Packaging:Minutes20070501

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2007-XXX}

Present

• DavidLutterkort (lutter)
• JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
• JesseKeating (f13)
• RexDieter (rdieter)
• TomCallaway (spot)
• ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)

Writeups

No drafts were presented to FESCO last week, so no writeups this week.

Votes

The following proposals were considered:

• Two PHP proposals: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP (the first two items only: PECL Extensions and Versioned BuildRequires in Macros Section)
• Accepted (5-0)
• Voting for: spot tibbs rdieter lutter abadger1999
• Voting against: (none)

• Ruby Gems guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems
• Accepted (6-0)
• Voting for: spot rdieter tibbs lutter f13 abadger1999
• Voting against: (none)

Other Discussions

Nothing of note this week.

IRC Logs

[12:01]  * spot is here
[12:01]  --> mdomsch has joined this channel (n=mdomsch@cpe-70-113-73-138.austin.res.rr.com).
[12:01]  * tibbs is here
[12:01]  <tibbs> It seems most of Europe won't be, though.
[12:01]  * rdieter is here (still)
[12:02]  <spot> i wish i had as many holidays. :)
[12:02]  <rdieter> slackers, the whoe lot of 'em. :)
[12:02]  <spot> lutter? f13?
[12:02]  <rdieter> one short of doing anything?
[12:02]  <spot> abadger1999 ?
[12:02]  <f13> I'm here.
[12:03]  <rdieter> yay.
[12:03]  <abadger1999> Yeah -- wrapping up an impromptu meeting.
[12:03]  <abadger1999> 1/2 here.
[12:03]  <spot> thats five. (well, 4 1/2)
[12:05]  <rdieter> well, since we're waiting, cmake updates were pushed (finally) for FC-5/FC-6, so i'll be doing the final writeup for the cmake draft.
[12:06]  <rdieter> as for new meeting time, I'm flexible enough to be able to make pretty much any time as proposed, so I didn't bother plastering my name all over the wiki page.
[12:06]  <spot> ok. good to know.
[12:06]  <tibbs> I blocked out the times I'm in the car.
[12:06]  <spot> did one of you guys put Xs everywhere?
[12:06]  <f13> I didn't
[12:07]  <tibbs> I put some X's in.
[12:07]  <spot> are those good or bad times for you? :)
[12:07]  <tibbs> "(tibbs commuting)" pretty much says it all.
[12:08]  <tibbs> I can put that in every field if you like.
[12:08]  <spot> ok, so the X also means (tibbs commuting)
[12:08]  <spot> gotcha.
[12:08]  <tibbs> Yes, that is unchanged from the last time we filled in the chart.
[12:08]  <spot> So, 1600-1900 seems like our range
[12:09]  <tibbs> I can actually go until 20:30 but then I need to be packing up.  That would let a 19:00 meeting go a bit long, I suppose.
[12:10]  <tibbs> But I remember that racor indicated that later times aren't good for him.
[12:10]  <spot> ok.
[12:10]  <tibbs> Not that he's indicated that in the table, of course.
[12:10]  <spot> i think what we'll find is that the best time with the least amt of pain is when f13 (and in a few months me) usually has lunch
[12:11]  <f13> I can live with that.
[12:11]  <spot> but i think we can move our lunch hour to accomodate other peoples family time.
[12:11]  <f13> it's a mild annoyance, but whatever.
[12:11]  <tibbs> I'm in the middle of lunch at the moment.
[12:11]  <tibbs> Actually there's a retirement party out in the hall; I may slip away to grab something.
[12:12]  <rdieter> more slacker'ism!  it's everywhere.
[12:12]  <f13> tibbs: like office equipment from the guy leaving?
[12:12]  <tibbs> No, some professor's really old and there's free food.
[12:12]  <tibbs> I'm the one with all the good equipment anyway.
[12:13]  <XulChris> is this the PC meeting? I have a couple items i need to bring up
[12:14]  <spot> well, its barely quorum today, but yes.
[12:14]  <tibbs> XulChris: sort of; many members are on holiday.
[12:14]  * spot will eventually start enforcing the "you need to submit a draft" policy
[12:14]  <XulChris> well i have a couple really minor things
[12:14]  <XulChris> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP#head-5e7a9766c620301722a4afbd97294a6a804dca10
[12:14]  <spot> go ahead. :)
[12:15]  <spot> ok, thats a no brainer.
[12:15]  <spot> +1
[12:15]  <XulChris> the first item basically gives php-pecl modules perl like abi compatiblity checks
[12:15]  <XulChris> pretty straight forward stuff, let me know if there are any questions
[12:15]  <tibbs> reading....
[12:16]  <spot> all of the non-TODO items are ok by me
[12:16]  <rdieter> speaking of rpm macros, is it worth prepending _ to any of these?
[12:17]  <tibbs> The first two are no-brainers; +1 to those from me.
[12:17]  <XulChris> ya first two are all i want to bring up today
[12:17]  <tibbs> The channel bits are more interesting.
[12:17]  <tibbs> Ah, OK.
[12:17]  <lutter> sorry .. I am here now
[12:17]  <XulChris> channel bits arent ready yet
[12:17]  <lutter> completely spaced that it was Tuesday
[12:18]  <tibbs> When you completey forget that it's Friday, seek professional help.
[12:18]  <spot> rdieter, lutter, abadger1999, f13, look at the first two php items and vote? :)
[12:19]  <rdieter> +1 php
[12:19]  <lutter> +1 on pecl extensions
[12:19]  <abadger1999> pecl +1
[12:19]  <abadger1999> Looking at the rest
[12:20]  <lutter> +1 on the versioned BR
[12:20]  <XulChris> 5 votes needed for quorum?
[12:20]  <spot> yep.
[12:21]  <lutter> XulChris: is the channel business about namespaces only or is there some component of yum-like distribution ?
[12:21]  <spot> so, we're waiting on abadger1999. (or f13)
[12:21]  <XulChris> lutter: the channel business isnt ready yet, we still need to flesh that out, just voting on pecl stuff and versioned requires stuff
[12:21]  --> MauricioPretto has joined this channel (n=hash@fedora/MauricioPretto).
[12:21]  <abadger1999> Versioned BR +1
[12:22]  <lutter> XulChris: ok, then I'll hold my breath
[12:22]  <spot> ok, it passes.
[12:22]  <spot> i'll own this one for writeup purposes.
[12:22]  <XulChris> woohoo! does this need ratification by fesco now?
[12:22]  <spot> XulChris: yep
[12:22]  <XulChris> k
[12:22]  <spot> XulChris: anything else?
[12:23]  <XulChris> oh just that php group would like a mailing list, not sure if this is the proper place to ask though
[12:23]  <mlum_thud> rdieter: did we answer all questions you and I talked about on the phone?
[12:24]  <spot> XulChris: talk to warren, i think he can help you
[12:24]  <rdieter> mlum_thud: I think so, outstanding issues: your sponsor nomination, .jar signing.
[12:24]  <warren> ?
[12:24]  <mlum_thud> rdieter: ah, what was the status of the sponsorship?
[12:24]  <mlum_thud> rdieter: and jar signing?  Sorry, I didn't see the info..
[12:24]  <spot> warren: XulChris and php group wants a mailing list. can you help? :)
[12:24]  <warren> XulChris, similar to fedora-perl-devel-list?
[12:25]  <f13> Sorry, was looking at something else.
[12:25]  <XulChris> warren: yes
[12:25]  <warren> XulChris, http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list  like my all caps? =)
[12:25]  <spot> ok, lets continue
[12:25]  *** dwmw2 is now known as dwmw2_gone.
[12:25]  <spot> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RubyGems is ready for review
[12:26]  <XulChris> warren: looks good :)
[12:26]  <spot> i read over it this morning, and it looks very straightforward to me, and answers all of my concerns with the previous draft.
[12:26]  <lutter> what changed since we last talked about it is the stuff about making the same library available as a gem and not-as-a-gem
[12:26]  <mlum_thud> do I also need to submit anything on IRC for review as well, outside of the bugzilla submission form?
[12:27]  <spot> mlum_thud: not for package review, no
[12:27]  <spot> +1 from me for RubyGems
[12:28]  <tibbs> lutter: these may end up being confusing:
[12:28]  <tibbs> Requires: rubygem(activesupport) = %version
[12:28]  <tibbs> Provides: ruby(active_support) = %version  # The underscore is intentional
[12:28]  <abadger1999> I had two concerns but I only remember one at the moment --
[12:28]  <tibbs> Will it be obvious to packagers that the names will need to differ?
[12:28]  <abadger1999> The documentation in the gem isn't marked as %doc.
[12:28]  <rdieter> +1 rubygems
[12:28]  <lutter> yeah, it's ugly ... the first one is the name of the gem, whereas the second one is what you would require for the non-gem; the latter is that way because of the straight ruby guidelines
[12:29]  <tibbs> I can handle that, but I'm concerned that it may need to be explained extremely clearly for the sake of packagers and reviewers alike.
[12:30]  <lutter> tibbs: they don't have to differ, it's a matter of looking what you would actually say in your require in ruby to load that library
[12:30]  <lutter> abadger1999: hmm .. it should be. gem2spec marks the doc/ subdir of the gem as %doc
[12:31]  <abadger1999> lutter: Oh.  I must have done something wrong when I tried it.
[12:32]  <tibbs> I'm fine with things as is; we can make another pass after we have some packages in and some idea of what sticking points there are.
[12:32]  <tibbs> So +1 rubygems from me.
[12:32]  <lutter> abadger1999: at least the intention is that ppl mark docs as docs, shouldn't be different from any other package
[12:32]  <lutter> +1 from me obviously
[12:32]  <tibbs> I'm not sure it needs to be specifically stated that docs should be %doc.
[12:33]  <spot> f13/abadger1999: awaiting vote
[12:33]  * spot is now known as FPC-votebot
[12:35]  <f13> yeah, +1
[12:35]  <abadger1999> lutter: What is the purpose of the  cache/*.gem
[12:35]  <abadger1999> file
[12:35]  * tibbs afk appx. 2min.
[12:36]  <lutter> abadger1999: I believe gem uses it for it's own purpose; not entirely sure what for
[12:36]  <abadger1999> Is it a duplicate of the files expanded on the filesystem or does it contain something different?
[12:38]  <tibbs> back
[12:39]  <lutter> abadger1999: no, it's a duplicate .. a quick grep through the code shows that it's used for some of gem's commands, which are not all that interesting in an rpm-based scenario, but I'd still not want to break them
[12:39]  <abadger1999> k
[12:40]  <abadger1999> I'm not sure I like the duplication but it doesn't seem like we can fix it quickly.
[12:40]  <lutter> abadger1999: one gem command that uses it is 'unpack' which puts a copy of the gem into the current dir
[12:40]  <abadger1999> +1 from me.
[12:40]  <lutter> wouldn't be surprised if there were apps out there that expect unpack to work
[12:40]  <spot> ok, rubygems passes
[12:40]  <lutter> cool
[12:41]  <spot> thats all i have for this week, floor is open for any other items
[12:41]  <tibbs> Well, cross compilers are back in the forefront.
[12:42]  <tibbs> I'm thinking that perhaps that old draft that Rex brought up on-list should just be nuked.
[12:42]  <spot> yeah. i'd agree.
[12:42]  <rdieter> Ralf really should be the one driving that, imo.
[12:42]  <tibbs> Did Ralf ever produce the draft he promised?
[12:42]  <spot> someone can make a new draft if they're motivated (ralf, kevin)
[12:43]  <rdieter> tibbs: afaik, no.
[12:43]  <tibbs> Seems disingenuous to complain that Fedora can't accept his packages when the process is actually blocked on him.
[12:47]  <spot> ok, i think we're done for the day
[12:47]  <spot> next week is the RH Summit
[12:48]  <spot> f13 and I will be missing the meeting for that
[12:48]  <rdieter> ditto
[12:48]  <-- nim-nim has left this server ("Leaving.").
[12:48]  * rdieter goes to work on a server that's melting...
[12:48]  <spot> thanks all.