2024-04-18 16:00:23 <@james:fedora.im> !startmeeting fpc

2024-04-18 16:00:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-04-18 16:00:23 UTC
2024-04-18 16:00:24 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'fpc'
2024-04-18 16:00:27 <@james:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call

2024-04-18 16:01:01 <@james:fedora.im> !hi

2024-04-18 16:01:01 <@limb:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-18 16:01:01 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-18 16:01:03 <@zodbot:fedora.im> James Antill (james)
2024-04-18 16:01:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Gwyn Ciesla (limb) - she / her / hers
2024-04-18 16:01:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
2024-04-18 16:01:36 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hi, I'm also here to answer questions about https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1355.
2024-04-18 16:01:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2024-04-18 16:03:26 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2024-04-18 16:06:07 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Hello.
2024-04-18 16:06:45 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Sorry for being late; my client was stuck at startup again.
2024-04-18 16:08:41 <@james:fedora.im> No problem.
2024-04-18 16:10:38 <@limb:fedora.im> So I'm just now getting to reading this (sorry!) but I'm +1.
2024-04-18 16:11:15 <@james:fedora.im> !topic PR#1355 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1355
2024-04-18 16:12:13 <@james:fedora.im> I thought the migration plan for that was all the %files be "correct" with what's the realpath on disk ... but packages would "Provide: /bin/foo" for binaries that were "well known" or whatever
2024-04-18 16:12:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think I'm generally fine with it, but we may want to make a note of legacy locations MAY be provided by adding `Provides:` for them
2024-04-18 16:12:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> to be honest, I thought this rule was already gone
2024-04-18 16:13:03 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> lgtm too, with Neal's addendum
2024-04-18 16:13:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it's basically untenable to maintain anyway
2024-04-18 16:13:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> knowing what the "canonical" locations of things are supposed to be is tricky
2024-04-18 16:14:36 <@limb:fedora.im> I just use whatever the packagers worked out at the Council of Nicea but that's me.
2024-04-18 16:14:50 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2024-04-18 16:15:10 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2024-04-18 16:16:06 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, but what do you mean by the addendum? The rules already allow other paths to be specified, for compatibility, and packages do this quite a lot. It doesn't seem necessary or useful to repeat this here.
2024-04-18 16:16:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it contextually makes sense to remind them of this case given the sbin/bin merge
2024-04-18 16:18:00 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> The current text of the patch:
 	

+ If other packages have dependencies on a different path, and it is not convenient to update them to the new path, packages **may** use a virtual `+Provides+` to list the alternate path.

Isn't this enough?
2024-04-18 16:18:44 <@james:fedora.im> Sure
2024-04-18 16:18:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would note that it makes sense as long as the path is actually reachable
2024-04-18 16:18:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (I know that should be obvious, but it sometimes isn't)
2024-04-18 16:19:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the path has to work to be a valid provides, and I actually don't recall us explicitly mentioning that anywhere
2024-04-18 16:20:29 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sure, I'll add that.
2024-04-18 16:20:32 <@tibbs:fedora.im> At some point you can always come up with some crazy thing that we don't explicitly mention.
2024-04-18 16:20:53 <@tibbs:fedora.im> If we mentioned all of them we'd have more of a tome than we have now.
2024-04-18 16:21:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-04-18 16:21:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think it just makes sense in this context to mention it
2024-04-18 16:21:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> since we're talking about paths that only kind of exist
2024-04-18 16:21:49 <@tibbs:fedora.im> It's probably no more than making sure the word "valid" is in the right place.
2024-04-18 16:22:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> anyway, to avoid more bikeshedding, with that bit it should be good to go
2024-04-18 16:22:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> "If other packages have dependencies on a different path
that resolves to the same file,
and it is not convenient to update them to the new path,
packages **may** use a virtual `+Provides+` to list the alternate path." ?
2024-04-18 16:22:33 <@james:fedora.im> That seems like an autoQA type thing, where we could check that any virtual provides for a path actually has something at that path.
2024-04-18 16:22:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> perfecto!
2024-04-18 16:24:07 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I updated the pull request with that.
2024-04-18 16:24:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> perfect
2024-04-18 16:24:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm good with it, and if everyone else is, I can merge it?
2024-04-18 16:24:39 <@tibbs:fedora.im> +1
2024-04-18 16:26:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Anyone else object?
2024-04-18 16:26:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if not, I'll merge it now
2024-04-18 16:27:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Alright then...
2024-04-18 16:28:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !agreed The pull request is accepted and now merged.
2024-04-18 16:28:10 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Thank you.
2024-04-18 16:28:12 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'll be back with a patch to nuke `%_sbindir` ;)
2024-04-18 16:28:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lol
2024-04-18 16:29:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so, anything else James Antill?
2024-04-18 16:30:19 <@james:fedora.im> Oh, y'all want me to be organised and everything ...
2024-04-18 16:31:07 <@james:fedora.im> !topic PR#1360 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1360
2024-04-18 16:31:21 <@james:fedora.im> I think we need to wait on this, but not 100%
2024-04-18 16:32:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> waiting for the thing to be approved sounds good 
2024-04-18 16:32:50 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> but it's great that the packaging guidelines patch is ready in advance 🙌🏼
2024-04-18 16:32:51 <@limb:fedora.im> Agreed. But once it's approved I think it makes a lot of sense.
2024-04-18 16:33:33 <@james:fedora.im> !topic PR#1357 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1357
2024-04-18 16:33:40 <@james:fedora.im> I think this is a simple merge
2024-04-18 16:33:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2024-04-18 16:34:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that one is just more troubleshooting debuginfo stuff
2024-04-18 16:34:35 <@limb:fedora.im> I concur
2024-04-18 16:35:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'll just merge it now
2024-04-18 16:35:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> or nevermind
2024-04-18 16:35:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> James beat me :D
2024-04-18 16:35:17 <@james:fedora.im> Okay, I merged it
2024-04-18 16:35:28 <@james:fedora.im> !topic PR#1358 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1358
2024-04-18 16:36:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> is that really how that works?
2024-04-18 16:36:13 <@james:fedora.im> I have no idea
2024-04-18 16:36:13 <@tibbs:fedora.im> I usually like to see Miro ack changes to the python guidelines.
2024-04-18 16:36:20 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> also ... no semantic line breaks?
2024-04-18 16:36:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm skeptical and also formatting :/
2024-04-18 16:37:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I donate my vote to Miro on this one 
2024-04-18 16:37:56 <@tibbs:fedora.im> If it reflects reality, sure, but I don't have a firm grip on reality in this case.
2024-04-18 16:38:57 <@tibbs:fedora.im> I'll comment.
2024-04-18 16:40:36 <@james:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2024-04-18 16:41:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> one of the PRs reminded me of something 
2024-04-18 16:41:23 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> apparently there's a "new" way to disable debug packages that nobody told us about?
2024-04-18 16:41:33 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/c/3b9bfae3676327b8a5c1de52f984702220ca8d02?branch=rawhide 
2024-04-18 16:41:39 <@limb:fedora.im> Did we need another?
2024-04-18 16:42:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 😬
2024-04-18 16:42:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> no, we really didn't :(
2024-04-18 16:44:23 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yeah I don't know
the debug package stuff was changed a fair bit in redhat-rpm-config recently 
2024-04-18 16:44:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the debug package stuff is going to change in rpm too
2024-04-18 16:44:41 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> and I haven't seen *any* public discussions about that 
2024-04-18 16:44:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> upstream is finally going to default to debuginfo generation enabled
2024-04-18 16:45:12 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and part of that is that we're going to have to clean out our hacky ways to enable it in redhat-rpm-config
2024-04-18 16:46:03 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> once the dust has settled, I guess we should update the packaging guidelines to reflect the new reality?
2024-04-18 16:46:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !link https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3040
2024-04-18 16:46:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !link https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/3036
2024-04-18 16:47:22 <@music:fedora.im> Basically, but I don’t think the phrasing in the PR is very clear. In the README for https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros, this feature is documented as:

Additionally to generated requirements you can supply multiple file names to `%pyproject_buildrequires` macro. Dependencies will be loaded from them:

```
%pyproject_buildrequires requirements/tests.in requirements/docs.in requirements/dev.in
```

In particular, there is nothing special about the filename `requirements.txt`.
2024-04-18 16:47:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I fully expect that we're going to have to take a huge stick to the debuginfo documentation in our guidelines after this is all said and done
2024-04-18 16:48:23 <@tibbs:fedora.im> One interesting thing I've found recently is that running make in the packaging-committee checkout does not generate documents the same way that the docs site does.
2024-04-18 16:48:37 <@james:fedora.im> This seems bad ... why would the old way not work, why would it not be better to explicitly have it be defined as 0?
2024-04-18 16:49:03 <@tibbs:fedora.im> For example, that weird thing with the review guidelines footnotes: they render just fine in a local build, but not on the docs site.  It's not just cosmetic differences.
2024-04-18 16:49:08 <@james:fedora.im> Undefined, to me, implies more "do the default thing" rather than "turn it off"
2024-04-18 16:49:44 <@james:fedora.im> This seems esp. bad if the default is changing upstream.
2024-04-18 16:50:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> our `%global debug_package %{?nil}` thing is a bigger hammer, but at least it does what it's supposed to do
2024-04-18 16:51:55 <@tibbs:fedora.im> Yes, upstream RPM is reworking debug package generation big time and I do expect a lot of the weirder things to break in fun ways.
2024-04-18 16:52:28 <@tibbs:fedora.im> But at this point it's way too early to say.
2024-04-18 16:54:47 <@limb:fedora.im> Best to craft our guidelines on merged PRs.
2024-04-18 16:55:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would rather hold off screwing significantly with the documentation until after the upstream work is done.
2024-04-18 16:55:20 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Then we'll know whether it'll be part of RPM 4.20 or 4.21
2024-04-18 16:55:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> or RPM 6.0
2024-04-18 16:55:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (and yes, I really don't know which one it'll be in yet)
2024-04-18 16:56:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> is rpm really jumping from 4.21 to 6.0 next? I guess we do have to skip over 5 huh
2024-04-18 16:56:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2024-04-18 16:56:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well I don't know if we're going to have a 4.21
2024-04-18 16:56:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it might be 4.20 -> 6.0
2024-04-18 17:02:03 <@james:fedora.im> Okay, it's the end of the hour
2024-04-18 17:02:07 <@james:fedora.im> I guess we are done?
2024-04-18 17:02:50 <@james:fedora.im> We can all take a nap, and some meds, while we forget about rpm5 existing.
2024-04-18 17:03:04 <@james:fedora.im> !endmeeting