<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:30:17
!startmeeting FESCO (2024-03-18)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:30:18
Meeting started at 2024-03-18 19:30:17 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:30:18
The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-03-18)'
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:30:23
!meetingname fesco
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:30:35
Chairs: @conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @nirik:matrix.scrye.com, @humaton:fedora.im, @zbyszek:fedora.im, @sgallagh:fedora.im, @jistone:fedora.im, @dcantrell:fedora.im, @mhayden:fedora.im, @tstellar:fedora.im
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:30:39
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:30:41
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:30:41
!topic Init Process
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:30:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:30:49
David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:31:03
sorry I've been out for a while, had a death in the family
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:31:13
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:31:14
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:31:32
morning
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:32:03
dcantrell: very sorry to hear that.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:32:24
thanks
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:32:58
it has been a non-standard couple of weeks for me, so I'm ready to get back to it
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:33:19
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:33:20
Tom Stellard (tstellar)
<@farribeiro:matrix.org>
19:34:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:34:18
Fábio Ribeiro (farribeiro) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:35:39
jednorozec: ?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:35:41
it seems we have a quorum
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:36:02
!topic #3178 Consider relegating ARM to non-blocking status
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:36:08
!fesco 3178
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:36:10
**fesco #3178** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3178):**Consider relegating ARM to non-blocking status**
● **Opened:** a week ago by sgallagh
● **Last Updated:** 4 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:36:52
I'm fine with zbyszek proposal.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:36:52
so from the discussions we seem to have agrrement of not blocking the whole arch
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:37:08
same, after reading through everything I agree with zbyszek's proposal
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:37:35
Should we make quick vote here?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:37:57
We can do that. (vote)
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:38:00
yeah, let's vote here
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:25
PROPOSAL: Aarch64 images remain blocking.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:38:43
+1
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:38:45
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:38:46
I'm glad that the discussion was held. I think it was important to do so.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:38:46
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:38:47
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:39:06
more testing and people paying attention to it is of course good too...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:39:34
Yes, I think it's good that Stephen raised the ticket. I think it clarified the status for a lot of folks and also raised awareness of need for more people working on this.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:39:37
0
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:40:13
so it +4 1 -0
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:40:45
This is kind of an odd situation, because the proposal is actually to do nothing.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:40:56
So we may want to phrase it in the negative and have it fail.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:41:02
No, it's +5, 1, -0
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:41:14
The proposal proposer is implicitly for the proposal.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:41:18
oh the proponent sis +1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:41:41
Unless they explicitly say otherwise. This happens sometimes, but so rarely, that we made it an official rul a long time ago.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:41:57
!agreed Aarch64 images remain blocking (+5, 1, -0)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:42:12
!topic 3177 NodeJS packaging guidelines clarification
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:42:18
!ticket#3177 NodeJS packaging guidelines clarification
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:42:34
!fesc 3177
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:42:40
!fesco 3177
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:42:41
**fesco #3177** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3177):**NodeJS packaging guidelines clarification**
● **Opened:** a week ago by ankursinha
● **Last Updated:** 4 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:43:17
this is complicated, are we really not supposed to ship anything that has compiled js?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:43:23
This is a complex topic. I didn't have time to dig into the details.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:44:01
me likewise
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:44:24
is this something we can/should ask FPC to clarify?
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:44:43
I think this is worthy of a clarification in the packaging guidelines, yes
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:44:51
I did a little bit but didnt get through the devel discussion
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:44:56
Sorry, stepped away for a moment.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:45:41
So, JS is a bit "special" where "generated code" is concerned.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:46:19
especially with the 'minimize' stuff.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:46:32
Unlike pre-generated ELF binaries, they're completely introspectable. But indeed, there are valid questions related to the "preferred format for making changes" required by some licenses.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:48:12
Honestly, I think it's not too dissimilar from how we don't mandate that packages run autotools in `%build`.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:48:24
What is compiled js anyway?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:48:41
In most cases it's JS that's transformed from another language, like TypeScript
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:48:58
But in some cases it's pre-minified stuff for use in browsers to reduce download times
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:49:17
mostly obfuscated JS
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:49:35
The latter (minimized JS) we have had long-term exceptions in the packaging guidelines for.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:49:40
(e.g. jquery)
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
19:49:41
or the result of webpack, etc
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:50:47
webpack adds a new dimension to the problem, sure.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:51:51
so it would be nice to have a general guidence for that in the packaging guidelines
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:52:30
Well, the reality is that I doubt we can realistically hope to dictate that the code must be regenerated in Fedora infrastructure.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:53:03
there is this already https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/JavaScript/#_compilationminification
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:53:05
With the amount of bundling that occurs in JavaScript, the reality would either be 1) the packager ignores the requirement or 2) the packager abandons the package.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:53:50
yeah its not really doable to regenerate everything
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:54:48
Maybe the best we can do is require that the non-minimized sources be present in the source RPM?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:55:17
I think this described the situation very well.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:55:54
There already is this in the guidelines: Additionally, the uncompiled/unminified version MUST be included alongside the compiled/minified version.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:56:40
That's not the same thing. IIUC, the guidelines require the non-minified js to be in the "binary" rpm.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:56:41
But its forbidden to ship minified code few lines above that
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:56:56
Oh
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:57:22
jednorozec: It means shipping code that was minified/compiled outside of Fedora is banned... which I don't think is enforceable, honestly.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:57:48
(In the specific case of JS, I mean)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:58:31
I don't like this requirement. "alongside" means that the files must be renamed or installed in a separate hierarchy, and this is always going to be a lot of fiddly packaging work. Having the original js in the srpm should be enough. Nobody needs in the binary rpm.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:59:12
zbyszek: ehhh, not necessarily true. It can aid in debugging.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
19:59:19
But I agree it shouldn't be *required*
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:59:42
Meh, how often do you debug the js that is bundled with fedora packages?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
19:59:57
Ok so are we going to vote? What actually can we do? propose change to packaging guidelines? move this to nodejs SiG if it exists?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:00:02
zbyszek: Maybe don't ask the Node.js maintainer that question? :)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:00:33
jednorozec: At present, the active Node.js SIG is... me.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:00:34
Hapilly not much but was a lot while doing nodejs
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
20:01:09
I'd love to hear fpc's take on this... and if we want to adjust guidelines they should process thru it anyhow.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:01:51
(For the record, I'm just keeping the lights on; I don't even use Node.js much. I'm in a daily struggle not to just orphan it.)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:04:44
Ok do we need vote on this? Or I can just bring it to FPC and update the ticket once we get some feedback?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:04:48
Proposal: Packages containing JavaScript should make a best effort to regenerate any precompiled/pre-minimized JS wherever possible, as this leads to more maintainable packages. This does not eliminate the requirement to validate licenses of bundled code.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:05:12
Sorry, that got mangled a bit in edits; let me try again.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:06:03
Proposal: Packages containing JavaScript should make a best effort to regenerate any precompiled/pre-minimized JS wherever possible, as this leads to more maintainable packages. Where this would result in a significant hardship, the bundled pregenerated JS may be shipped. This does not eliminate the requirement to validate licenses of bundled code.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:06:25
+1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:06:29
Sounds good to me. +1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:06:33
+1
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:06:43
+1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:07:22
!agreed Packages containing JavaScript should make a best effort to regenerate any precompiled/pre-minimized JS wherever possible, as this leads to more maintainable packages. Where this would result in a significant hardship, the bundled pregenerated JS may be shipped. This does not eliminate the requirement to validate licenses of bundled code. (+5, 0, -0)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:08:05
jednorozec: We should probably open a ticket with FPC to notify them of this and request that the guidelines be adapted accordingly.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:08:26
I will do that
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:08:31
Thanks!
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:09:08
I think that was it
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:09:26
there is one ticket about SPDX that people are voting in so if you didnt please do so
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:09:39
!fesco 3180
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:09:39
**fesco #3180** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3180):**Change: SPDX License Phase 4 (The last one)**
● **Opened:** 9 hours ago by msuchy
● **Last Updated:** 3 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:10:10
!topic Next week's chair
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:10:22
any volunteers?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:10:30
I can do it.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:10:54
!action zbyszek will chair next meeting
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:11:01
!topic Open Floor
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:14:52
ok it seems there is nothing to talk about
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:14:58
or maybe?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:15:09
Not from me.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:15:17
(my side?)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:15:30
thank you everyone!
<@humaton:fedora.im>
20:15:33
!endmeeting