#meeting-1:fedoraproject.org log

<@james:fedora.im>

17:02:27

!startmeeting fpc

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:02:28

Meeting started at 2025-12-11 17:02:27 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

17:02:28

The Meeting name is 'fpc'

<@james:fedora.im>

17:02:35

!topic Roll Call

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:03:33

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:36

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@james:fedora.im>

17:03:39

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:03:40

James Antill (james)

<@james:fedora.im>

17:05:06

Might be a quick last meeting of the year.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:05:14

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:05:15

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:10:52

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

17:10:53

Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:11:21

I responded to your bcond question on the devel channel btw :)

<@james:fedora.im>

17:12:41

!topic Open Floor

<@james:fedora.im>

17:12:52

So ... only 4 of us, anything anyone wants to discuss?

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:13:20

I would appreciate async review of my Rust guidelines PR, but that's not urgent

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:13:31

I think I reviewed it?

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:14:01

there was a ton more comments and I added a third commit with some minor fixes

<@james:fedora.im>

17:14:38

Yeh, I had a quick look at https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1510 (rust guidelines cleanup) ... and I think we can merge

<@james:fedora.im>

17:14:52

If anyone has an comment/objection, now is the time etc.

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:14:58

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:15:24

(ha: not an objection)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:15:43

lgtm

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:15:56

only one comment about adding the toml file as an unused spec source

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:16:01

otherwise lgtm

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:16:32

that's unrelated to the changes in the PR though, feel free to make that a follow-up change

<@james:fedora.im>

17:16:55

Okay, I merged it

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:17:04

thanks 🙏🏻

<@james:fedora.im>

17:17:14

This PR also seems like an easy one: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1511 (fix: Java howto link)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:17:30

yeah I'll just merge that

<@james:fedora.im>

17:17:45

<@james:fedora.im>

17:18:02

This one is bigger/scarier ... https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1509 R guidelines)

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:19:08

it already went through fesco / change process, so it shouldn't be that bad

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:19:45

the only thing I think I want to ask them to do is create some kind of "R CRAN common licenses" package that every CRAN module can depend on

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:20:10

since there's a guaranteed set of licenses, it's straightforward to do

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:20:47

and it avoids creating an _actual_ exception for license files because it _is_ being shipped somewhere :)

<@james:fedora.im>

17:21:43

That sounds like a very reasonable compromise/workaround.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:22:19

yeah, that sounds reasonable

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:22:37

rest of it is fine

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:23:10

I wonder if we could even go ahead and ship approved licenses for everything like Debian

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:24:11

I think we could for everythiing that don't require copyright stanzas (e.g. MPL, GNU, Apache, etc.), we probably could

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:24:33

I think we could for everythiing that don't require copyright stanzas (e.g. MPL, GNU, CC, Apache, etc.), we probably could

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:24:39

but licenses with required vanity statements are a no-go

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:07

yeah... :(

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:25:26

that part is optional for the MIT too IIRC

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:25:38

you just can't remove it if it's there

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

this is what Debian ships

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

⬢ [debian-packaging] ❯ ls

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

Apache-2.0 BSD GFDL@ GFDL-1.3 GPL-1 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-3 MPL-2.0

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

Artistic CC0-1.0 GFDL-1.2 GPL@ GPL-2 LGPL@ LGPL-2.1 MPL-1.1

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

```

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

/usr/share/common-licenses🔒

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

```

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:45

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:25:51

they also did not ship MIT

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:26:22

so if a project said MIT but does not include the text, can we ... I guess in that case the problem is we don't know which one?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:26:24

they're all MIT

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:26:41

yeah, let's not go down the road that involves us losing our livers like Tom almost did

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:27:14

MIT and BSD family licenses, including ISC, 0BSD, etc. typically have vanity stanzas so it's just not worth the hassle

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:27:48

depends on the variant... it's just not worth figuring that crap out

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:27:55

right

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:28:08

at least this is where SPDX makes our lives easier

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:28:24

(I was referring to SPDX "MIT", for the record)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:28:27

so... is it worth doing a change proposal to ship this package and then projects get excused from shipping standard text?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:28:31

not with MIT since they never split all the variants up into their own identifiers like they did BSD

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:28:56

probably, anyone want to shepherd this?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:29:02

I'm a little overloaded for F44 myself

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:29:15

I can use something nice for F44 so sure

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:29:31

I don't think this should block the R guidelines though

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:29:40

that can be handled separately

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:29:40

the less needless difference there is between Fedora and Debian the happier my personal life is

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:29:49

oh I agree, we should not block this, it's just a nice generalization

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:08

Mandrake family also does this :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:11

so it's not new

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:21

and briefly SUSE flirted with it, but they were bad at holding to it

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:37

there used to be an rpmlint check for this stuff I think

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:30:54

it might still be there

<@salimma:fedora.im>

17:34:46

so... what are we deciding for R?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:35:20

I put a comment in the PR asking for the thing

<@james:fedora.im>

17:39:01

Okay, anything else?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:39:56

did anyone file a ticket with forgejo about the broken tarball url thing?

<@james:fedora.im>

17:40:35

I'm not even sure what you mean.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:41:04

this: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1500#comment-226128

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:41:47

I'm going to guess no by the silence and confusion

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:41:58

I'll go ahead and file the ticket then

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:42:18

well, it's not "broken"

<@decathorpe:fedora.im>

17:42:29

it just doesn't support all the different ways GitHub does

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

17:43:41

for reference, I did this years ago for GitLab too: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-foss/-/issues/38830

<@james:fedora.im>

17:45:19

Cool. Okay, well I'll see you all next year!

<@james:fedora.im>

17:45:23

!endmeeting