16:00:51 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
16:00:51 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Oct 26 16:00:51 2023 UTC.
16:00:51 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:51 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
16:00:51 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:51 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:52 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
16:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:00:52 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
16:01:19 <carlwgeorge> .hi
16:01:20 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
16:02:52 <michel-slm> .hello salimma
16:02:53 <zodbot> michel-slm: salimma 'Michel Lind' <michel@michel-slm.name>
16:03:03 <geppetto> #chair carlwgeorge
16:03:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge geppetto
16:05:37 * michel-slm has a topic he'd like to get FPC opinion on
16:06:49 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
16:07:50 <geppetto> Probably a quick meeting this week … I don't feel great, and don't have anything pressing.
16:08:30 <michel-slm> gws geppetto
16:08:53 <carlwgeorge> works for me, i didn't finish that pr yet to clarify pre-release snapshot versioning
16:09:05 * geppetto nods
16:09:08 <carlwgeorge> and same, hope you get to feeling better
16:09:10 <michel-slm> ok, question: I'm hearing from some BPF developers that they would like having access to some additional static libraries for testing
16:09:36 <michel-slm> technically our packaging guidelines do allow it if there is a need - but would this go over better if we do a Change Proposal?
16:10:22 <michel-slm> e.g. "Improved BPF testing" - the scope will be to have, e.g., static versions of libelf, libasan etc. added
16:10:39 <decathorpe> hey o/ sorry for being late
16:10:47 * michel-slm waves
16:11:27 <geppetto> I think the only requirement is that they go into a -static subpackage, having a good reason is implied but I'm not sure it's a requirement.
16:11:30 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe
16:11:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge decathorpe geppetto
16:13:04 <decathorpe> (I don't have history for this room, so I don't have context for the last message regarding "-static")
16:13:14 <carlwgeorge> yeah it's a SHOULD NOT guideline, so not meeting it for a specific reason makes sense to me
16:13:53 <carlwgeorge> decathorpe: michel-slm asked "I'm hearing from some BPF developers that they would like having access to some additional static libraries for testing, technically our packaging guidelines do allow it if there is a need - but would this go over better if we do a Change Proposal?"
16:14:02 <michel-slm> carlwgeorge: thanks, was just about to repeat it
16:14:26 <decathorpe> thanks!
16:14:36 <michel-slm> does this count as self-contained or system wide, I wonder
16:14:55 <carlwgeorge> doing a change proposal for it sounds like a good idea to me
16:14:55 <michel-slm> it touches some packages, but otoh... it does not affect anyone unless you link against the static libraries
16:16:07 <carlwgeorge> just re-read the descriptions for those, and it seems self-contained would fit
16:16:14 <geppetto> Doing a change proposal won't upset anyone, so if there's no rush etc. it's not a bad idea … just saying that I don't think you need one.
16:16:25 <carlwgeorge> "a change to isolated package(s)"
16:16:56 <michel-slm> aha, thanks
16:17:08 <michel-slm> that's all I need on this topic :)
16:18:11 * michel-slm needs to find time to draft some packaging guideline for recommending how to disable docs and tests if needed
16:18:30 <geppetto> 👍
16:18:55 <geppetto> on that note, I can give you a free 40 minutes ;)
16:19:00 <carlwgeorge> things i want to do > time i have to do things
16:19:08 <geppetto> #endmeeting