17:29:46 <sgallagher> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-08-07)
17:29:46 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Aug  7 17:29:46 2013 UTC.  The chair is sgallagher. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:29:46 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:29:55 <sgallagher> #meetingname fesco
17:29:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:29:59 <sgallagher> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
17:29:59 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh sgallagher t8m
17:30:02 <sgallagher> #topic init process
17:30:09 * notting is here
17:30:14 <t8m> hello
17:30:14 * mattdm is here
17:30:15 <nirik> morning everyone.
17:30:23 <mitr> Hello
17:30:34 <pjones> hi.
17:30:35 <sgallagher> I'm here for an hour. If this runs past the hour, nirik has been kind enough to take over chairing.
17:30:43 * nirik nods
17:31:36 <sgallagher> mmaslano wasn't sure she'd make it when I spoke with her earlier.
17:31:45 <sgallagher> abadger1999?
17:32:51 <t8m> I will have to leave early as well
17:32:59 <sgallagher> Ok, we have quorum, so let's get started
17:33:03 <sgallagher> First, follow-ups
17:33:07 <sgallagher> #topic #1132 libtool + %global _hardened_build 1 = no full hardening
17:33:10 <sgallagher> .fesco 1133
17:33:11 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1133 (provenpackager request for pwouters/LetoTo) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1133
17:33:17 <sgallagher> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1132
17:33:30 <sgallagher> Sorry, typo.
17:33:33 <sgallagher> .fesco 1132
17:33:34 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1132 (libtool + %global _hardened_build 1 = no full hardening) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1132
17:33:40 <nirik> so, mass rebuild is done.
17:34:01 <sgallagher> How badly did we botch things for PERL, exactly?
17:34:16 <nirik> I think we say: a) check your hardened packages and make sure they really are. b) if the newest proposed patch is good, we could apply it and people could just rebuild as they need.
17:34:32 <nirik> so, no further fesco action here that I can see... lets leave it to maintainers.
17:34:43 <sgallagher> nirik: +1
17:34:51 <nirik> I don't think too badly. There are just some things that need fixing for new perl.
17:35:44 <pjones> nirik: +1
17:35:59 <mattdm> nirik +1 also
17:36:01 <t8m> nirik, +1
17:36:31 <mitr> So, we are basically deciding to ignore the issue and hope that maintainers will individually handle it?
17:36:31 <notting> nirik: +1
17:36:44 <notting> mitr: i thought it was 'come back in f21 once we have a proper fix'?
17:37:14 <mitr> notting: I'm unclear.  Are we closing the ticket or deferring?
17:37:35 <nirik> mitr: do you have a counter proposal/action item you want to do? :)
17:37:45 <nirik> I mean we could task one of us with checking all packages
17:37:54 <sgallagher> (not it)
17:38:09 <notting> (not it!)
17:38:15 * pjones puts his finger on his nose
17:38:24 <mitr> nirik: I'm actually fine with punting, I just want to be clear that that's what we are doing.
17:38:36 <nirik> or perhaps we could wait until the new fix lands in redhat-rpm-config and force rebuild all hardened packages?
17:38:58 <nirik> yeah, ideally maintainers would check their packages after enabling hardening, but I'm not sure how likely that is.
17:39:04 <sgallagher> nirik: And if that doesn't happen in time for Freeze?
17:39:11 <notting> i don't like forced rebuilds post branch
17:39:29 <mitr> If the known cases are gdm and abrt, I'm not really concerned
17:39:36 <t8m> notting, +1
17:39:46 <mitr> nirik: +1
17:39:50 <nirik> mitr: yeah, we could ask halfie to run another check on f20 I guess if he's willing.
17:40:17 <sgallagher> mitr: I think SSSD may have been affected too
17:41:22 <sgallagher> However, without a confirmed fix, all we have is speculation.
17:41:46 <sgallagher> Given that it's no worse than F19 right now, I vote we see if the patch works and then encourage people to rebuild against it
17:41:51 <sgallagher> (Probably on multiple branches)
17:43:10 * nirik just isn't sure us coordinating does much good... we need to have the tested/working fix in, or maintainers to fix their seperate spec files.
17:43:22 <sgallagher> Proposal: punt until we have a confirmed fix.
17:43:46 <nirik> sure I suppose.
17:43:54 <mitr> nirik: I think we are at +6 for your proposal
17:44:27 <nirik> perhaps one of us could do a devel-announce post mentioning that you should check your hardened packages, how to do so, etc?
17:44:36 * abadger1999 shows up
17:44:40 <nirik> or just wait for the macro fix I guess.
17:44:51 <pjones> nirik: looks like abadger1999 volunteered ;)
17:45:20 <abadger1999> pjones: Only if you want the announcement to come out in two orthree weeks ;-)
17:46:07 * abadger1999 would prefer waiting for the macro fix before announcing anyway
17:46:09 <nirik> so, are we closing the ticket? or keeping it open for a fix?
17:46:40 <sgallagher> I propose we leave it open but drop the meeting keyword until something changes.
17:46:46 <nirik> sure.
17:46:47 <nirik> +1
17:46:52 <abadger1999> wfm +1
17:47:11 <mattdm> +1
17:47:11 <mitr> fair enough, +1
17:47:33 <t8m> +1
17:47:39 <pjones> +1
17:47:41 <notting> +1
17:48:10 <sgallagher> #agreed Leave ticket open until we have a working fix, but remove it from the meeting agenda until then (+8, 0, -0)
17:48:16 <sgallagher> #topic #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17
17:48:19 <sgallagher> .fesco 1140
17:48:20 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1140 (F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1140
17:48:59 * mattdm refreshes memory
17:49:13 <mitr> ntpdate wasn't updated, anything else?
17:49:23 <nirik> so, drop ntpdate?
17:49:38 <mitr> drop or ignore, amounts to the same thing AFAICT
17:49:47 <nirik> true
17:50:01 <notting> it was a request for a specific change, wasn't it? so 'drop' seems more appropriate
17:50:08 <sgallagher> Yes
17:50:27 <pjones> I think it's drop, yeah.
17:50:29 <sgallagher> Proposal: drop the ntpdate Change from Fedora 20 due to maintainer unresponsiveness
17:50:43 <mitr> +1
17:50:49 <pjones> +1
17:51:13 <abadger1999> +1
17:51:24 <t8m> +1
17:51:42 <nirik> +1
17:51:51 <mattdm> yep. we'll want to do this eventually but it's not there yet
17:51:52 <mattdm> +1
17:52:18 <notting> +1
17:52:28 <sgallagher> #agreed drop the ntpdate Change from Fedora 20 due to maintainer unresponsiveness (+8, 0, -0)
17:52:42 <sgallagher> #topic #1143 F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail
17:52:46 <sgallagher> .fesco 1143
17:52:47 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1143 (F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoDefaultSendmail) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1143
17:52:59 <sgallagher> So... yeah.
17:53:11 <nirik> didn't we already vote here?
17:53:28 <sgallagher> nirik: We did, and the desktop spin went and changed it anyway.
17:53:37 <abadger1999> The issue is that we voted abo9ut groups but we didn't say how we wanted to apply that to the actual images that we provide.
17:53:38 <nirik> right.
17:54:11 <notting> i'd note that nearly all spins remove things from standard (the group where sendmail/rsyslog are)
17:54:28 * sgallagher remains willing to cut sendmail's throat, as before.
17:55:06 * pjones too
17:55:08 <t8m> I don't care about the live cd spins
17:55:20 <nirik> so yeah, the other question is... is this now a change we should note as one?
17:55:31 <sgallagher> Yeah, if we need a ruling on this in particular, i'm inclined to propose: LiveCD Spins make their own rules.
17:55:46 <pjones> sgallagher: ugh
17:56:01 <nirik> I don't think complete wild west is good...
17:56:06 <sgallagher> Amended: LiveCD Spins decide what packages they ship
17:56:09 <pjones> sgallagher: I don't like the idea of cordoning off one of the places that needs to be /more/ like the other places.
17:56:10 <nirik> but I think they should be able to do some things.
17:56:32 <adamw> the desktop live image is the single most prominent image fedora releases
17:56:41 <adamw> go to https://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora , what do you see?
17:56:56 <mitr> adamw: That might change somewhat with VisibleCloud
17:56:59 <nirik> also, it gets increasingly complex support wise if everything is different.
17:57:03 <adamw> it seems odd for fesco to make decisions on a Change like this, then decide that it can be overridden by some different group for our most prominent release image
17:57:03 <sgallagher> Clashing blue-and-green bands?
17:57:07 <notting> sgallagher: i wouldn't say 'make their own rules'. on the one end, there would be rolling back systemd, or swapping libcs, etc. but i'm ok with removals
17:57:41 <pjones> adamw: I hate it when I agree with you
17:57:45 * mitr reproposes deferring after Flock
17:57:46 <adamw> hah.
17:57:47 <mattdm> As suggested in the ticket, I think we need to make this part of a wider community conversation.
17:57:56 <sgallagher> mitr: +1
17:58:04 <mattdm> A conversation which is in progress...
17:58:08 <mitr> we should have an idea where the GNOME live CD lives in the fedora.next universe, if that happens.
17:58:11 <mattdm> and so, yes, +1 to deferring until after flock.
17:58:14 <sgallagher> I think there are some discussions coming at Flock that may be relevant to this.
17:58:28 <abadger1999> adamw: yeah, I think that's also what mmaslano said about, the desktop spin being our default image and therefore it's held to different standards than other live images that we produce.
17:58:41 <t8m> +1 to defer
17:58:48 <notting> adamw: the (next) most prominent one, with visible cloud, is going to have neither sendmail nor rsyslog. so i'm fine with desktop having neither as well
17:59:31 <abadger1999> otoh, I agree with what notting said about the cloud images (and restated just above).
17:59:49 <nirik> but if our most visible stuff is doing it... doesn't that means we approve it?
17:59:59 <abadger1999> Perhaps we should reevaluate what we consider the default image
18:00:01 <abadger1999> ??
18:00:02 <nirik> and clearly we didn't.
18:00:10 <abadger1999> Make the dvd or netinst our "default"?
18:00:36 <adamw> nirik: right, it's the mixed messages here that seem odd to me, not any particular decision in itself.
18:00:46 <sgallagher> abadger1999: Whatever is "default" should really be the most obvious link on the downloads page
18:01:08 <abadger1999> sgallagher: <nod>  So perhaps that's all that needs to be changed to make the switch in what is default?
18:01:13 <nirik> with visible cloud do we even have a 'default' ? or are we back to list of stuff?
18:01:28 <nirik> default implies one to me.
18:01:54 <mattdm> I think we need to have different defaults for several key use cases.
18:02:16 <mattdm> (^ bigger conversation)
18:02:18 <nirik> then we have no default, we have to ask the user or present a list.
18:02:30 <sgallagher> Can we perhaps re-vote on the original Change?
18:02:35 <adamw> this sounds like the kind of stuff that gets discussed at flock...
18:02:42 <pjones> sgallagher: has anybody indicated they might change their mind?
18:02:49 <nirik> adamw: yeah
18:02:49 <t8m> given the agenda for today, can we really really defer?
18:02:58 * nirik is ok with defer
18:03:02 <mattdm> +1 defer
18:03:02 <sgallagher> Because if we're okay for both the desktop and cloud spins to kill sendmail, then it seems like some voters misunderstood what was being asked
18:03:42 <t8m> I see +5 to defer if mitr votes for his own proposal
18:03:47 <t8m> +6
18:03:50 <t8m> actually
18:03:52 <notting> i can be +1 to defer
18:03:59 <nirik> right, and redoing the scope of the change to what it is, and accepting it based on that seems more reasonable to me.
18:04:05 * sgallagher abstains.
18:04:29 <abadger1999> I'm okay to defer until after flock but... I don't know that we'll get a chance to discuss this at flock.
18:04:41 <mitr> sgallagher: I think I'm consistent :) but that our idea of what Fedora is supposed to produce is slowly falling apart and this is just a manifestation
18:05:06 <abadger1999> there's a ton of other important things to discuss there...
18:05:26 <mattdm> I hope that those discussions will make the answer to this clear.
18:05:31 <abadger1999> <nod>
18:05:34 * pjones also +1 to defer
18:05:54 <sgallagher> #agreed Defer this to after Flock (+7, 1, 0)
18:05:59 <abadger1999> Assuming that the discussions there get to a suitable point :-)
18:06:03 <sgallagher> #topic #1144 F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog
18:06:06 <sgallagher> .fesco 1144
18:06:07 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1144 (F20 System Wide Change: No Default Syslog - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoDefaultSyslog) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1144
18:06:11 <nirik> ditto
18:06:12 <sgallagher> Same here?
18:06:13 <abadger1999> Same thing here
18:06:16 <t8m> please
18:06:35 <sgallagher> #agreed Defer this to after Flock
18:06:42 <sgallagher> #topic #1139 ProvenPackager Request affix
18:06:45 <sgallagher> .fesco 1139
18:06:48 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1139 (ProvenPackager Request affix) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1139
18:06:48 <sgallagher> New business
18:07:13 <sgallagher> Response in the ticket has not been favorable.
18:07:49 <sgallagher> Not enough FESCo votes yet in the ticket to close it outright.
18:07:54 <t8m> -1
18:07:57 <sgallagher> -1
18:08:00 <nirik> -1 and ask them to come back later when they are more ready
18:08:05 <mitr> -1 following sponsors
18:08:11 <sgallagher> nirik: Certainly
18:08:28 * notting is -1
18:08:44 <abadger1999> -1
18:08:49 <pjones> yeah, -1
18:09:12 * mattdm abstains because I somehow hadn't seen this until right now
18:09:23 <mattdm> and also you all seem to have it convered :)
18:09:42 <sgallagher> #agreed Deny provenpackager request and ask the requester to re-apply at a later date with more experience (+0, 1, -7)
18:09:47 <sgallagher> # topic Non-responsive maintainer: Dave Ludlow (adsllc), package takeover request
18:09:50 <sgallagher> .fesco 1154
18:09:51 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1154 (Non-responsive maintainer: Dave Ludlow (adsllc), package takeover request) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1154
18:10:10 <sgallagher> Process seems to have been followed correctly. We just need a volunteer with privileges to make the change.
18:11:19 <abadger1999> sgallagher: we just need some packages reassigned and others orphaned?
18:11:23 <sgallagher> abadger1999: Yes
18:11:26 <abadger1999> sgallagher: I can take care of that now.
18:11:38 <sgallagher> #action abadger1999 to hangle the package takeover request
18:11:44 <sgallagher> Thank you
18:11:45 <sgallagher> #topic #1148 F20 System Wide Change: Application Installer -
18:11:47 <nirik> yep. +1
18:11:57 <sgallagher> #undo
18:11:57 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x2703dd10>
18:12:01 <sgallagher> Sorry, do we need a vote here?
18:12:11 <notting> don't think so?
18:12:18 <sgallagher> I figured this was more of administrivia than a decision
18:12:18 <mitr> I don't think so, just 1 FESCo member to ack
18:12:26 <sgallagher> ah ok
18:12:32 <nirik> right. sorry
18:12:50 <sgallagher> #info nirik acks the request
18:12:54 <sgallagher> #topic #1148 F20 System Wide Change: Application Installer -
18:13:04 <sgallagher> .fesco 1148
18:13:05 <zodbot> sgallagher: #1148 (F20 System Wide Change: Application Installer - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstaller) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1148
18:14:00 <sgallagher> So where are we here? Do we have an agreement about installer logging?
18:14:22 <mitr> Seems we don't really :/
18:14:35 <notting> we seem to be waiting for some comments from the yum/packaging team
18:14:50 <sgallagher> notting: I'm picking jzeleny up from the airport tomorrow. I'll grill him then.
18:15:04 <notting> "answer or you can't get in?"
18:15:06 <t8m> I don't like it to say it the third time but - Defer?
18:15:11 <mitr> (3 weeks since original announcement,2 weeks on FESCo tracker...)
18:15:14 <abadger1999> Is it mostly Both logging and choice of backends seem to be issues.
18:15:31 <sgallagher> Frankly, I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point and ask them to sort it out for F21
18:15:39 <mitr> t8m: +1, let them figure it out
18:15:46 <t8m> sgallagher, yeah, I could support that as well
18:16:02 <sgallagher> I'm not confident that they have time to actually implement a solution at this point.
18:16:34 <adamw> one thing I have to contribute on this: my interpretation of the release criteria woudl be slightly different to toshio's in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1148#comment:15
18:16:37 <mitr> sgallagher: The contingency plan seems practical enough that -1 sounds too strict.
18:16:49 <adamw> what it's really meant to encapsulate is that 'the desktop's intended update methods should work'
18:17:10 <abadger1999> Well.. if they have time to implement, I'd be okay with a yum backend for sure.  A dnf backend maybe.
18:17:25 <adamw> so however updates are actually designed to work with this new thing - i think the idea is to have both offline and online mechanisms, dpeending on whether the updates require a reboot or not? - are expected to work correctly
18:17:36 <adamw> *by alpha*
18:18:19 <nirik> was dnf as default f21 or f22 materal?
18:18:47 <abadger1999> I don't think jzeleny stated which he was thinking of targetting.
18:18:50 <sgallagher> mitr: That's a fair point. I guess I'm okay to allow this provided that it's ready for Alpha.
18:18:50 <mitr> 22 I think, possibly 23
18:18:58 <pjones> nirik: I'm not sure that's determined yet
18:19:17 <nirik> ok.
18:20:15 <sgallagher> Proposal: Approve the Change. If the backend is not fully complete by alpha freeze, institute the contingency plan
18:20:48 <abadger1999> So about updates and making sure we don't break the ability to update out of any bad situations...
18:21:05 <abadger1999> adamw mentioned to me that we might be using a different method to do updates anyway?  Is that correct?
18:21:13 <mitr> proposal: approve the change _conditional on the packaging team and appinstaller both agreeing_, [then as sgallagher said]
18:21:21 <sgallagher> mitr: +1
18:21:29 <abadger1999> ie: App Installer would just be about installing new applkications, not about updating the existing packages.
18:21:42 <adamw> abadger1999: reading the proposal and discussion again it seems like the change does include update functionality
18:21:47 <abadger1999> ah.
18:21:49 <mitr> (and I'd want the agreement written down somewhere, please)
18:22:15 * sgallagher notes he has seven minutes remaining.
18:22:17 <adamw> per comment #10 - "E.g, we want it to be launched when you click on a 'Updates available' notification."
18:22:29 <nirik> I guess I could be ok to mitr's proposal.
18:22:45 <t8m> I am +1 to mitr's proposal and have to leave now
18:22:46 <pjones> mitr: +1
18:22:47 <abadger1999> Then mitr: -1 unless in addition the packaging team is also stating that they're committing to not breaking the dnf stack so that updates are always possible.
18:22:50 <notting> mitr: much prefer that version - +1. but that would imply leaving it on the agenda to track agreement
18:23:18 <mitr> notting: Good point, we need to track it anyway to revisit status by alpha
18:23:48 <abadger1999> +1 if the team is committing to maintaining the dnf stack at that level.
18:24:09 <mitr> abadger1999: Interesting.  Oh well, +1 to that rider.
18:24:11 <nirik> abadger1999: true... we shoudl also add a 'dnf stack is in critpath' to this, no?
18:24:26 <sgallagher> Would someone mind rephrasing the current proposal?
18:24:32 <pjones> nirik: would be eventually anyway, wouldn't it?
18:24:43 <nirik> sure, but they might not be ready to say so now.
18:25:26 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah, I agree it should also put it into the critpath for this release.
18:25:44 <mitr> "Approve the change conditional on 1) the packaging team and appinstaller both agreeing on a solution and writing the solution down, 2) the packaging team committing to maintaining the dnf stack so that updates are always possible; If the backend is not fully complete by alpha freeze, institute the contingency plan"
18:25:58 <mitr> sgallagher: Something like ^^
18:26:04 <sgallagher> mitr: Works for me. +1
18:26:21 <mitr> Honestly looking at this, leaving it on the agenda isn't any worse
18:26:22 <notting> +1
18:26:23 <mitr> But I can be +1
18:26:26 <mattdm> +1
18:26:42 <t8m> +1
18:26:43 <abadger1999> mitr: I see what you mean :-)  +1 though.
18:26:46 <mattdm> (also, isn't contingency plan deadline supposed to be part of the change proposal in the first plae)
18:27:00 <abadger1999> I think those are the problems that need to be addressed.
18:27:01 <nirik> weak +1
18:27:05 <mitr> mattdm: It's assumed to be beta freeze generally
18:27:15 * pjones +1
18:27:28 <mitr> The deadline really applies only to release blockers
18:27:50 <abadger1999> mitr: <nod> but now fesco can add things to the release blockers list.
18:27:54 <sgallagher> #agreed Approve the change conditional on 1) the packaging team and appinstaller both agreeing on a solution and writing the solution down, 2) the packaging team committing to maintaining the dnf stack so that updates are always possible; If the backend is not fully complete by alpha freeze, institute the contingency plan (+8, 0, 0)
18:28:11 <sgallagher> #topic Next week's chair
18:28:26 <sgallagher> Volunteers?
18:28:51 <nirik> I guess I can if no one else will. ;)
18:29:20 <sgallagher> #info nirik to chair next week
18:29:26 <sgallagher> #topic Open Floor
18:29:44 <sgallagher> I have to leave now, sorry folks. nirik, please close out the meeting.
18:29:48 <nirik> sure.
18:29:52 <nirik> Thanks sgallagher
18:29:53 <sgallagher> I'll handle the tickets later.
18:29:59 <nirik> anyone have items for open floor?
18:30:45 <nirik> I was going to send a note to devel-announce about arm excludearch: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/30652/37590115/ if anyone has wording changes or additions see me after meeting.
18:31:21 <mattdm> nirik +1 to that
18:31:54 <nirik> will close out in a minute if nothing else.
18:32:07 <mitr> nirik: perhaps link to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures
18:32:17 <nirik> mitr: good plan. will add.
18:33:07 <abadger1999> nirik: I can add the arm tracker to that section as well.
18:33:14 <nirik> please do.
18:33:21 <nirik> we could probibly drop the sparc one? ;)
18:33:53 <nirik> I guess it doesn't hurt to leave
18:33:58 <abadger1999> Possibly, does epel5 need sparc?
18:34:03 <nirik> nope.
18:34:16 <abadger1999> Okee dokee.  I'll remove it.
18:35:28 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone@!
18:35:30 <nirik> #endmeeting