16:01:15 #startmeeting FESCO (2017-10-27) 16:01:15 Meeting started Fri Oct 27 16:01:15 2017 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:15 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:15 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-10-27)' 16:01:15 #meetingname fesco 16:01:15 #chair maxamillion dgilmore nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh bowlofeggs tyll 16:01:15 #topic init process 16:01:15 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 16:01:15 Current chairs: bowlofeggs dgilmore jforbes jsmith kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll 16:01:19 morning! 16:01:21 .hello kalev 16:01:22 kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' 16:01:24 .hello2 16:01:25 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 16:01:34 .hello jforbes 16:01:35 jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' 16:01:36 .hello2 16:01:40 jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' 16:01:44 .hello till 16:01:46 tyll: till 'Till Maas' 16:02:13 Good morning 16:02:58 hi 16:03:43 Well, we have quorum, so I suppose we'll get started 16:03:53 #topic #1737 i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we drop i686 kernel from F28 16:04:38 jsbackus Replied with a pretty decent set of answers to my queries. 16:04:52 .fesco 1737 16:04:54 kalev: Issue #1737: Proposal: i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we drop i686 kernel from F28 - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1737 16:05:08 .hello2 16:05:09 maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' 16:05:12 sorry I'm late 16:05:34 Proposal: i686 SIG is certified functional and will be responsible for i686-specific issues 16:05:40 I come from the xi686 SIG to note and forward any concern you may have 16:05:49 kalev: Thanks, bad copy-paste missed the .fesco 16:06:09 ariSun: Thanks for joining the meetign 16:07:04 sgallagh: +1, I really like the replies we got in the ticket, sounds like it's on the right track 16:07:38 sgallagh: +1 16:08:19 sgallagh: +1 16:08:30 +1 16:08:35 +1 16:09:37 jforbes: anything to add from the kernel side? are you guys getting help with i686? 16:10:00 +1 for the record 16:10:21 Well, there hasn't been motion on the bugs we added the blocker yet, but they aren't the most critical either. I think things are okay as they are as long as they continue 16:10:33 #agreed i686 SIG is certified functional and will be responsible for i686-specific issues (+6, 0, -0) 16:11:06 Obviously, FESCo reserves the right to withdraw this approval if the SIG doesn't continue to function satisfactorily. 16:12:07 Understood, thank you very much for giving us a chance 16:12:15 ariSun: Good luck! 16:12:23 #topic #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes - Rust 16:12:23 .fesco 1767 16:12:24 sgallagh: Issue #1767: F28 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767 16:12:38 ignatenkobrain has asked us to revisit the Rust Change 16:14:04 I did ;) 16:14:18 With bowlofeggs not present that is kind of difficult to do 16:14:19 My understanding here is that the Rust change was waiting on support for rich deps in the infrastructure tools 16:14:22 I would suggest that the rust change is system wide. it has a wider system wide change involving us having to change tools in how we deliver software 16:14:23 Is this correct? 16:14:41 To be honest, I'm not sure all the releng tools have been moved over to DNF 16:14:45 sgallagh: yes, and with bodhi switching to pungi this week, we think we are okay 16:14:53 dgilmore++ 16:14:53 sgallagh: Karma for ausil changed to 7 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:14:58 dgilmore++ 16:14:58 jsmith: Karma for ausil changed to 8 (for the f26 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 16:15:00 yeah, nothing left afaik for porting to dnf 16:15:09 dgilmore: did the switchover happen without issue? 16:15:17 jforbes: mostly 16:15:20 (for those who don't know, puiterwijk got the pungi+bodhi work across the finish line) 16:15:29 puiterwijk++ 16:15:35 excellent 16:15:38 he did way too much work to make it happen 16:15:56 P.S. rich deps and rust packaging got approved by FPC yesterday 16:16:06 puiterwijk++ 16:16:09 and also I don't see why it should be system-wide change 16:16:13 but if you want so, I don't care 16:16:15 So, my understanding is that was the last blokcer 16:16:21 it's one-line change in wiki 16:17:16 ignatenkobrain: it has a big impact outside of Rust 16:17:26 if it was not the first it would be self contained 16:19:53 dgilmore: While I agree, I think we are arguing semantics, all of the impact outside of rust is what has led to the delay in approving this to begin with 16:20:26 jforbes: perhaps them that needs/needed a different change 16:20:47 dgilmore: It probably did, but wasn't the bodhi change the last of it? 16:21:05 jforbes: we think so 16:21:18 the next steps would be to test some stuff, yes? 16:21:25 right, so again, arguing semantics. 16:21:33 jforbes: but making sure people know Rich Deps are something that we support is kinda a big thing 16:21:41 puiterwijk: ping - I think you had mentioned doing some testing in stage for rust/rich-deps .... or am I misremembering? 16:21:46 I do not really care how we do that 16:22:01 maxamillion: pong. We had testing in rawhide, but nothing yet in any stable things 16:22:17 I have so far told ignatenkobrain that he could not push a test package because the policies still say it's not allowed 16:22:27 maxamillion: nirik said last week that pungi was tested as working during last weeks meeting 16:22:29 but it is allowed by FPC 16:22:39 I got confirmation from geppetto 16:22:41 (and I do not have the authority to give ignatenkobrain an ack to override the policy) 16:22:41 puiterwijk: right, that is what is being asked for here 16:23:23 jforbes: right. I would say that a limited test in e.g. f27-u-t might give us definitive proof if it'll work or not. But I see no reason why it wouldn't 16:23:46 So, to answer maxamillion: yes, we have testing in rawhide, no we don't have testing for rich deps in the updates process yet. 16:23:58 puiterwijk: rgr, thanks for the info 16:24:48 jforbes: yeah, however it's now in production so I was curious if that was still correct 16:25:27 valid concern. 16:26:36 jforbes: which it seems to be :) 16:26:57 Seems we need a path forward though, rather than a lot of "is it ready yet?" Last week it was said that things would be good to go as soon as bodhi rolled, and we wanted to wait until this week to vote when we knew that bodhi either did or didn't make it 16:27:17 yeah 16:27:51 puiterwijk: since you did the work for the bodhi+pungi and the mirror sync stuff to go along with the change, what are your thoughts on the topic? 16:27:52 jforbes: we believe things will work 16:28:14 And the backout if they don't? 16:28:32 maxamillion: my personal opinion is that we can go ahead and try at least one package/update/..., if it works, we are all good to go. If it doesn't, we'll see what broke 16:28:51 It should be really quick to figure out if it works with a small repo like f27-u-t 16:28:56 the sticking point in the past has been multilib 16:29:26 does rust potentially have a multilib concern associated with it? 16:29:45 so the package should be something that is archful and the i686 rpms will get pulled in to x86_64 16:29:50 I'm wondering if FESCo approves Change Proposals when they are implemented 16:30:38 ignatenkobrain: no, but this is a special case, we want to make sure they can be implemented 16:30:59 because of the dependencies this has we are being careful 16:31:11 well, if it can't there is backout plan 16:31:34 also this is technically past-due for F27 by quite some time, so it's a special consideration 16:31:41 but that's neither here nor there 16:31:46 I am okay with approving the change, if we hit issues that can't be resolved we implement the contingency plan 16:31:56 maxamillion: its f28 16:32:04 if this is something we can test and easily back out if it breaks things, then I'd propose we conditionally approve it 16:32:18 dgilmore: I thought we discussed last meeting allowing it for f27? 16:32:33 question is, can this be tested and easily backed out if needed? 16:32:33 maxamillion: the issue is for f28 self contained changes 16:32:42 dgilmore: yeah, I know 16:32:48 I'll have to check the meeting logs 16:33:02 We did, as it is new packages, and if it works on one, it works on the others, but it wouldn't make the F27 release anyway, it would be an F28 feature 16:33:13 jforbes: +1 16:33:44 oh ok 16:34:55 Basically just like any other new package added to the distro, it could be added to existing stable releases 16:35:09 right, pending the tooling is ready 16:35:14 so 16:36:11 Proposal: Conditionally approve the Rust Change, pending testing of rich-deps in the RelEng tooling is successful 16:36:21 proposal: we accept the RUST change for f28 16:36:27 oh ok 16:36:32 dgilmore: +1 16:36:39 maxamillion: +1 to either proposal 16:36:40 +1 obviously 16:36:46 +1 16:36:49 dgilmore: +1 16:36:52 if we hit issues that is what the contingency plan is for 16:37:01 dgilmore: +1 16:37:02 ignatenkobrain: you do not get a vote :) 16:37:08 dgilmore: +1 16:37:09 +1 16:37:17 dgilmore: just noting that I like your proposal more ;) 16:37:30 I believe we have done enough work to give it the best possible chance of sucess 16:37:46 I know my vote doesn't count, but I'm +1 16:38:13 eh, I like it when people vote who aren't on FESCo ... helps me better understand everyone's opinions on an issue 16:38:28 it just doesn't get counted in the final tally 16:39:19 Sorry, just got a phone call. Will tally the votes now 16:39:57 #agreed We accept the RUST change for f28 (+6, 0, -0) 16:40:08 #topic #1780 F28 System Wide Change: Annobin 16:40:08 .fesco 1780 16:40:13 sgallagh: Issue #1780: F28 System Wide Change: Annobin - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1780 16:40:56 I'm still +1 16:40:58 sgallagh: this was voted and approved 2 weeks ago 16:41:41 "On a side note - the original method of applying this change (patching the redhat-rpm-config package) has proven to be broken. I am currently trying to find an alternative method of enabling the plugin, but so far have had no luck." 16:41:42 "FESCo would like to request an estimate of how much larger each binary will be so we can make an educated estimate on how much larger this will make the Everything repo." 16:42:07 sgallagh: oh right, derp ... sorry 16:42:08 If we want to skip this for today, that's fine. 16:42:16 no, sounds good 16:42:32 looks good enough for me (+1 on approving) 16:42:37 I'm still +1 ... I think ~4% is reasonable given the positive nature of the change 16:43:12 sgallagh: not sure there is anything to discuss though 16:43:12 I think the value it brings is more than enough to compensate for the increase in size 16:43:30 I do agree, I think it is inline with what we discussed when it was approved 16:43:30 * dgilmore agrees with above 16:43:33 Yeah, unless that 4% number makes anyone uncomfortable, let's move on 16:43:43 +1 from me too 16:44:13 I'm not going to take a formal vote 16:44:35 #info FESCo doesn't see any problems with the 4% increase in repodata 16:44:46 #topic #1782 use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software 16:44:47 .fesco 1782 16:44:49 sgallagh: Issue #1782: use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782 16:45:02 That issue is done and closed 16:45:21 Oops, sorry 16:45:26 next... 16:45:34 #topic #1783 Firefox 57 and the Updates Policy 16:45:34 .fesco 1783 16:45:38 sgallagh: Issue #1783: Firefox 57 and the Updates Policy - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1783 16:45:53 We were trying to get votes in-ticket here, but here we are. 16:46:45 Sorry, I was out sick much of the week, and just now trying to catch up 16:46:55 Proposal (from ticket): Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install 16:47:01 While shipping a pre-release isn't ideal, I think it is better than forcing the transition on another stable branch 16:47:02 I'm +1 to nirik's proposal 16:47:04 reluctant +1 from me 16:47:11 +1 16:47:26 not-super-excited +1 from me 16:47:43 +1 16:48:34 +1 16:48:42 dgilmore? 16:51:05 +! 16:51:06 #agreed Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+5, 0, -0) 16:51:08 +1 16:51:09 #undo 16:51:09 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by sgallagh at 16:51:06 : Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+5, 0, -0) 16:51:12 #agreed Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+6, 0, -0) 16:51:19 Excellent timing :-P 16:51:30 #topic #1785 Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the 16:51:30 locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr 16:51:30 .fesco 1785 16:51:33 sgallagh: Issue #1785: Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1785 16:51:40 -1 16:52:12 -1 as well. People who know what they're doing say this isn't the right fix, I trust them. 16:52:29 While I understand their asking, this isn't just the maintainer refusing to carry the patches, the original author is strongly opposed. 16:52:35 That said, I think we may want to propose this as a Prioritized Bug, since it does impact a large subset of our userbase. 16:52:35 -1 here 16:52:40 -1 16:52:41 given that they were removed from upstream consideration because of issues, I am against trying to force them into fedora 16:53:29 Proposal: FESCo understands that this is a serious issue, but doesn't feel that it should override the decision of the subject matter experts. 16:53:36 I'd love to see more communication here, and get a sense of when acceptable fixes might be in place... but I tend to a agree that forcing the existing patches doesn't seem like the best answer 16:53:41 +1 16:53:43 sgallagh: +1 16:53:46 sgallagh: from Ben's response, it is a priority, just difficult to tackle 16:53:51 sgallagh: +1 16:53:54 sgallagh: +1 16:53:55 sgallagh: +1 16:54:18 sgallagh: +1 16:54:22 #agreed FESCo understands that this is a serious issue, but doesn't feel that it should override the decision of the subject matter experts (+6, 0, -0) 16:54:37 Last ticket... 16:54:41 #topic #1787 releng issue 7071 as an F27 release blocker 16:54:41 .fesco 1878 16:54:48 -1 16:54:48 sgallagh: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. 16:54:50 jsmith: any sense of when fixes might be in place is just a wild assed guess "The correct fix is really difficult to implement, especially in a 16:54:50 bisectable way, without breaking anything. I have been trying to do so 16:54:50 for quite a while now" 16:55:26 .fesco 1878 16:55:26 .fesco 1787 16:55:33 -1 on blocker here given the input from releng 16:55:33 sgallagh: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information. 16:55:36 maxamillion: Issue #1787: releng issue 7071 as an F27 release blocker - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1787 16:55:51 -1 as per releng's comments 16:56:38 -1 as well 16:56:47 -1 on blocking since it is nothing new 16:57:07 -1 16:57:25 this issue has existed for at least 8 years 16:57:26 I'd like more information on how the reporter thinks it's blocking composes, so I guess I'm +0 16:57:32 likely forever 16:57:50 jsmith: it does not block any composes 16:58:33 it's an issue with updates-testing, not final composes that are done from properly multilibbed stable repos, as I understand it 16:58:49 #agreed FESCo does not consider this blocking for the release (0, 1, -5) 16:59:18 Ugh, sorry. I have to run, we still have quorum? 16:59:26 (Sick kid needs to be picked up from school) 16:59:31 kalev: it is 16:59:46 jforbes: hope kid is better soon 17:00:01 jforbes: Family comes first... 17:00:03 thanks, sure it is the strep that my wife has... 17:00:04 without jforbes we should still be okay 17:00:20 Can I give one extra bit of info? It looks like that multilib rpm is back, might be because of the new repo generation process 17:00:27 (aka, the issue seems resolved) 17:00:41 ohh, awesome! 17:00:43 puiterwijk: Good to know -- thanks for the additional info 17:01:00 jforbes: hope all is well! 17:01:07 puiterwijk: or something requireing it was added 17:01:14 dgilmore: right 17:01:18 the issue is super transient in nature 17:01:23 OK, do we need to continue on this, then? 17:01:25 Ah, okay. 17:01:29 i.e. multilib is tough and sucks 17:01:36 dgilmore: indeed 17:01:41 sgallagh: probably good to move on 17:02:48 #topic Next week's chair 17:03:04 * sgallagh tosses the grenade into the crowd. 17:03:07 * dgilmore will not be available next week 17:03:08 I may be gone next week, but would be happy to volunteer for the week after 17:03:08 Who's going to jump on it? 17:03:31 * dgilmore will be in a training class in Brno 17:04:09 * puiterwijk thinks the grenade has exploded by now 17:04:14 * jsmith will likely be on an airplane 17:04:25 puiterwijk: That's probably why no one is volunteering 17:04:27 I'll take it 17:04:30 Next time I'll use a dud 17:04:33 Thanks maxamillion 17:04:44 #info maxamillion to chair next week's meeting 17:04:47 sgallagh: but don't tell them it's a dud, or they'll ignore it! 17:04:57 cheers maxamillion 17:04:59 maxamillion: thank you very much! 17:05:14 #topic Open Floor 17:05:23 * jsmith has nothing for the open floor 17:05:28 same 17:05:38 nada aqui 17:06:14 dito 17:07:44 OK, thanks for coming folks! 17:07:48 #endmeeting