:06 <mjg59> So bleah
17:20:22 <gholms> Don't worry, I'm not asking for action now.
17:20:47 <sgallagh> mjg59: Well, the difference is that libexec has a "primary arch" implication, whereas we've established /lib as "32-bit arch"
17:21:13 <sgallagh> But I'm +1 to pjones' proposal
17:21:16 <mjg59> sgallagh: You can't install two versions of a package that have executables
17:21:28 <mjg59> So the location of the executables is pretty uninteresting as far as biarch goes
17:22:33 <limburgher> pjones +1
17:22:45 <notting> pjones: +1
17:23:42 <mjg59> Anyway, yes, +1
17:24:20 <limburgher> #agreed Proposal Defer discussion of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=816818 until after the discussion in the bug actually finishes (or fails to) and fpc is consulted.(+5,-:0,0:0)
17:24:27 <limburgher> Anyone have anything else?
17:26:07 <limburgher> I'll close out in 5 if there's nothing else.
17:27:11 <mjg59> Oh, one thing - the ARM people held their meeting in #fedora-meeting last week. That seemed helpful.
17:27:30 <mjg59> I didn't see anything go wrong, so I hope that keeps up
17:27:51 <limburgher> Indeed, that was good.
17:30:26 <limburgher> Ok, thanks everyone!
17:30:27 <limburgher> #endmeeting