18:00:39 <mmaslano> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-11-27) 18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 18:00:39 2013 UTC. The chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:44 <mmaslano> #meetingname fesco 18:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:00:49 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting nirik pjones t8m sgallagh 18:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:01:17 * nirik is sort of here, but dealing with an outage 18:01:21 <mmaslano> t8m appologies from meeting 18:01:28 <mmaslano> how many people are here? 18:02:11 <mitr> Hello 18:02:15 <mattdm> i am 18:02:29 <mmaslano> sgallagh: ? 18:02:40 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh 18:02:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com> 18:02:49 <mmaslano> 5 people 18:02:56 <mmaslano> it's a meeting 18:03:04 <mmaslano> #topic init process 18:03:40 <mmaslano> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this? 18:03:44 <mmaslano> .fesco 1193 18:03:45 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1193 (reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193 18:03:51 <mmaslano> not sure about status of this one 18:04:05 <mmaslano> imho nothing is happening 18:04:13 <sgallagh> I think we were waiting on someone to update the Change page with the actual implementation 18:04:21 <mattdm> we were looking for changes to the feature page and release notes. 18:04:30 <mattdm> also something in the release notes. 18:04:32 <sgallagh> Shall we ping Richard again? 18:04:58 <mmaslano> preferably not in the ticket 18:05:01 <mmaslano> he didn't reply there 18:05:11 * abadger1999 here 18:06:47 <mmaslano> who shall ping him? 18:07:26 <mattdm> I -think- jreznik was going to? 18:07:41 <mmaslano> jreznik: ? 18:08:05 <nirik> actually from last meeting: 18:08:09 * nirik mattdm to contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes 18:08:11 <nirik> :) 18:08:38 <mattdm> oooohh. 18:08:40 * jreznik can re-check and there's follow up to be announced 18:08:42 <mattdm> okay sorry :) 18:08:47 <mattdm> I will do it. 18:09:08 <mmaslano> #action mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and release notes 18:09:21 <mmaslano> #topic #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default 18:09:25 <mmaslano> .fesco 1185 18:09:27 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1185 (Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1185 18:10:44 <nirik> so, not sure there's more to do here for us.... ? 18:11:11 <mmaslano> sgallagh had last comment there 18:11:36 <mmaslano> from last meeting: wait a week for devel feedback (from people already interested); 2) if there are no show-stoppers identified, mass file bugs; 3) 3 weeks later, enable in rawhide configuration by default 18:11:43 <mmaslano> it's a week, so no action 18:11:59 <sgallagh> So I think we just need to vote: okay to mass-file at this point? 18:12:04 <sgallagh> Sorry... 18:12:12 <mitr> Yes, +1 to start filing bugs 18:12:13 <sgallagh> Proposal: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs 18:12:17 <nirik> not much more feedback on devel list I don't think... so I think change owners can move forward on 2) and 3) 18:12:17 <sgallagh> +1 18:12:49 <mmaslano> +1 to mass file bugs 18:12:53 <nirik> sure, +1, but they should make sure not to file against the already fixed ones. 18:14:04 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ? 18:14:12 <sgallagh> nirik: Worst-case, they get closed immediately. I'm not too sure I want to force them to do another mass-rebuild just to limit the bug-filing 18:14:15 <abadger1999> +1 18:14:35 <nirik> well, it's not really mass... it's the 300... but whatever. 18:14:48 <mmaslano> #agreed Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0) 18:15:06 <abadger1999> nirik: Agreed 18:15:27 <mmaslano> #info Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those already fixed 18:15:36 <mmaslano> #topic #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure 18:15:40 <mmaslano> .fesco 1198 18:15:41 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1198 (Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198 18:16:13 <mattdm> i need to retest this. 18:16:35 <mattdm> I haven't had a chance, though. Vote to defer until more testing is done. 18:16:42 <mattdm> Because _something_ definitely isn't right. 18:16:51 <nirik> fair enough 18:17:28 <mmaslano> #info defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it again 18:17:43 <mattdm> at LISA I had someone show me bugs he couldn't reopen. saw with my own eyes. 18:18:03 <mmaslano> mattdm: ok, please continue 18:18:07 <mmaslano> in testing :) 18:18:10 <mmaslano> #topic #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17 18:18:14 <mmaslano> .fesco 1140 18:18:15 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1140 (F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1140 18:18:38 <nirik> I think this can be closed after the agreed from last week 18:18:47 <nirik> unless there's new info? 18:19:10 <mmaslano> it's not clear from the last comment 18:19:45 <sgallagh> I left it open mainly for us to keep track of it 18:19:47 <mmaslano> should I close it and it's up to QA? 18:19:54 <sgallagh> mmaslano: That's probably fine 18:20:03 <mmaslano> sgallagh: you know what happens to open tickets like this 18:20:05 <nirik> +1 close. 18:20:15 <sgallagh> mmaslano: They waste time in this meeting? :) 18:20:20 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close the old ticket 18:20:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1201 Enabling third party repositories 18:20:37 <mmaslano> .fesco 1201 18:20:38 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1201 (Enabling third party repositories) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201 18:21:55 <sgallagh> The only question that was asked received a prompt answer. 18:22:05 <mattdm> okay, so, that's: okay for coprs. 18:22:17 <mmaslano> spot answered in the ticket: I see no legal issue with a copr including a "repo" rpm that enables that copr on a user's system, assuming, of course, that the copr is in compliance with the legal rules binding coprs. 18:22:35 <mattdm> I'm pretty happy with agreeing to _that_ reduced subset: repo files for COPRs can be shipped in RPMs. 18:22:47 <mmaslano> I'll speak to Mirek tomorrow and close this ticket 18:22:55 <mmaslano> I guess there are no more issues to solve here 18:23:01 <sgallagh> mattdm: But only in RPMs served outside the main Fedora repos 18:23:12 <mmaslano> sure 18:23:19 <sgallagh> just to be clear 18:23:37 * nirik is still confused. 18:23:38 <mitr> I've generally assumed that the primary case here was things like Chrome, Flash and the like, not COPRs 18:24:06 <sgallagh> mitr: I take away from this that Fedora repos cannot ship repo files pointing outside of Fedora repos. 18:24:06 <abadger1999> nirik: I think what spot answered was "the way coprs currently operates is fine" 18:24:10 <nirik> those repo files for copr repos, are shipped in rpms in the copr right? or are you positing they are in fedora itself? 18:24:11 <mattdm> sgallagh Yes. Although I'm also okay in principle with the larger (still reduced) case of including COPRs-repo-rpms in main fedora repos. 18:24:11 <sgallagh> (Yo dawg...) 18:24:41 <mmaslano> mitr: yeah, but legal said no if I remeber 18:24:42 <sgallagh> nirik: The ruling is that they may not be shipped from Fedora[-updates] repos 18:24:42 <mattdm> COPRs is Fedora (Project) but not Fedora (Distribution). 18:24:48 <abadger1999> He was not asked about whether having the copr yum repos be shipped inside of the Fedora Main Repos would be okay. 18:24:55 <nirik> mattdm: that gets back to adding a burden on legal 18:25:02 <nirik> ok, fine. 18:25:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: so this will be the next question :) 18:25:09 <sgallagh> abadger1999: That was the EXACT question I posed. 18:25:15 <sgallagh> Did I phrase it ambiguously? 18:25:19 <abadger1999> sgallagh: yes. 18:25:37 <abadger1999> Well -- let me verify... I know that spot answered a different question than that. 18:25:42 <sgallagh> "Specifically, does this mean: On a pristine installed system, I cannot do 'yum install package-providing-repo-for-a-copr'" 18:25:56 <nirik> It wasn't clear to me. 18:25:59 <mattdm> proposal: rephrase that question, wait until next week. 18:26:05 * sgallagh sighs 18:26:16 <nirik> yum install http://copr.whatever/foo-copr.rpm 18:26:18 <mattdm> on rereading it looks clear to me but obviously it isn't to everyone. 18:26:30 <mitr> mattdm: ... and ask jwb whether the answer is relevant to the Workstation WG 18:26:30 <mmaslano> sgallagh: only one question per comment, otherwise it's confusing ;-) 18:26:40 <abadger1999> sgallagh: ah here's where things got ambiguous: 18:26:49 <abadger1999> Right after that example you said: "Or does it also mean that COPR cannot provide an RPM for a particular repo. " 18:27:04 <abadger1999> sgallagh: That's the question that spot answered. 18:27:10 <nirik> I think it might be more clear to list out specific examples. 18:27:16 * sgallagh facepalms 18:27:36 <sgallagh> Ok, someone gooder with words than me should do that. 18:27:55 <mattdm> Okay go abadger1999 :) 18:28:03 <abadger1999> haha :-) 18:28:06 <mmaslano> sgallagh: not me, I understand I can install copr repo and it can be shipped :) 18:28:15 <abadger1999> Okay, I can rephrase sgallagh's question. 18:28:41 <sgallagh> Thank you 18:28:42 <abadger1999> If other people have questions, please add those to the ticket yourselves :-) 18:28:44 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot answer 18:29:07 <mattdm> On the rest of the question, do we ant to say something about a) the proprietary repos and/or b) non-COPRs free-software repos? 18:29:26 <mmaslano> I guess Workstation WG asked first 18:29:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: I interpreted this to mean that COPRs and non-COPRs free-software repos should be treated equivalently 18:30:18 <mattdm> As I understood it there is a difference because we already have some responsibility over COPRs repos 18:30:19 <mmaslano> if they obey Fedora licensing 18:31:05 <nirik> mattdm: but no one is reviewing that unless someone reports a problem. 18:31:17 <sgallagh> Well, if we assume the ruling is "Fedora distribution cannot ship repo files for COPRs and other external repos", then this is a moot point 18:31:21 <abadger1999> mattdm: My impression from talking with spot at FPC is that COPR is included in "other third party repos" in terms of Fedora Legal having to vette the packages within them in an on-going manner. 18:31:52 <mattdm> okay, so, let's wait until that is answered then. 18:32:06 <sgallagh> Or add your question as a corrolary on the bug 18:32:06 <abadger1999> mattdm: But -- repos with proprietary software are even more work for Fedora Legal to vette than other third party repositories. 18:32:30 <sgallagh> abadger1999: He said "free software" 18:32:46 <abadger1999> So... it may be easier for Fedora Legal to vette Copr repos than, say, the adobe flash repo but it would still be a lot of extra work. 18:33:25 * nirik isnt sure question 2 of the orig ticket was really answered 18:33:59 <nirik> "Can products make third party repositories discoverable via search terms in some fashion and easily enabled without actually shipping the .repo files" 18:34:09 <abadger1999> sgallagh: he == spot? I was just replying to mattdm's "a) the proprietary repos". 18:34:34 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Ah sorry. Missed the a) portion there. Carry on. 18:35:59 <nirik> I guess the 'putting them in docdir' was answered... not sure how else the 'search terms' would work. 18:36:09 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah, I don't think that was directly addressed -- it seems like it's trying to define a boundary in a big grey zone, though, so it may need to be more specific (have an example). 18:36:30 <nirik> yeah, if so we should ask the workstation wg for examples. ;) 18:37:09 <mitr> nirik: GNOME software would be a likely place 18:37:42 <nirik> mitr: sure, but how? 18:38:08 <abadger1999> I think the limits of "discoverable" and "search terms" probably could get us into contirbutory infringement territory. 18:38:10 <mitr> nirik: ... who cares? appdata, /usr/share/gnome-software/something, hardcoded in the binary, what does it matter? 18:38:36 <nirik> mitr: see above. 18:38:43 <nirik> if we point to specific things, legal has to vet them 18:38:55 <abadger1999> So someone probably needs to say "This is how it would operate" and then Legal could say "that is fine" or "that is not fine". 18:39:06 <nirik> right 18:40:29 <nirik> anyhow, lets move on? I or abadger1999 can ask them for more examples? 18:40:39 <sgallagh> Yes please (to both) 18:40:58 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal 18:41:06 <mmaslano> #topic #1207 provenpackager request 18:41:13 <mmaslano> .fesco 1207 18:41:14 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1207 (provenpackager request) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1207 18:41:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: uh... 18:41:45 <abadger1999> I don't think I can sign up for more than rephrasing sgallagh's question. 18:41:54 <mmaslano> abadger1999: fine by me 18:42:30 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can fight about questions later in the ticket 18:42:55 <mmaslano> Michal Srb, I guess we only approve, no -1 in the ticket 18:42:56 <abadger1999> This second part of the question I'm pretty sure Legal will want to know the specifics of what we want to do is and that's something I odn't know the answer to. 18:43:57 <nirik> mmaslano: yeah, auto approve on this one. 18:44:08 <sgallagh> +1 approve (as noted in the ticket) 18:44:30 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval 18:44:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1208 Request Proven Packager 18:44:39 <mmaslano> .fesco 1208 18:44:40 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1208 (Request Proven Packager) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1208 18:45:14 <nirik> not enough +1's... 18:45:18 * nirik looks 18:45:29 <mmaslano> tstclair 18:45:50 <mmaslano> do we have some minimal +1's? 18:45:54 <mmaslano> I see only +2 18:46:07 * mattdm looks 18:46:26 <mattdm> +1 18:46:31 <sgallagh> other members of the SIG for which he wants provenpackager seem to support it. 18:46:35 <nirik> +1 from me... I've not talked to tstclair in a while, but I recall condor packaging is good. 18:46:35 <sgallagh> I'm +1 on those grounds. 18:47:27 <abadger1999> Has commit on 7 packages: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/tstclair?acls=owner&acls=approveacls&acls=commit 18:48:09 <abadger1999> mmaslano: You must get at least 3 positive votes with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be automatically approved. 18:48:13 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy 18:48:40 <mmaslano> he wrote: I'm requesting proven packager status is to coordinate updates with maintainers of the dependency tree. 18:48:47 <mmaslano> how many packages is there? 18:49:03 <mmaslano> is it worth of provenpackager? 18:49:41 <abadger1999> there were no -1's in ticket so really.. we don't need fesco to vote in full, mattdm and nirik's +1 could count towards the "3 positive votes" if they want. 18:49:50 <nirik> right, true. 18:50:15 <mattdm> should i put my +1 in the ticket? does that help? 18:50:24 <nirik> sure. 18:50:36 <abadger1999> mattdm: yeah do that and then we'll just do automatic approval. 18:50:50 <nirik> mmaslano: I can close both those tickets and add the users... 18:50:55 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks 18:51:13 <mmaslano> #action nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to those users 18:51:34 <mmaslano> #topic Next week's chair 18:52:45 <sgallagh> Don't all volunteer at once... 18:53:27 <mitr> I'm not sure I'll be here next week 18:53:39 <mmaslano> we can volunteer someone who's not here... 18:54:05 * mattdm looks at calendar 18:54:19 <mattdm> okay I can do it :) 18:55:42 <mmaslano> #action mattdm wil be chairman next week 18:55:49 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor 18:57:29 * nirik has nothing 18:57:32 <mmaslano> nothing? 18:57:38 <mmaslano> I will close the meeting in 3 minutes 18:57:39 <mattdm> *crickets chirp* 18:57:40 <sgallagh> I had something, but I can't bring it to mind. 18:57:49 <sgallagh> I'll post on the list if it turns out to have been important... 18:57:55 <mmaslano> crickets died in the snow... 18:58:02 <abadger1999> sgallagh: you were going to wish everyone a happy holiday season ;-) 18:58:12 <sgallagh> Well, that goes without saying! :) 18:59:32 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Close now and we'll have kept to an hour :) 18:59:44 <mmaslano> fine 18:59:50 <mmaslano> #endmeeting