17:01:12 #startmeeting FESCO (2016-02-26) 17:01:12 Meeting started Fri Feb 26 17:01:12 2016 UTC. The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:01:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:01:12 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-02-26)' 17:01:12 #meetingname fesco 17:01:12 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:01:12 #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh 17:01:12 Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh 17:01:15 #topic init process 17:01:17 .hello jsmith 17:01:18 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 17:01:19 morning. 17:01:19 hello 17:01:20 .hello maxamillion 17:01:22 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 17:01:25 .hello pnemade 17:01:26 paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' 17:01:26 .hello jkurik 17:01:28 jkurik: jkurik 'Jan Kurik' 17:01:34 .hello hguemar 17:01:35 number80: hguemar 'Haïkel Guémar' 17:01:40 .hello sgallagh 17:01:43 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 17:02:34 #topic #1550 F24 approved Changes not in MODIFIED status (considered as not testable) 17:02:37 .fesco 1550 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550 17:02:37 dgilmore: Error: '1550 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550' is not a valid integer. 17:02:39 lets get started 17:02:49 .fesco 1550 17:02:50 dgilmore: #1550 (F24 approved Changes not in MODIFIED status (considered as not testable)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550 17:02:56 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550 17:03:23 .link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&classification=Fedora&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cversion%2Cbug_status%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Ckeywords%2Cflagtypes.name&f1=status_whiteboard&list_id=4694481&o1=anywords&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=ChangeAcceptedF24&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&v1=SystemWideChange%20SelfContainedChange 17:03:36 sgallagh: uggh my eyes 17:03:43 that is quite the url 17:03:45 less than yesterday. ;) 17:03:55 for GHC 7.10 there is already a comment that it is not completed 17:04:20 rpmdb says its not ready 17:04:23 yes less that yesterday 17:04:36 dgilmore: Sorry, wanted the full URL in the notes, though 17:04:45 sgallagh: its not useable 17:04:54 sgallagh: at least here 17:04:56 it's easy to click on. ;) 17:05:04 Layered Docker Image Build Service is mine, it's like 90% ish done ... I'm basically at the phase of getting things in Fedora Infra Ansible, deploy and test to make sure it all works out in the Fedora Infra ... but since it's not yet able to be tested right now I didn't know if I should leave it or set it to MODIFIED 17:05:07 .tiny https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&classification=Fedora&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cversion%2Cbug_status%2Cresolution%2Cshort_desc%2Ckeywords%2Cflagtypes.name&f1=status_whiteboard&list_id=4694481&o1=anywords&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&status_whiteboard=ChangeAcceptedF24&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&v1=SystemWideChange%20SelfContainedChange 17:05:08 nirik: http://tinyurl.com/hsvltrs 17:05:17 thanks zodbot 17:05:18 may be my irc client, its broken into multiple lines 17:05:18 :) 17:05:22 I'm fine with granting systemd and layered docker image a delay 17:05:22 GHC 7.10 and NewRpmDBFormat were postponed and I already removed these from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet 17:05:37 dgilmore: Ah, my client probably auto-split it for length. 17:05:43 GNOME 3.20 is low-risk 17:06:03 I'd like to hear about anaconda status 17:06:11 number80: Look at the updated list 17:06:14 It's very short 17:06:15 number80: what list are you looking at? 17:06:29 on the ticket 17:06:33 lets go through them one by one 17:06:43 maxamillion: do you know about the layered image service? 17:06:50 number80: there was an URL posted with the updated list --> http://tinyurl.com/hsvltrs 17:06:51 number80: the bug link in teh ticket has an updated list 17:07:02 jwb: yes, I just talked about it like 15 lines back in the irc backlog 17:07:15 jwb: I also updated the bugzilla entry about it 17:07:17 NewRPMDBFormat says it is not ready as default and will be a tech preview 17:07:18 oh, i'm terrible. it was hiding behind the ugly urc 17:07:19 url 17:07:20 maxamillion: yes, but I was speaking about stuff not in this list 17:07:24 jwb: :D 17:07:30 number80: oh, fair 17:07:49 so i am okay relegating rpm DB to tech preview 17:07:53 maxamillion: you did document the ticket about layered image and I'm fine with delay 17:07:59 number80: stop 17:08:08 we will get to it 17:08:16 ack 17:08:28 first up we are looking at the rpm DB change 17:08:30 dgilmore: did you see jkurik's note? those two were remove 17:08:35 [10:05:22] GHC 7.10 and NewRpmDBFormat were postponed and I already removed these from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet 17:08:39 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303542 17:08:44 * maxamillion is so confused 17:08:51 nirik: its in the bug list 17:08:52 really there's 3 left 17:08:59 yes 17:09:19 okay skipping rpm db and GHC 17:09:26 NueroFedora 17:09:28 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301529 17:09:37 huh ... Tim Waugh is listed as the Layered Image Build Service Owner ... I wonder if he knows that 17:09:48 maxamillion: STOP 17:09:49 I'm not sure looking at this what NeuroFedora was going to do... 17:10:02 add packages 17:10:06 i don't think we need to do anythign here 17:10:10 ignatenkobrain is not here 17:10:15 I just updated https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1550#comment:3 to reflect the current status 17:10:21 I think we say please try again in F25 17:11:05 proposal remove NueroFedora from the list for F24 and ask them to try make F25 17:11:09 i'm fine with that but it doesn't really mean anything 17:11:24 +0 17:11:41 (It can be achieved in time as much as it can't) 17:11:55 number80: its supposed to be testable now 17:11:58 It's just a bunch of packages, and it's likely that they'll be reviewed before F24 is released. 17:12:07 afaict there has been nothing done 17:12:14 * nirik wishes the change actually listed them 17:12:16 Then they can get promoted in F25 17:12:28 dgilmore: it's just a bunch of packages, but I'm definitively not -1 17:12:30 I added the link to the tracker bug a few minutes ago: 17:12:37 I'm +1 to deferring this Change. That doesn't stop the packages from landing, just our involvement in promoting it 17:12:41 number80: does not matter 17:12:54 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276941 17:12:54 this is one of those things that really don't fit the Change process well to begin with. we add new packages to existing branches all the time. none of this matters. 17:13:17 if they want to be recognized as a SIG, then great. they can be at any time. 17:13:27 zbyszek: thanks. 17:13:31 jwb: +1 17:13:32 It's just a matter of marketing 17:13:37 I think the goal here is mainly to get into the promotional chatter. 17:13:41 Changes are not marketing. 17:14:11 jwb: not at all? 17:14:25 jwb: they are not, but we do use them to get the list of things to advertise 17:14:27 jwb: marketing relies on list changes for press releases, so that impact their work 17:14:49 dgilmore: then we've repeated the failure with Features and negated the entire reason we started calling them Chagnes in the first place 17:14:53 so good job us! 17:15:06 jwb: go us 17:15:12 * jwb is so fed up with this that he's going to just be quiet 17:15:39 +1 to dgilmore proposal (so we could focus on more important topics) 17:15:51 +1 to dgilmore proposal 17:15:56 Regardless of that distinction, the Change is clearly not ready and therefore should have its Contingency Plan engaged 17:15:57 * nirik looks for that 17:15:58 So +1 17:16:01 +1 to dgilmore proposal 17:16:12 sure, +1, lets move on 17:16:39 +1, move on... 17:16:41 #accepted remove NueroFedora from the list for F24 and ask them to try make F25 (6,0,0) 17:16:54 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243736 17:17:04 Layered Docker Image 17:17:29 proposal: review this change in one or two weeks time 17:17:35 +1 17:17:40 it's almost done and little impact on release 17:17:46 +1 (obviously) 17:17:47 +1 to number80's proposal 17:17:54 sure, +1 17:17:56 +1 (can I +1 my own Change?) 17:18:16 #accepted review this change in one or two weeks time (5,0,0) 17:18:20 +1 17:18:20 +1 17:18:23 maxamillion: yes 17:18:24 (sorry, late) 17:18:26 #undo 17:18:26 Removing item from minutes: ACCEPTED by dgilmore at 17:18:16 : review this change in one or two weeks time (5,0,0) 17:18:30 #accepted review this change in one or two weeks time (7,0,0) 17:18:32 jwb: good to know, thanks 17:18:44 last one 17:18:45 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288082 17:18:48 systemd split 17:19:09 I'm in favour to grant a similar delay to zbyszek 17:19:14 +1 17:19:19 +1 to similar delay 17:19:21 +1 17:19:23 number80: +1 17:19:25 +1 17:19:29 +1 17:19:39 the compose process is function, if a little manual right now 17:19:42 +1 17:19:51 zbyszek: I trust you to provide us a progress status :) 17:19:56 but waiting on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308771 I am okay with 17:20:28 number80: yeah... the changes are really simply, I'm mostly afraid of unexpected fallout 17:20:34 simple 17:20:39 ack 17:20:41 #accepted review again in one to two weeks, before Alpha change freeze (7,0,0) 17:21:53 zbyszek: I really want to see it get in before Alpoha change freeze 17:21:59 ack 17:22:07 if not it will have to come after alpha 17:22:16 as it would not meet any release criteria 17:22:35 #topic Next week's chair 17:22:44 who wants to run things next week 17:22:54 I can 17:23:17 #action number80 to run next weeks meeting 17:23:26 thanks number80 17:23:27 #topic Open Floor 17:23:34 btw: I am on PTO the next week, so any formalities with Changes will need to wait till March 7th/8th 17:23:35 does anyone have anything? 17:23:40 yes 17:23:44 #info I will be traveling next week so will miss the meeting. 17:23:47 * zbyszek would like to return to the privacy policy update question 17:23:52 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy still says that "Fedora collects personal information when: you create a user account" 17:24:02 jkurik: ack 17:24:13 I have something for open floor 17:24:18 jwb: 17:24:30 zbyszek: please wait until after jwb 17:24:42 just a note that today is the day that all of cicuk's packages need to be orphaned 17:24:50 true 17:24:50 nirik: i hate to put you on the spot but can you do so? 17:25:09 yep. I can... I don't guess anyone has heard from him? 17:25:16 i certainly have not 17:25:27 same goes for me 17:25:28 fortunately, a number of them look to be pre-claimed 17:25:30 me too not heard anything from him 17:25:44 #info no one has heard from cicku, all of his packages will be orphaned 17:26:02 #action nirik to complete teh orphaning 17:26:24 sgallagh: is yours small? or should we let zbyszek go first 17:26:45 Possibly not. Go ahead zbyszek 17:27:06 So... the privacy policy still hasn't been updated 17:27:23 It is the page linked from gnome dialogue window 17:27:35 remind me where we said it needed to be updated? 17:27:40 zbyszek: As I understand it, the privacy policy covers contributions to fedora and Fedora does collect some personal information 17:27:45 jwb: +1 17:27:45 zbyszek: so it is true 17:28:05 No, it was agreed to be changed, pfrields was working on it, but it got stalled. 17:28:14 where was it agreed? 17:28:20 and what were the changes? 17:28:21 zbyszek: thats not something we control afaik 17:28:38 Yeah, that comes from Fedora Legal 17:28:41 actually, i would propose we delay this and let zbyszek bring this up as an official topic next week 17:28:42 When PRIVACY_POLICY_URL=https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:PrivacyPolicy was added to /usr/lib/os-release 17:28:43 yeah, this might be a Council thing ... or Legal 17:28:47 so we can get the background information again 17:28:55 because doing this piecemeal isn't going to work 17:29:01 jwb: I agree 17:29:02 And we do collect personal information; you at least need an email address 17:29:03 jwb: +1 17:29:15 zbyszek: can you please file a ticket and add the meeting keyword 17:29:26 And you are at least asked for a real name (though not everyone supplies it) 17:29:37 dgilmore: For FESCo or Council? 17:29:47 zbyszek: I would say council 17:29:49 and you are asked for a phone number 17:29:49 zbyszek: i'd suggest Council 17:29:54 +Council 17:29:59 its above FESCo's pay grade 17:30:05 zbyszek: please give as much background on the agreement and prior discussions in the ticket 17:30:14 OK. 17:30:22 thank you 17:30:26 you might touch base with stickster too if he was working on it... 17:30:27 thanks 17:30:36 sgallagh: what did you have? 17:30:46 thanks 17:31:01 * jwb notes that stickster is AFK this afternoon 17:31:22 So, we need to follow up on the Mozilla situation, I think. 17:31:33 (I probably should have re-added the meeting keyword, but I forgot) 17:31:48 It has been a full month without a meaningful reply 17:31:48 any news? 17:31:50 did we hear back from them? 17:32:02 (Except for the initial one where they promised a complete response within 24 hours) 17:32:14 I've been pinging them weekly since then, to completely dead air. 17:32:39 That's disappointing... 17:32:42 At this point, I'm coming to the conclusion that they are not willing to work with us. 17:32:42 sad 17:32:56 ping them one more time and suggest we'll post our initial email as an open letter 17:32:59 so we ship iceweasl? 17:32:59 that's both odd and unfortunate 17:33:06 jwb: +1 17:33:14 jwb: I think that's fair 17:33:16 jwb: +1 17:33:16 jwb: That's a reasonable approach, I suppose. 17:33:18 jwb: +1 17:33:21 dgilmore: this should be our fallback solution 17:33:21 "we prefer to work on this collaboratively in private, but if we really cannot do so we'll need to get a broader audience." 17:33:30 jwb: +1 17:33:41 jwb, +1 17:33:47 Yeah, I will do that. Should we give them a time-limit? 17:33:55 sgallagh: yes 17:33:57 also, we need to run it past the Council 17:34:00 sgallagh: I would 17:34:05 i.e. we will post the open letter if they don't respond before the next FESCo meeting? 17:34:08 dgilmore: also, icecat is already in Fedora 17:34:19 before we post any open letter as some kind of official Fedora statement 17:34:25 sgallagh: Assuming the Council can sign off on it that quickly, yes. 17:34:36 sgallagh: I'd probably go for a deadline of March 10th 17:34:38 Council meetings are Mondays, right? 17:34:42 Yup 17:34:53 Let's ask for it to get on the agenda for this week, then. 17:35:20 If we don't get meaningful answer by then, I also would like us to vote to promote iceweasel (if council allows us) 17:35:28 and not waiting more 17:35:33 sgallagh: should be easy. monday's meeting is open floor 17:35:50 number80: what does promote mean 17:36:07 jwb: making iceweasel default browser in fedora in replacement of firefox 17:36:07 and can someone please tell me if it's iceweasle or icecat? 17:36:10 and do we have someone packaging it? 17:36:13 i'm not fesco, but i'd like to add this info http://news.softpedia.com/news/debian-finally-switches-iceweasel-name-back-to-firefox-500966.shtml 17:36:15 Do we want to actually figure out the contingency plan today? 17:36:17 /me is not sure about that. 17:36:20 because people keep using them interchangably but i don't believe they are 17:36:28 icecat 17:36:43 icecat = based on the long term release 17:36:45 jwb: iceweasel and icecat both exist 17:36:55 iceweasel = debranded firefox based on the current firefox 17:36:56 Except Iceweasel is going away now 17:37:06 I thought IceCat replaces Iceweasel 17:37:28 icecat-38.6.0-1.fc24.x86_64 17:37:33 ew 17:37:36 firefox-44.0.2-3.fc24.x86_64 17:37:37 icecat is GNU version without access to mozilla addon page and other changes 17:37:43 no, i wouldn't support icecat as the default 17:38:05 right, and follows the long term release cycles, not the normal release. 17:38:16 proposal: if Mozilla doesn't provide a meaningful answer we can work on, and no veto from council, vote on promoting icecat as Fedora default's browser after the deadline given to Mozilla 17:38:25 it also has things like prefs for not running non free js and other stuff 17:38:31 -1 17:38:39 -1 17:38:49 I don't think we should release F24 with such uncertainty 17:39:06 i think releasing f24 with something so old is ridiculous 17:39:08 but we can discuss this later 17:39:13 I'm not sure deciding now based on a bunch of whatifs is good. 17:39:22 -1 17:39:24 and i think we have time. and i think we can deal with default browser later 17:39:28 nirik: I agree 17:39:31 number80: -1 17:39:36 let's work the issue instead of shooting from the hip 17:39:37 Well, I'd like to have a decision before beta 17:39:44 Yes, definitely before Beta 17:39:49 I guess the least bad thing IMHO might be a iceweasel... but we would need people to package and maintain it. 17:40:07 * number80 drop proposal 17:40:09 (which will be hard since debian isn't going to have it moving forward) 17:40:20 fedbrowser 17:40:21 nirik: Not true 17:40:22 yay. 17:40:32 sgallagh: oh? 17:40:35 nirik: They're still maintaining their fork, they are just allowed to call it Firefox no 17:40:36 *now 17:40:48 jwb: :) 17:41:02 they are forking it for architecture reasons. they are not removing the functionality that fedora is trying to work with mozilla on 17:41:04 sure, but they won't have the debranding stuff, etc. 17:41:12 therefore whatever debian is still doing is not suitable for us to use 17:41:17 Right 17:41:31 and man how ironic it is that debian moves to firefox and we move to iceweasel. ;) 17:41:32 which means iceweasel isn't an option, whether it exists or not 17:41:43 so let's not get hung up on it 17:41:52 *nods* 17:42:19 Hopefully Debian and others will come to our aid if we have to go publicly on offensive about this situation 17:42:45 I think we would want to reach out to our contacts in Debian, Suse and other distros that care about user freedoms 17:43:11 sgallagh: +1 17:43:13 i think the Council is the body to do so, if Fedora wishes to do that 17:43:21 jwb: ack 17:43:28 coordinating and collaborating with other distros is likely adventagious 17:43:29 the point where we go public, this is no longer a FESCo issue. 17:43:33 jwb: +1 17:43:39 huh. 17:43:49 +1 17:43:51 debian has a patch for unsigned addons in system dirs 17:43:54 It will be even greater impact, if we get other distros to sign off when we publicly release our open letter 17:44:07 I think at this point we go to teh coouncil and ask them to get involved 17:44:24 +1 dgilmore 17:45:21 if they can carry this, I don't know why we couldn't... but I can followup on the bug/tickets later I guess. 17:45:51 nirik: it is information worth pointing out to our Firefox maintainer 17:45:53 https://sources.debian.net/patches/iceweasel/45.0~b5-1/debian-hacks/Allow-unsigned-addons-in-usr-lib-share-mozilla-exten.patch/ 17:46:45 nirik: I think we tacitly *can* include that, given that Mozilla just recently asserted that their patches were a-ok. 17:46:55 Publicly and loudly asserted it, in fact. 17:46:56 right 17:47:10 (Insert the usual IANAL disclaimers here) 17:47:12 then perhaps this can be ended by having martin include it 17:47:32 he likely needs to be pointed to it in the FESCo ticket either way 17:47:44 jwb: Well, I still want a public response from Mozilla 17:47:51 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293874 17:47:58 it's mentioned there... 17:47:59 If only to prevent future issues where they break this patch 17:48:11 "Let's see if Debian will ship this patch in their branded browser. If so we can do the same in Fedora." 17:48:35 Right, noted today. 17:48:38 I guess that's something. 17:48:49 sgallagh: they may well just point to their agreement with debian 17:48:59 which is fine, though a bit passive agressive 17:49:10 either way, pinging them again might work in light of this information 17:49:22 jwb: Sure, but that doesn't stop them from intentionally making it difficult to maintain that patch 17:49:37 ideally it would be nice if it was upstreamed. 17:49:44 nirik: indeed 17:49:50 sgallagh: please don't jump to conclusions. it isn't going to help 17:49:51 Absolutely 17:49:58 should we wrap this up? 17:50:03 dgilmore: +1 17:50:03 anyhow, nothing to do here... wait some more and see how this pans out? 17:50:05 if I have it right 17:50:15 Hold up. 17:50:16 sgallagh: will email mozilla one last time 17:50:25 Am I sending that email or not (with the deadline?) 17:50:35 Are we asking the Council to publish it if they don't respond? 17:50:41 we will bring the issue to the council to discuss monday 17:50:46 Because I don't know that we had a firm decision there. 17:51:09 sgallagh: let's do it in the opposite order 17:51:18 Proposal: Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline and open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting. 17:51:24 discuss Monday, if Council approves then send email with Mar 10th as deadline for response 17:51:30 sgallagh: yes, that. +1 17:51:31 +1 to sgallagh proposal 17:51:35 +1 17:51:41 +1 17:51:59 so, wait... this is going to say what? can we carry that patch? 17:52:15 or that we are publishing the letter and asking for something else? 17:52:16 nirik: Right now we're discussing a response to our initial set of concerns. 17:52:28 nirik: we want a response to the original email. if they're response is to poitn to that patch, then fine 17:52:30 If the answer they give is "Use Debian's Patch", that's acceptable 17:52:39 ok, fair enough, then +1 17:52:53 +1 17:52:57 +1 17:53:46 +1 from me, I guess 17:56:52 #agreed Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting. 17:57:04 #action sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday 17:57:26 Oops, forgot the count 17:57:28 #undo 17:57:28 Removing item from minutes: ACTION by sgallagh at 17:57:04 : sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday 17:57:30 #undo 17:57:30 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by sgallagh at 17:56:52 : Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting. 17:57:36 #agreed Ask the Council on Monday. If they give the go-ahead on the deadline of March 10th and publishing the open letter, email Mozilla after the Council meeting. (+8, 0, -0) 17:57:40 #action sgallagh to take the issue to the Council open floor on Monday 17:58:25 Anything else or shall we end the meeting. 17:58:27 /me wants lunch 17:59:07 * jsmith has nothing to add, and wants lunch as well 17:59:26 I think thats it 17:59:31 #endmeeting