18:00:35 <ajax> #startmeeting FESCO (2015-11-11)
18:00:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 11 18:00:35 2015 UTC.  The chair is ajax. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:35 <ajax> #meetingname fesco
18:00:35 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:35 <ajax> #chair ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi thozza sgallagh
18:00:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: ajax dgilmore hguemar jwb nirik paragan rishi sgallagh thozza
18:00:36 <ajax> #topic init process
18:00:41 <rishi> .hello rishi
18:00:42 <zodbot> rishi: rishi 'Debarshi Ray' <debarshir@redhat.com>
18:00:44 <nirik> .hello kevin
18:00:45 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
18:00:46 <number80> .hello hguemar
18:00:48 <kushal> .hellomynameis kushal
18:00:48 <zodbot> number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' <karlthered@gmail.com>
18:00:52 <zodbot> kushal: kushal 'Kushal Das' <mail@kushaldas.in>
18:00:56 <jwb> hi
18:00:59 <thozza> .hello thozza
18:01:01 <zodbot> thozza: thozza 'Tomas Hozza' <thozza@redhat.com>
18:01:04 <jkurik> .hello jkurik
18:01:04 <zodbot> jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' <jkurik@redhat.com>
18:01:22 <number80> ajax: you need to chair my irc nick, meetbot doesn't map irc nick/fas
18:01:34 <ajax> tsk, i do
18:01:58 * ajax edits meeting template page
18:02:13 <ajax> right, i think that's quorum.  apologies for the tz confusion last week.
18:02:25 <ajax> #topic #1278 establish Fedora Bat-Signal for ultra-critical security updates
18:02:29 <ajax> .fesco 1278
18:02:30 <zodbot> ajax: #1278 (establish Fedora Bat-Signal for ultra-critical security updates) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1278
18:02:31 <ajax> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1278
18:02:51 <jwb> is there really anything further to do here other than "yes, let's do this"?
18:02:57 <ajax> per comment #14 we're waiting for mattdm ?
18:03:02 * nirik nods
18:03:12 <number80> yup
18:03:16 <jwb> that guy is a slacker
18:03:41 <nirik> lets remove meeting keyword until it has something to discuss?
18:03:48 <ajax> wfm
18:03:49 <number80> *nods*
18:04:24 <ajax> #info Removed from meeting agenda until ticket is updated
18:04:32 <ajax> i'll do that
18:04:48 <ajax> #topic #1491 clarifications/improvements for new bundling policy
18:04:48 <ajax> .fesco 1491
18:04:48 <ajax> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1491
18:04:50 <zodbot> ajax: #1491 (clarifications/improvements for new bundling policy) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1491
18:05:09 <nirik> so, I made a wiki page for the policy we approved.
18:05:25 <nirik> should we go thru each of the proposed improment/clarifications or?
18:05:56 <ajax> it's short enough, i think
18:06:13 <number80> +1 for me
18:06:17 <jwb> yes  +1
18:06:18 <ajax> does anyone have any issues with the wordingn in that policy page?
18:06:31 * rishi reads
18:06:51 <nirik> well, the proposed changes have had some discussion. I didn't put any of them on the page yet.
18:07:23 <rishi> ajax: The Wiki page looks good to me.
18:07:59 <ajax> nirik: did that discussion have any suggestions for amendment, or...?
18:08:09 <nirik> yes. shall I go thru them one at a time?
18:08:10 <number80> honestly, the most important is there
18:08:23 <nirik> well, I think the wiki page as is is too vuage...
18:08:38 <nirik> thus asking for some clarifcations.
18:08:57 <ajax> sure, i'm just trying to work throught the wall of text in the ticket
18:09:15 <nirik> 1. Is there a time limit you should wait to hear from upstream? some people in ticket said "up to maintainer"
18:09:36 <nirik> which could lead to "I sent it friday afternoon, havent heard anything monday so lets go!"
18:09:51 <number80> up to reasonable delay
18:10:05 <nirik> sure, upstream may be completely gone, not responsive.
18:10:15 <ajax> yeah, i'd think matter of taste
18:10:28 <nirik> a week?
18:10:43 <ajax> sure, that's a fine number
18:10:51 <number80> wfm
18:11:09 <rishi> What if it's a one person  project and that person is on vacation.
18:11:20 <rishi> Trying to encode these things in a policy is tricky.
18:11:22 <nirik> yeah, there's lots of edge cases for sure.
18:12:09 <jwb> i think it's not worth codifying it.
18:12:14 <rishi> I would trust the packager and leave it at that, but I am not too hung up on this.
18:12:27 <nirik> ok.
18:12:30 <number80> since we require people to contact publicly upstream, if there's a public answer, we can always unbundle afterwards
18:13:04 * nirik looks thru the rest to see if any might have support enough to pass. ;)
18:13:05 <thozza> Seeing how people do the unresponsive maintainer recently I think they will not wait the time even if it is exactly stated
18:13:36 <number80> it must be a reasonable time
18:13:59 <thozza> To be honest I don't get it why sgallagh pushed for the change to be approved so much, when now we are still not done with it and have to clarify things. But given it has been approved I'm OK with the wiki as is.
18:14:26 <nirik> proposal: add that "the list of bundled provides is maintained by the FPC. They should handle disputes or adjustments to bundled names"
18:14:42 <rishi> nirik: Fine with me.
18:14:44 <ajax> +1
18:14:52 <number80> thozza: this topic is den of snakes, we just managed to have an agreement which didn't happen for years on that topic, that's my theory
18:14:57 <nirik> (assuming they are willing to do this. I can ask)
18:15:10 <thozza> nirik: +1
18:15:16 <number80> nirik: according our last exchanges, they were
18:15:17 * nirik is +1 for his own proposal
18:15:25 <number80> +1 (again)
18:15:47 <thozza> number80: It seemed to me that it came out of nowhere. Just my perception of it
18:15:57 <jwb> +1
18:16:11 <ajax> #approved FPC to manage bundled names list (+6 -0)
18:16:19 * nirik can add that.
18:16:29 <thozza> do we have any control mechanism to make sure people don't bundle quietly?
18:16:29 <number80> thozza: at least, I'm glad that topic *died*
18:16:29 * ajax hopes he got the # right
18:16:36 <thozza> e.g. announce the bundling somewhere?
18:16:51 <jwb> thozza: it's supposed to be documented in the spec file
18:17:08 <nirik> The only other big thing I see is the topic toward the end about bundled libs interacting with other things.
18:17:17 <thozza> jwb: so how often do you check SPEC files for packages in Fedora? :)
18:17:23 <nirik> thozza: we don't currenlty, but we could if people wanted to
18:17:50 <nirik> I don't know if there's a proposal to tease out of that...
18:17:57 <thozza> I mean something that people could just ignore most of the time, but if there is something suspicious we can at least catch it
18:18:02 <jwb> thozza: frequently for things i care about.  but people that are going to bundle quietly are going to bundle quietly regardless of whether or not they are supposed to send an email.
18:18:17 <thozza> jwb: true
18:18:32 <ajax> i'm not sure the bit not exposing provides for things in %{_libdir}/%{name} is right
18:19:01 <ajax> if you also install a file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d that can work fine
18:19:11 <thozza> I think it could be automated to generate a diff of which packages started to bundle every period of time
18:19:24 <nirik> thozza: we have shummershum now, we would need work on top of it to figure out what source files are the same accross packages and how to report that and handle approved stuff, etc.
18:19:30 <thozza> not sure if it is worth it
18:19:37 <ajax> and there's like 14 files there on my machine as it is
18:19:40 <number80> thozza: it is
18:20:03 <ajax> but, i do agree that bundled libs' sonames should be filtered out from the provides list
18:20:23 <nirik> yeah.
18:21:01 <number80> yes
18:21:25 <thozza> number80: I meant the script I mentioned.... just for clarification :)
18:21:37 <number80> ok
18:21:38 <sgallagh> OK, my proposal there was mostly just to get the conversation started. I was pretty sure it wasn't a complete solution.
18:21:53 <sgallagh> (Sorry, I'm on PTO today because my kids have no school; just got to my computer)
18:22:12 <ajax> okay, we're at 15 minutes on this
18:22:19 <nirik> perhaps that could be discussed on list...
18:22:25 <nirik> and then something hashed out there?
18:22:46 <ajax> nirik: "that"?
18:22:51 <nirik> or just some more thought on it.
18:22:54 <sgallagh> nirik: I think we could probably just go with "FESCo wants bundled libs to not be automatically listed" and let the RPM/FPC figure out the details
18:23:01 <nirik> the bundled libraries providing things they shouldn't
18:23:09 <sgallagh> *RPM/FPC folks
18:23:18 <ajax> ah, yeah.  there's a packaging doc for how to do that already i thought
18:23:47 <sgallagh> ajax: For filtering out specific things, yes.
18:23:52 <nirik> sure, although in many bundling cases it's not going to be needed.
18:23:59 <sgallagh> If we wanted to try for a better auto-detection, that's Work.
18:24:07 <nirik> (copylibs, things used at buildtime instead of runtime, etc)
18:24:15 <ajax> nah, that's easy i bet.
18:24:48 <ajax> every soname-looking Provides string with arity > 1 in the repository
18:25:29 <sgallagh> arity?
18:25:32 <ajax> count.
18:25:41 <ajax> provided by more than one package
18:25:52 <sgallagh> ajax: I meant build-time detection
18:26:04 <sgallagh> But yeah, maybe it's sufficient to detect it after-the-fact and file bugs
18:27:17 <ajax> proposal: bundled libs must be appropriately filtered from rpm Provides as documented in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering
18:27:29 <nirik> sure, +1
18:27:42 <ajax> +1 to my own
18:27:50 <rishi> +1
18:28:02 <thozza> +1
18:28:07 <sgallagh> ajax: +1
18:28:08 <jwb> +1
18:28:29 <ajax> #approved bundled libs must be appropriately filtered from rpm Provides as documented in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering (+6 -0)
18:28:39 <ajax> any other proposals about this?'
18:29:04 <nirik> well, it might be nice to define system library, but I guess that could be difficult.
18:29:28 <ajax> oh, you know one when you see one.
18:29:59 <nirik> I don't see anything else that likely would pass.... unless it's fonts, but that seems a mixed bag as well.
18:30:22 <nirik> so, I guess I am ok to close the ticket
18:30:50 <ajax> cool.  we can nail those two down as separate tickets should the issue become pressing
18:31:07 <sgallagh> /me nods
18:31:14 <nirik> sure. if others think of clarifications they can make some new proposals.
18:31:31 <ajax> #topic 1478 F24 Self Contained Changes
18:31:31 <ajax> .fesco 1478
18:31:32 <ajax> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478
18:31:33 <zodbot> ajax: #1478 (F24 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478
18:32:01 <jkurik> we have a new change: Product Definition Center
18:32:09 <sgallagh> Is this really Self-Contained?
18:32:12 <nirik> +1 here.
18:32:23 <jkurik> it affects only the way
18:32:36 <sgallagh> I'm all for it, but it's unclear if it's going to require involvement from the WGs (for example)
18:32:39 <nirik> sgallagh: it's just more to tell people it exists... it's not using it for things yet
18:32:39 <jkurik> how relened is gathering information
18:32:45 <sgallagh> ok
18:32:48 <sgallagh> +1 in either case
18:33:06 <number80> +1 for the changes in the ticket except PDC (+0)
18:33:11 <nirik> it shouldn't... unless WG's are making their own images, which would be bad. ;)
18:33:23 <ajax> +1
18:33:33 <rishi> Sure, +1
18:33:34 <number80> I'm not sure that the current implementation of PDC lives up to the expectations
18:33:40 <jwb> +1 but i still don't think this was necessary as a Change
18:33:48 <jwb> number80: how can it?  it doesn't exist yet...
18:33:57 <ajax> #approved Change is approved (+6 -0)
18:34:01 <number80> jwb: there's one somewhere
18:34:13 <jwb> in staging, which isn't complete
18:34:18 <jwb> maybe let's let them work on it.
18:34:38 <ajax> #topic 1495 Significant amount of updates when a Fedora release is made GA
18:34:41 <ajax> .fesco 1495
18:34:42 <zodbot> ajax: #1495 (Significant amount of updates when a Fedora release is made GA) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1495
18:34:44 <ajax> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1495
18:35:08 <jkurik> I openned this one to get FESCo opinion on this
18:35:17 <rishi> Proposal 1 sounds like a no-go to me.
18:35:37 <nirik> I don't think there's anything here to change.
18:35:40 <number80> I still don't get what's the problem
18:36:06 <sgallagh> I'm with nirik; it sounds like someone is trying to solve a non-problem with a worse solution :)
18:36:39 <nirik> well, the issue they have is that we have this tested thing we release, then we dump tons and tons of 0 day updates on it (which aren't tested as much).
18:37:20 <nirik> but it's the same old discussion about updates policy
18:37:21 <ajax> that "tested" property is a function of how long it takes to validate it once it's frozen though, right
18:37:24 <ajax> ?
18:37:42 <number80> yeah, but better solutions would be rings ... then it would be much easier to reduce 0day updates number
18:37:44 <nirik> yeah.
18:37:47 <ajax> so really the complaint is not "there's too much noticeable change here"
18:37:58 <ajax> it's "validation is too slow"
18:38:10 <jwb> maybe
18:38:11 <ajax> because the change rate is going to be basically constant anyway
18:38:32 <jwb> i think it's that, combined with "there is no consistent approach on how often to update and when to update" etc
18:38:33 <nirik> right, but per list, there's unlikely to ever be a time we can redo everything and fully validate it in a short time. Too many manual things
18:38:59 <sgallagh> More automated integration testing would be nice, but that's considerable work
18:39:12 <ajax> though now that i've said that i wonder what the time-series graph looks like of commit rate over, say, a year
18:39:13 <sgallagh> (Work that *is* being done, but no clear timeline)
18:39:24 <rishi> The fact that we constantly have updates coming through a hose pipe is inded an issue.
18:39:38 <rishi> There is no way that thing is every QAed or can be QAed.
18:39:41 <rishi> *ever
18:39:48 <nirik> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/releases/F23
18:40:07 <rishi> I guess the best bet is to go for an immutable core plus atomic updates.
18:40:14 <number80> sounds that we agree that the problem to solve is not the one suggested in the ticket :)
18:40:15 <rishi> Which people are already working on.
18:40:42 <ajax> number80: indeed
18:40:47 <sgallagh> number80: Ack
18:41:35 <ajax> well, in the absence of concrete proposals here, we'll just say this is something to meditate on for now
18:41:45 <sgallagh> /me nods
18:41:50 <ajax> #topic 1496 OpenH264 solution.fesco 1496
18:41:50 <ajax> .fesco 1496
18:41:51 <ajax> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1496
18:41:52 <zodbot> ajax: #1496 (OpenH264 solution) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1496
18:42:09 <nirik> so, this is anoying and messy, but thats legal stuff for you. ;(
18:42:41 <nirik> happy to answer any questions about the proposed workflow.
18:43:04 <number80> Not that we can do any better ...
18:43:13 <sgallagh> I question how useful this will be without also supporting audio codecs, but any improvement is worth something
18:43:36 <ajax> yeah, this looks fine to me
18:43:38 * rishi is quite happy/intrigued to see that Cisco has agreed to hose the RPM for us
18:43:53 <rishi> ajax: Looks good to me.
18:44:08 <rishi> sgallagh: Yeah, won't be that useful without AAC, as far as I know.
18:44:20 <rishi> *host
18:44:28 <jwb> perfect is the enemy of good or something
18:44:35 <jwb> i'm +1 for the ticket
18:44:44 <number80> Well, this could inspire other "folks" to provide us these codecs under the same agreement
18:44:48 <number80> +1
18:44:51 <sgallagh> I'm +1 for the ticket as well
18:44:58 <rishi> Yeah, +1
18:44:59 <sgallagh> Any improvement, however marginal, is still an improvement
18:45:00 <thozza> +1
18:45:08 <ajax> +1
18:45:12 <nirik> +1 here
18:45:34 <ajax> #approved Proposal is approved
18:45:39 <ajax> d'oh
18:45:44 <ajax> #approved Proposal is approved (+7 -0)
18:45:48 <ajax> great
18:46:04 <ajax> #topic Next week's chair
18:46:25 <ajax> (everyone takes one step backward)
18:46:31 * number80 travelling again next wednesday
18:46:41 <rishi> :)
18:46:52 <rishi> ajax: Ok, I'll do it.
18:46:57 <ajax> rishi: thanks
18:47:02 <ajax> #info rishi to chair next week
18:47:12 <ajax> #topic Open Floor
18:47:54 <ajax> will close in ~5 minutes if nobody has anything
18:52:02 <ajax> #endmeeting