Meeting:Packaging IRC log 20061205

[[Dec 05 11:02:46]   <spot>  i'm here, just finishing up this conflicts draft
[[Dec 05 11:02:56]   *       rdieter is here.
[[Dec 05 11:03:35]   <rdieter>       +1 to whatever spot has in his Conflicts draft. (:
[[Dec 05 11:04:04]   <lutter>        haha .. package texas hold'em
[[Dec 05 11:05:25]   *       abadger1999 (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net) has joined #fedora-packaging
[[Dec 05 11:05:28]   <rdieter>       sounds fun, I'll match your +1, and raise +2.
[[Dec 05 11:05:56]   <abadger1999>   Hello
[[Dec 05 11:07:07]   <rdieter>       attendance will iikely be lite today, no Ralf or Ville.
[[Dec 05 11:07:17]   <spot>  do we have quorum
[[Dec 05 11:07:49]   <lutter>        I count 4 with me
[[Dec 05 11:07:59]   <lutter>        though tibbs was here earlier
[[Dec 05 11:08:03]   <spot>  abadger1999, lutter, rdieter, spot, tibbs (assuming tibbs is still around)
[[Dec 05 11:08:08]   <spot>  f13: alive?
[[Dec 05 11:08:27]   <rdieter>       tibbs was here ~20 minutes go.
[[Dec 05 11:08:31]   <rdieter>       s/go/ago/
[[Dec 05 11:10:19]   <abadger1999>   Hmm... not looking so hopeful.
[[Dec 05 11:11:02]   <rdieter>       spot, do have the Conflicts draft ready for us to read yet?
[[Dec 05 11:11:56]   <spot>  just clicking save on it now
[[Dec 05 11:12:06]   <spot>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts
[[Dec 05 11:12:37]   *       spot fixes a grammar mistake
[[Dec 05 11:13:06]   <rdieter>       looks sane to me.
[[Dec 05 11:14:03]   <spot>  unless tibbs or f13 awakens, we don't have quorum
[[Dec 05 11:14:27]   <lutter>        let's give them a couple of minutes
[[Dec 05 11:14:45]   <rdieter>       could email to fedora-packagers, and ask for e-mail vote (for anything we'd like to vote on anyway today).
[[Dec 05 11:15:56]   <spot>  well, does everyone alive think the proposal is sane?
[[Dec 05 11:16:08]   <spot>  thl: this includes you. :)
[[Dec 05 11:16:23]   <rdieter>       I consider the Conflicts draft close to a no-brainer and just common sense.
[[Dec 05 11:16:41]   <spot>  rdieter: me too, which is why i was able to crank it out in 15 minutes
[[Dec 05 11:16:51]   <thl>   spot, well, I don't like the example you made with the kernel
[[Dec 05 11:16:54]   <thl>   I don#t care much
[[Dec 05 11:17:01]   <thl>   But I know alot of people will
[[Dec 05 11:17:19]   <rdieter>       maybe use a different example?
[[Dec 05 11:17:25]   <thl>   otherwise I'd like it
[[Dec 05 11:17:27]   <thl>   rdieter, +1
[[Dec 05 11:17:29]   <abadger1999>   spot: Did notting have some post that had a reason to use conflicts?
[[Dec 05 11:17:37]   <spot>  i can change the example
[[Dec 05 11:17:46]   <spot>  abadger1999: if so, i didn't see it
[[Dec 05 11:17:47]   <rdieter>       kernels are one place where Conflicts may actually make sense.
[[Dec 05 11:17:56]   <thl>   rdieter, +1 (again)
[[Dec 05 11:18:00]   <spot>  but i haven't exactly been diving deep into email lately
[[Dec 05 11:18:09]   *       spot is trying to get aurora done (already)
[[Dec 05 11:18:50]   <rdieter>       regardless, if nottings' example is legit, it'll pass muster wrt this proposal.
[[Dec 05 11:19:10]   <lutter>        spot: just use a package that is only ever instaled once in the example (e.g. glibc) that should avoid most of hte heckling
[[Dec 05 11:19:27]   <rdieter>       Or just use example of package 'foo'
[[Dec 05 11:19:27]   <spot>  lutter: i just made it generic
[[Dec 05 11:19:31]   <lutter>        spot: minor nit: the 'man page name conflicts' should say 'prefix' instead of suffix
[[Dec 05 11:19:53]   <spot>  lutter: fixed, thanks
[[Dec 05 11:20:42]   <spot>  well, in absense of quorum, i'll send this proposal out for email vote.
[[Dec 05 11:21:01]   <rdieter>       worksforme.
[[Dec 05 11:21:02]   <abadger1999>   I think nottings example was kernel and userspace mismatches.
[[Dec 05 11:21:11]   <lutter>        spot: you really want to force Conflicts to go through FESCo ?
[[Dec 05 11:21:32]   <spot>  lutter: this committee is not tasked to do anything besides draft packaging guidelines
[[Dec 05 11:21:52]   <abadger1999>   https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2006-November/msg00043.html
[[Dec 05 11:21:58]   <spot>  FESCO has to give thumbs up/down on case-by-case
[[Dec 05 11:22:06]   <thl>   I think that's okay for now to go through FESCo; but I think the PC should handle such stuff after the merge (when it happens)
[[Dec 05 11:22:09]   <spot>  if FESCO asks for the PC's opinion, we can give it
[[Dec 05 11:22:14]   <abadger1999>   It as Nicolas Mailhot's example -- Notting just agreed ith it.
[[Dec 05 11:22:18]   <abadger1999>   s/as/was/
[[Dec 05 11:23:12]   <thl>   I'm wondering if we should have a genereal exception for the kernel. But maybe let people yell on the list first; it can still be added later
[[Dec 05 11:23:15]   <spot>  I think the kernel is a rather special case
[[Dec 05 11:23:26]   <spot>  and that most of its conflicts will be approved by FESCO
[[Dec 05 11:26:35]   <spot>  ok, thats it for today then. see you next week.
[[Dec 05 11:26:45]   *       spot has changed the topic to: Channel for Fedora packaging related discussion | Next Meeting: Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 17:00 UTC