17:00 < mitr> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-06-25)
17:00 < zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun 25 17:00:07 2012 UTC.  The chair is mitr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00 < zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00 < mitr> #meetingname fesco
17:00 < zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:00 < mitr> #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones mitr limburgher jwb
17:00 < zodbot> Current chairs: jwb limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones t8m
17:00 < mitr> #topic init process
17:00  * notting is here
17:00 < t8m> hello
17:00 < pjones> hi
17:00 < jwb> hi
17:02 < mjg59> Hi
17:02 < mitr> nirik told us last time that he won't be able to come, limburgher voted in tickets.
17:02 < mitr> mmaslano: here?
17:03 < mmaslano> yes, hi
17:03 < mitr> Thanks, let's start...
17:03 < mitr> #topic #830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion
17:03 < mitr> .fesco 830
17:03 < mitr> Just a quick check:
17:03 < zodbot> mitr: #830 (define requirements for secondary arch promotion) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830
17:03 < mitr> Robyn had some questions about the outcome of this ticket and the feature - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830#comment:9
17:03 < mitr> Are there any objections to the summing up by Tomas ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830#comment:11 ) ?
17:03 < mjg59> Nope
17:03 < jwb> no
17:04 < pjones> sounds right
17:04 < notting> that ounds correct
17:04  * mitr assumes that's good enough :)
17:04 < mitr> #topic #873 F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals
17:04 < mitr> .fesco 873
17:04 < mitr> limburgher was +1 in the ticket
17:04 < zodbot> mitr: #873 (F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/873
17:04 < mitr> kevin was +1 in the ticket
17:04 < mitr> I like the idea in general, not sure about the specifics
17:05 < mitr> * Apparently there's no simple way to set TERM=something_old in ~/.ssh/config
17:05 < mjg59> Sure would be nice if this were something that could be negotiated between endpoints
17:05 < mitr> * Using /etc/profile.d/* sounds like too big a hammer, but perhaps not worth arguing about
17:05 < mjg59> But fixing that would be breaking decades of UNIX tradition, I'm sure
17:05 < pjones> yeah, not really solid on the implementation
17:05 < pjones> I like the idea
17:05  * mjg59 remembers the bad old days of XTERM-DEBIAN
17:06 < notting> that profile.d looks ... wrong
17:06 < jwb> i'm entirely ambivalent
17:06 < notting> in that it automatically assumes anything you use that supports xterm also supports this
17:06 < pjones> yeah, that's not great.
17:06 < mjg59> Yeah. Seems like we should be changing the terminal emulators.
17:07 < mitr> Hm, that profile.d would trigger even when ssh-ing from a non-Linux system, wouldn't it?  And in a way that makes it non-trivial to override.
17:07 < notting> mitr: yes.
17:07 < mjg59> How about we punt this back to devel@ for further discussion of the implementation?
17:07 < jwb> sounds good to me
17:08 < mmaslano> fine
17:08 < t8m> mjg59, +1
17:08 < mitr> +1 It will probably generate some noise, but it should help with the right direction.
17:09 < notting> +1
17:09 < mjg59> I can bring it up
17:09 < mmaslano> +1
17:09 < mjg59> Might as well take responsibility for even more pointless argument
17:09 < jwb> you're very good at that
17:10 < mitr> #agreed Feature: 256 Color Terminals deferred pending discussion on devel@
17:10 < mjg59> Life skills and all that
17:10 < mitr> #action mjg59 to start discussion
17:10 < mitr> #topic #874 F18 Feature: OpenStack Folsom - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Folsom
17:10 < mitr> .fesco 874
17:10 < mitr> limburgher was +1 in the ticket
17:10 < mitr> kevin was +1 in the ticket
17:11  * mitr is +1
17:11 < jwb> this is basically a version bump of an existing stack in Fedora, right?
17:11 < mjg59> +1
17:11 < mitr> jwb: seems so
17:11 < jwb> seems very buzz wordy these days, so +1
17:11 < t8m> +1 with the feature process disclaimer
17:11 < t8m> :)
17:12 < mmaslano> +1
17:12 < notting> +1 for folsom packaging blues
17:12 < pjones> mjg59: I'm +1 to that
17:12 < pjones> With at the very least a summary of things we've just listed that we'd like to see addressed
17:13 < pjones> +1
17:13 < mitr> #agreed Feature OpenStack Folsom is approved (+9)
17:13 < mitr> #topic #875 F18 Feature: targetd - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/targetd
17:13 < mitr> .fesco 875
17:13 < mitr> limburgher was +1 in the ticket
17:13 < mitr> kevin was +1 in the ticket
17:14  * pjones +1
17:14 < mmaslano> I don't like the name much and I wonder if they speak with other related projects...
17:14 < mmaslano> but none of this is blocker
17:14 < mitr> mmaslano: AFAICT this doesn't directly duplicate any other work in the storage space
17:15 < notting> seems fine, +1. this is only iscsi target, not fcoe target?
17:15  * mitr was warned about running a web server as root, but is +1 to the idea
17:15 < pjones> notting: AIUI yeah
17:15 < pjones> but I may not UI
17:15 < jwb> there was suggestion of combining this and libstoragemgmt
17:15 < t8m> +1 to the idea with reservations about the current implementation, but that can be fixed
17:15 < mmaslano> +1
17:15 < jwb> also... we're voting backwards
17:15 < pjones> jwb: well, they list libstoragemgmt as a dep
17:16 < jwb> right
17:16 < notting> so this is the userspace equivalent of lio?
17:16 < jwb> so we should have, you know, voted on that first
17:16 < jwb> but hey, whatever
17:16 < mjg59> +1
17:16 < mitr> notting: Isn't it a complement to lio - lio providing the iscsi target, and this providing LUN mgmt?
17:17 < notting> mitr: that makes more sense now that i read it
17:18 < mitr> jwb?
17:19 < jwb> i guess +1
17:19 < jwb> which means i'm +1 to the next one too apparently
17:19 < mitr> #agreed Feature targetd is approved (+9)
17:19 < mitr> #topic #876 F18 Feature: libstoragemanagement - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/libstoragemgmt
17:19 < mitr> .fesco 876
17:19 < mitr> limburgher was +1 in the ticket
17:19 < mitr> kevin was +1 in the ticket
17:19 < mitr> Both suggested merging this with the targetd feature
17:19 < mitr> (I'm sorry about the ordering, I missed the dependency)
17:19 < notting> +1 to feature, +1 to merge
17:20 < jwb> +1 to feature, +1 to merge
17:20 < mitr> +1 to feature, and +1 to merge (given that this situation is exactly the same as hawkey/dnf last week)
17:20 < pjones> yeah, I can be +1
17:20 < t8m> +1 to merge with previous feature (which we accepted)
17:20 < pjones> to merge as well
17:20 < mmaslano> +1 for merge
17:21 < mjg59> +1
17:21 < mitr> "Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, suggested to merge with targetd", is that right?
17:22 < jwb> yep
17:22 < pjones> I dunno about "suggested"; we think they should do it.
17:22 < pjones> I think we're just telling them to do so.
17:22 < t8m> "Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, please merge it with targetd" - we can ask politely
17:23 < pjones> yes
17:23 < mitr> #agreed Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, please merge it with targetd (+9)
17:23 < mitr> #topic Next week's chair
17:23  * pjones won't be here next week
17:23  * mmaslano probably won't be here
17:23  * t8m won't be able to attend either
17:23  * notting will not be here as well
17:24 < pjones> So, er, will we have quorum?
17:24 < jwb> i will not be here
17:24 < mjg59> I can be, but it doesn't sound useful
17:24 < pjones> aand that's a no
17:24 < pjones> I propose not meeting next week.
17:24 < mitr> And won't be here next wee either
17:24 < t8m> I can take the chair on 9th July
17:24 < mitr> #note The meeting on July 2 is canceled for lack of quorum
17:25 < mitr> #action t8m will chair the meeting on July 9th
17:25 < mitr> #topic Open Floor
17:25 < mitr> Anything?
17:25 < pjones> I've got one
17:25 < pjones> I don't need voting right now, but since it was put in state friday and I'd like attention on it earlier rather than later, I figured I'd make sure everybody here is aware of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot
17:26 < pjones> mjg59 and I intend to demo this at the UEFI Summer Summit the week of the 16th of July.
17:26 < pjones> Put in "FeatureReadyForWrangler" state even ;)
17:27 < t8m> pjones, Scope seems to be "undefined" yet?
17:27 < jwb> "whole distro" ?
17:27 < jwb> big sky isn't undefined
17:27 < t8m> is it really?
17:27 < pjones> t8m: I really think the field is completely bogus
17:27 < t8m> shouldn't affect much of userspace
17:28 < pjones> But let's not argue about that since it's entirely tangential, okay?
17:28 < pjones> I mean, there's a giant table in "current status" that defines the scope pretty well
17:28 < notting> pjones: exciting. i look forward to the polite reserved discussion that this is likely to bring.
17:28 < t8m> then you can point at it
17:29 < t8m> Like see the table in Status
17:29 < pjones> t8m: sure, will do.
17:29 < mmaslano> I guess the biggest question is if we want to go this way
17:30 < mitr> pjones: From a first look, no mention of user-space drivers - nothing is affected?
17:30 < mjg59> Some bits of userspace stop working
17:30 < mjg59> Not a lot that can be done about that
17:31 < mitr> I'm not sure what the deciding factors will be, but knowing what will break might be relevant :)
17:31 < jwb> mitr, userspace drivers as in UIO?
17:32 < mjg59> dmidecode's going to break. Because using /dev/mem is a stupid thing to do.
17:32 < mitr> jwb: I was more thinking about display drivers and things like that, which access PCI registers directly
17:32 < pjones> mjg59: could be reworked as a kernel-level thing though
17:32 < mjg59> Should be, yes
17:32 < pjones> though that may be another feature :)
17:33 < mjg59> mitr: Only ones left are vesa and via, and vesa's obviously not a concern with UEFI
17:33 < jwb> mitr, do we have many of those left supported in Fedora?
17:33 < mitr> Do we want an explicit notification to devel@ ?
17:33 < notting> mjg59: surely someone could extend the dmi crud in sysfs
17:33 < notting> mitr: well, that will come in the meeting announcement
17:33 < mjg59> notting: Someone could!
17:33 < pjones> notting: yeah, that's what I meant above
17:34 < notting> mjg59:  * Copyright 2007, Lennart Poettering. ok then!
17:34  * mitr goes for
17:34 < mitr> #note Heads up - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot was proposed
17:34 < pjones> Will have at some point already been proposed yes :)
17:35 < notting> mjg59: pjones: nm, we have /sys/firmware/dmi
17:35 < t8m> I have no problem with the implementation part, I have with the verisign signed but that is rather Fedora Board question to resolve
17:36 < mmaslano> yeah, it might be good to file a ticket for them
17:36 < mitr> t8m: Will you file a ticket with specific concerns, then?
17:37 < pjones> Anyway, it's not in the correct state to vote on it yet, and I think it does need to be on our announced agenda before we discuss it in earnest, but I did want to make sure everybody was aware that this was coming pretty soon.
17:37 < mitr> Anything else for open floor?
17:38  * mitr will close the meeting in 2 minutes if not
17:38 < t8m> mitr, I think there are some people who discussed it on devel@ who would be able to better formulate the ticket
17:39 < pjones> t8m: well, if you don't want to, and they haven't...
17:39 < mmaslano> pjones: well, I thought feature owners will do it
17:39 < t8m> pjones, I'll probably ask them to file it and if they don't I'll do it
17:40 < pjones> mmaslano: the feature owners aren't the people asserting that the board needs to weigh in?
17:40 < mitr> mmaslano: It's not clear to me what the board question is exactly, isn't that better left to someone who wants to ask the board?
17:40 < mjg59> Well I guess someone probably needs to ask the board to cut a check for $99
17:40 < mjg59> Since we don't have a budget of our own
17:41 < pjones> mjg59: I'd have guessed we'd ask FPL for that, but sure.
17:41 < mjg59> But we might as well deal with the feature first
17:41 < t8m> pjones, it might also be that the ticket was already filled - I can't know as the board tickets are not public
17:43 < nb> no need for board ticket, just get with robyn to pay the $99
17:43 < nb> assuming they will take a credit card
17:43 < jwb> er...
17:44 < nb> (if all the board ticket is for is asking for money)
17:44 < notting> but 99% of eng. work is orthogonal to "do we get this bit signed with that"
17:44 < pjones> right.  And we can implement scheme #2 without that part.
17:46  * mitr guesses no other open floor items will be coming...
17:46 < mitr> #endmeeting