18:03:29 <dgilmore> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-05-13) 18:03:29 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed May 13 18:03:29 2015 UTC. The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:03:29 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:03:29 <dgilmore> #meetingname fesco 18:03:29 <dgilmore> #chair ajax dgilmore jwb mitr nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh 18:03:30 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 18:03:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore jwb mitr nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza 18:03:30 <dgilmore> #topic init process 18:03:35 <sgallagh> Hello 18:03:41 <jwb> hi 18:03:45 <mitr> Hello 18:03:50 <jkurik> hi there 18:03:50 <paragan> hi 18:03:52 <nirik> morning 18:03:56 <thozza> hi all 18:04:19 <dgilmore> lets get started 18:04:20 <dgilmore> #topic #1433 provenpackager request - praiskup 18:04:20 <dgilmore> .fesco 1433 18:04:21 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1433 18:04:23 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1433 (provenpackager request - praiskup) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1433 18:04:34 * rishi is here 18:04:48 <dgilmore> I have no objections 18:04:56 <nirik> I don't know them, so cannot comment, but others seem ok with it, so happy to go along. 18:05:09 <dgilmore> nirik: I am in teh same boat really 18:05:32 <mitr> +1 18:05:40 * paragan also don't know him so have not commented in the ticket 18:06:18 <rishi> I trust thozza when he says "Pavel is a skilled packager". 18:06:20 <dgilmore> there is 4 +1 in the ticket 18:06:35 <thozza> I work with praiskup for couple of years, he maintains Autotools and works on databases and tar 18:06:44 <dgilmore> with mitr nirik and me. that is 7 18:06:54 <nirik> sure... seems fine to approve to me 18:07:04 <dgilmore> assuming that nirik's happy to go along is a +1 18:07:51 <paragan> I think those +1's are enough to get him provenpackager status 18:07:52 <nirik> yes, +1 18:09:02 * nirik can add them. 18:09:26 <dgilmore> #agreed praiskup's request to be a provenpackager is approved (+:7,-:0,0:0) 18:09:32 <dgilmore> thanks nirik 18:09:47 <dgilmore> #topic #1438 F23 System Wide Change: Mono 4 18:09:47 <dgilmore> .fesco 1438 18:09:48 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1438 18:09:48 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1438 (F23 System Wide Change: Mono 4) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1438 18:10:01 <mitr> +1 18:10:11 <dgilmore> I think this is a big possitive from where we are now 18:10:13 <dgilmore> +1 18:10:14 <jwb> there were some questions on non-x86 arches 18:10:19 <nirik> so, do we have actual people working on it? 18:10:21 <jwb> i don't think they got answered 18:10:22 <sgallagh> I've been talking with the maintainers and we've sorted most of the questions. 18:10:24 <nirik> not just people wanting it done? 18:10:30 <dgilmore> nirik: they are working on it 18:10:39 <sgallagh> jwb: last I heard, sharkcz was working on the secondary arch support with them 18:10:59 <mitr> nirik: We’ve had a similar Change request the last release as well IIRC; not sure this will get done but also no reason to stop them 18:11:02 <dgilmore> jwb: in talking to them in IRC earlier in the week they are going to do a full bootstrap and not do the bunch of version jumps 18:11:04 <nirik> ok, I'm +1 as long as there are actual people doing work on it. We had a change in the past where it was someone who wanted it, but they only filed the change and didn't do anything else. 18:11:12 <jwb> sgallagh, i saw his questions. i didn't see any follow up on the list 18:11:14 <dgilmore> that will have the benefit we can add aarch64 and ppc64le 18:11:29 <sgallagh> jwb: There was some discussion on #fedora-devel as well 18:11:29 <nirik> full bootstrap seems completely reasonable 18:11:31 <jreznik> dhorak was looking on sec arches 18:11:38 <jreznik> see his email 18:11:44 <jwb> but i don't really care if it's ready for non-x86 or not. i was just concerned at the lack of follow up. if that is happening elsewhere, then fine with me 18:11:50 <jwb> so +1 18:11:55 <dgilmore> nirik: it is being worked on, better than teh previous change 18:11:55 <sgallagh> So I'm +1 as well 18:12:01 <jreznik> jwb: there was follow up 18:12:02 <nirik> great. 18:12:06 <paragan> +1 from me as well 18:12:10 <thozza> I'm +1 18:12:12 <ajax> +1 from me 18:12:16 <nirik> +1 18:12:19 <dgilmore> I count that as 7+1 18:13:27 <rishi> +1 18:13:38 <rishi> Although I am not sure if we should ask them how they will do the update. 18:13:50 <rishi> ie. the step by step vs. direct jump to 4. 18:13:56 <rishi> Don't know if that matters. 18:14:03 <dgilmore> proposed #agreed Mono 4 change is accpeted (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:14:04 <sgallagh> rishi: That's been sorted out on an FPC ticket 18:14:14 <sgallagh> They're going to do a bootstrap using monolite from Mono 4 18:14:23 <rishi> sgallagh: Ok, that's great then. I didn't know about that. 18:14:26 <dgilmore> rishi: the direct jump to 4 is best 18:14:56 <thozza> I guess it also requires less effort 18:14:59 <dgilmore> less churn and we can add some new arches 18:15:09 <rishi> dgilmore: Ok. 18:15:14 <dgilmore> thozza: a little yeah 18:15:29 <dgilmore> it will give us a documented bootstrap process 18:15:48 <rishi> The "new arches" bit is a solid point. 18:15:52 <dgilmore> anything else? or do the accepted and move on? 18:16:04 <nirik> moveon 18:16:06 <dgilmore> #agreed Mono 4 change is accpeted (+:8,-:0,0:0) 18:16:24 <dgilmore> #topic #1440 New Spins process 18:16:24 <dgilmore> .fesco 1440 18:16:25 <dgilmore> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1440 18:16:26 <zodbot> dgilmore: #1440 (New Spins process) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1440 18:16:31 <dgilmore> I am clearly +1 18:16:51 <dgilmore> especially once mattdm sorts out the trademark portion 18:17:24 <nirik> short summary is: treat new spins like any other changes. 18:17:25 <nirik> right? 18:17:31 <dgilmore> nirik: yep 18:17:36 <nirik> +1 18:17:39 <mattdm> dgilmore: I think that even just saying "go to the council at this step in the process" will work for that, because the council _should_ at this point be functional and responsive 18:17:45 <nirik> the old process is dead and burried. 18:18:09 <dgilmore> mattdm: yeah, it will still be much better that the disfunction of today 18:18:38 <paragan> +1 to change Spins process to Changes process 18:18:40 <sgallagh> /me nods. I'm +1 to this. 18:18:41 <dgilmore> FESCo can approve the spin. if the council doesnt give trademark approval contingencies kick in 18:19:00 <rishi> Makes sense to me. +1 18:19:05 <jkurik> so there will be one more step after FESCo approves ? 18:19:08 * rishi continues reading about the trademark issue 18:19:31 <jwb> jkurik, yes 18:19:39 <dgilmore> jkurik: there are many steps after for implementation 18:19:54 <jwb> he meant for approval 18:19:55 <dgilmore> jkurik: trademark approval is one of the implementation steps 18:19:55 <jkurik> dgilmore: of course, I mean during the approval process 18:20:05 <jkurik> dgilmore: ah, ok 18:20:12 <mattdm> jkurik: I suggested adding "If the Change may require trademark approval (for example, if it is a new Spin)..." to the general change process 18:20:34 <jkurik> mattdm: ok, will do 18:20:35 <dgilmore> but yeah, we could make the trademark approval a dependent step of the Change being accepted 18:20:51 <jkurik> dgilmore: that what I was on my mind 18:20:52 <mattdm> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2015-May/004211.html 18:21:14 <rishi> mattdm: Did we hear anything from legal@ about a blanket allowance? 18:21:31 <mattdm> There are plenty of non-spin changes which could benefit from approval 18:21:46 <mattdm> rishi: not officially but general sense was that it's better to keep the council oversight 18:21:49 <rishi> Or are we going with the SIG == FESCo thing: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/spins/2015-May/004208.html 18:21:56 <rishi> mattdm: ok 18:22:11 <mattdm> rishi: that was a misreading with not enough coffee because that process still says "check with the council" :) 18:22:39 <rishi> Ok. 18:22:57 <dgilmore> we do have one new spin coming 18:23:06 <mattdm> dgilmore: Cinnamon? 18:23:09 <jkurik> yes 18:23:21 <dgilmore> mattdm: yep 18:23:34 <dgilmore> so we will have a test 18:23:49 <dgilmore> I expect that teh change will come up next week 18:24:23 <dgilmore> I am counting 4+1 18:24:47 <dgilmore> sorry i did not count me that is 5+1 18:24:48 <jwb> + 18:24:50 <jwb> er 18:24:51 <jwb> +1 18:24:57 <thozza> +1 18:25:29 <dgilmore> is there any extra details people feel we need to sort out? 18:25:49 <thozza> dgilmore: WRT this ticket? 18:25:58 <dgilmore> thozza: yes 18:26:41 <mitr> Is this implicitly punting on the proposal to do the process in a dedicated trac instance? 18:26:54 <dgilmore> proposed #agreed Spins to be treated as any other change accepted (+:7,-:0,0:0) 18:27:12 <dgilmore> mitr: I guess so yes 18:27:14 <jwb> mitr, i really hope so 18:27:29 <jkurik> question: should we treat Spins as System wide changes ? 18:27:33 <dgilmore> since they would file a Change in teh wiki and track progress in a bug 18:27:36 <mitr> OK, just wanted to make sure there is nothing outstanding in the ticket. 18:28:00 <dgilmore> jkurik: ehh, they just effect themselves 18:28:19 <jkurik> dgilmore: ok, thanks 18:29:00 <dgilmore> jkurik: they do need to work with releng to have it built, but that should be covered by it being a new deliverable 18:29:35 <dgilmore> if no one has anything else. I will accept it 18:29:42 <jkurik> dgilmore: clear 18:29:46 <dgilmore> #agreed Spins to be treated as any other change accepted (+:7,-:0,0:0) 18:30:02 <dgilmore> #topic Next week's chair 18:30:14 <dgilmore> who wants to run the meeting next week? 18:30:37 <ajax> i will 18:30:48 <dgilmore> ajax: thanks 18:31:14 <dgilmore> #info ajax to chair next week's meeting 18:31:24 <dgilmore> #topic Open Floor 18:31:37 <dgilmore> Does anyone have anything they want to raise? 18:31:51 <ajax> not i 18:32:11 <thozza> I would like to ask if there was any previous discussion on FESCo WRT presets being moved from systemd package? 18:32:48 <dgilmore> thozza: not that I remeber 18:32:49 <thozza> or if there is any real opposition to this? 18:33:07 <mitr> thozza: Once or twice, yes, and the general consensus was that it would make sense. 18:33:09 <dgilmore> thozza: where would we put them? fedora-release? 18:33:17 <ajax> and in fact, i gotta run 18:33:18 <mitr> Not sure what the exact keywords to look that up would be 18:33:34 <thozza> dgilmore: that is one of the candidates I think 18:33:35 <nirik> I think the systemd folks actually have asked and would be happy to have them moved... 18:33:37 <dgilmore> I am not opposed 18:33:41 <nirik> but I can't recall when that was 18:34:01 <mitr> nirik: yes 18:34:04 <thozza> nirik: they did, I talked with them and they are fine with it 18:34:07 <dgilmore> thozza: we do have some preset files in the -server and -workstation subpackages 18:34:35 <dgilmore> thozza: so i guess given that it makes sense to move it into fedora-release 18:35:05 <rishi> If the systemd people are OK with it and the general consensus matches that, then I don't see a reason not to do this. 18:35:17 <thozza> they are 18:35:24 <thozza> I can create a bug for it 18:35:58 <nirik> sounds fine 18:36:00 <dgilmore> thozza: okay. we can get it implemented in rawhide 18:36:08 <thozza> great 18:37:26 <thozza> I have one more topic to discuss, regarding timer units, but I can create a ticket for it 18:37:41 <dgilmore> thozza: sounds good thanks 18:37:53 <dgilmore> if there is nothing else I will close up the meeting 18:39:14 <rishi> Nothing from me. 18:39:32 <dgilmore> #endmeeting