17:00:54 #startmeeting fpc 17:00:54 Meeting started Thu Jan 26 17:00:54 2023 UTC. 17:00:54 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:54 The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 17:00:54 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:54 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:54 #meetingname fpc 17:00:54 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 17:00:54 #topic Roll Call 17:01:05 here 17:01:07 .hello ngompa 17:01:08 Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 17:01:49 #chair Eighth_Doctor 17:01:49 Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor geppetto 17:02:26 hello o/ 17:03:30 #chair decathorpe 17:03:30 Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor decathorpe geppetto 17:03:45 .hi 17:03:46 carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' 17:04:01 .hi 17:04:02 GwynCieslasheher: Sorry, but user 'GwynCieslasheher' does not exist 17:04:20 Dang. I keep thinking I do. 17:04:40 .hello limb 17:04:40 you exist to me ;) 17:04:40 decathorpe: limb 'Gwyn Ciesla' 17:04:40 Aw! 😊 17:04:47 that did the trick. :) 17:04:48 .hello churchyard 17:04:49 mhroncok: churchyard 'Miro Hrončok' 17:04:49 Ahhhh 17:04:49 your IRC nick is probably not known to zodbot 17:05:12 So it doesn't really grok Matrix? 17:05:16 I wonder if hi works for me 17:05:17 .hi 17:05:18 Eighth_Doctor: Sorry, but user 'Eighth_Doctor' does not exist 17:05:24 meep 17:05:24 #chair GwynCieslasheher 17:05:24 Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor GwynCieslasheher decathorpe geppetto 17:05:30 #chair mhroncok 17:05:30 Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor GwynCieslasheher decathorpe geppetto mhroncok 17:05:43 We should take Turing tests just to be safe, 17:05:46 GwynCieslasheher: That seems like an evergreen statement 17:05:59 s/,/./ 17:06:30 How does that make you feel about We should take Turing tests just to be safe.? 17:06:52 * decathorpe wonders how long it will take until some ChatGPT based spam bots will infest IRC / Matrix ... 17:07:00 Ha … I meant "So it doesn't really grok Matrix?" is evergreen 17:07:08 OIC 17:07:39 Eventually we'll move off IRC entirely and it'll get ported to Matrix, I assume.... 17:07:48 But also fair to say chat gpt could replace fpc ;) 17:08:22 Hmm. pyp2gpt2rpm? 17:08:23 I'm pretty sure such chatbots are coming 17:09:21 has naybody asked gpt to create a spec file: 17:09:23 ? 17:09:27 *anybody 17:09:31 omg, sticky fingers 17:09:49 not that I know of 17:09:56 mmmm 17:10:20 It'll probably rm -rf %{buildroot} at the start of %install lol 17:10:27 So 2007 17:10:38 Probably better asking that thing that github/MS did. 17:10:43 that wasn't even fixed upstream until a few years ago 17:10:58 geppetto: $_DEITY yes 17:12:30 Anyway.... 17:12:35 #topic Schedule 17:12:40 #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IVW5GYWJNELJVRA2Q4CXDGT24YIVIWEV/ 17:13:13 So, nothing changed in the last couple of weeks … but I don't think we've had a real meeting (5+ ppl) since the new year 17:13:26 So is there anything anyone wants to talk about? 17:13:40 I noticed that we have D packaging guidelines now 17:13:42 and it mandates LDC 17:13:46 but we've had GDC in Fedora for several years now 17:14:20 Wasn't there some problem with one of these not supporting all architectures? 17:14:22 I know what some of those letters mean 17:14:35 LDC doesn't support some of our arches 17:14:52 but more importantly, LDC doesn't support dylibs properly or any hardening flags 17:14:56 Oh. so it's basically backwards from what we want? 17:15:00 yes 17:15:09 beautiful 17:15:10 yup 17:15:31 ldc = LLVM D Compiler, gdc = GNU D compiler 17:15:42 Debian has used gdc for years before it was fully upstreamed because of this 17:16:01 we used ldc because gdc was out of tree until a few years ago, when it finally got upstreamed 17:16:40 and then there's the "official" D compiler, which nobody wants to use :D 17:16:45 So do we just want to update the docs to say "use gdc"? 17:17:07 yeah 17:17:14 otherwise people have to do stuff like this: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/appstream-generator/blob/8acf36b1d2fe172666c3d834382aa0f6c3c8b85e/f/appstream-generator.spec#_78-79 17:17:21 otherwise compilation straight up fails out of the box 17:17:26 #action Eighth_Doctor will update docs on D packaging 17:17:33 sure 17:17:36 :) 17:17:46 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:18:10 it probably means we get to make the toolchain flag work for D along side C/C++ :D 17:18:10 (Sorry, I need to leave.) 17:18:10 will read the logs 17:18:23 tstellar is going hate me for this :P 17:19:00 mhroncok: no problem, hope everything is ok. 17:19:49 #topic Open Floor 17:19:52 Anything else? 17:20:22 I'd be interested in getting others to weigh in on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1244 17:22:40 I'm alright, everything is fine. just joined this meetign without realizing I need to leave so soon to pick my wife at the train station as i promised :) bye folks 17:23:22 If it's small and mostly just works, ship it … if not put it in a separate sub-package … I think not shipping it at all is pretty poor, but maybe there are exceptions 17:24:37 the problem with "just works" is that while it works it typically doesn't follow the bundling guidelines 17:25:25 this, and I'm also wondering how many useless build failures could be avoided by not building docs ... 17:25:28 I'm much more willing to let that slide for docs … but, eh 17:26:46 decathorpe: indeed 17:26:50 I used to work in an environment where I very much appreciated having packaged docs 17:27:10 so I don't really want to discourage building and packaging those 17:27:14 Eighth_Doctor: did that environment actually use fedora, or rhel 17:27:24 but leave that to the packager's discretion 17:27:31 carlwgeorge: we used Fedora 17:27:42 precisely because RHEL was pretty bad for airgapped development 17:27:50 due to so much missing documentation 17:28:30 you'll have to tell me more about that sometime 17:28:39 production environments were RHEL, but all the dev environments were Fedora for this reason 17:28:59 it's also why Windows still has a snapshot of the entirety of MSDN available for download and offline viewing in Visual Studio :) 17:29:23 I'm ok with packager discretion on this, but I'd be opposed to making it a SHOULD 17:29:28 carlwgeorge: sure, someday :) 17:29:49 currently we have no opinion officially on building docs 17:29:58 I'm fine with that, as long as we document how docs should be packaged 17:30:24 but if we establish an opinion, I would go with SHOULD IF POSSIBLE 17:30:34 Seconded. 17:30:39 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:30:50 and this pr should add a note that it's still necessary to get the bundling correct 17:30:50 Eighth_Doctor: That wording seems fine to me 17:31:04 +1 17:31:18 I would rather have docs with bad bundling than skipped docs. 17:31:30 lots of things are possible, but take a long time 17:31:31 yeah, bad bundling at least can be fixed easily enough 17:31:56 the recent thread didn't seem to come to the same conclusion 17:32:09 the one linked in the pr comments 17:32:45 I would strongly prefer MAY over SHOULD IF POSSIBLE 17:32:46 well, that was an epel thread right? 17:32:47 EPEL makes building docs a pain 17:32:48 because RHEL makes it hard 17:33:10 s/docs/many things/ 17:33:10 * Eighth_Doctor shrugs 17:33:34 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/LLUAURXZVADATHK65HBPPBHKF4EM4UC3/ 17:33:53 it was on the packaging list, not epel-devel 17:35:14 I would encourage anyone who thinks this is easy to take a stab at miro's suggested solution from the thread 17:36:20 i.e. a public domain sphinx theme that does not bundle any javascript that packagers can switch packaged docs to 17:37:39 it'd be easier to make a provides generator 17:37:45 which is what we should actually do 17:38:16 JS isn't bad, and it's perfectly fine as long as we know what's in there 17:39:09 * geppetto takes one step backwards 17:39:21 well, for a website 17:39:25 nodejs is still evil 17:40:34 do we have an fpc recommendation to add to the pr yet, or do we want to think on it longer? 17:41:02 to be clear I'm not opposed to having a page specific to packaging docs, but as is this pr is lacking in several ways 17:41:06 If you think you can summarize the above, feel free to make a comment for the fpc 17:41:23 I can do that 17:41:38 * geppetto nods 17:41:45 Sounds good … anything else? 17:41:56 but eventually we probably should provide guidance on SHOULD, MAY, etc 17:42:15 I don't think we've ever defined those words :D 17:42:26 there's an rfc that does 17:42:37 yeah but we didn't say we follow that :P 17:43:15 I could have sworn we did, will have to look 17:46:15 #action carlwgeorge to find out how we officially define MUST, SHOULD, MAY, etc. and document it 17:47:34 lol 17:48:02 I wouldn't be shocked if everyone just assumed it was defined the same way as in RFCs, but never bothered to write that down anywhere 17:48:13 entirely possible 17:48:13 Be careful. English is a crap language. American English doubly so. 17:48:26 YEah 17:48:34 * Yeah 17:49:02 Ok, I'll let ya'll have 10 minutes back 17:49:11 See you next week. 17:49:30 Toodaloo! 17:49:51 later yall 17:49:58 see you next week :) 17:51:23 #endmeeting