Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20060209

Summary

Present from Fesco: thl, jpo, skvidal, Sopwith, jeremy, mschwendt, scop, thomasvs, f13

Tasks:

• Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager

Sopwith and skvidal will make sure that the following will be be added to the buildsystems:

Vendor:	Fedora Extras
Packager: Fedora Extras <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>

• Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5

A separate mail will follow. This is the rough version: Can probably start on Sunday (February 12). Method: All packagers will take care of their to rebuild their own packages. Means: Increase release, put a comment like "Rebuild for FC5" in the changelog and request build. We're ignoring dep-order this way, but that works fine in core, too. It's to late for a better solution, but if anybody has problem with that please prepare a proposal how to do mass builds in the future. Orphaned packages will be removed before the rebuild starts. Rebuilds only for FE5 of course -- rebuilding packages in FE4 also just to keep the spec files in all branches in sync is stupid because it would mean unneeded updates/downloads for Extras users. Please only rebuild the packages you own! Branching for FE6 will probably happen at the same time as in rawhide.

Still unsure (Comments please!):

• what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two weeks?
• Packages not rebuild before the 12th of February will be removed before FC5 is shipped to start with a clean tree with old cruft removed.

• Encourage Extras reviews

Some SIG's were created and already started to work -- see http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs

The whole thing is a bit unorganized ATM. We don't need to many rules to organize a SIG, but we probably need *some*. Some parts of the discussions:

19:27 <         jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
19:28 <   mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
19:31 <   mschwendt> | There's some content.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work.
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html
19:32 <       nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages.
19:32 <   mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page
19:33 <   mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points
19:33 <       nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;)
19:33 <         thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-|
19:34 <   mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general
19:35 <         thl> | anyone interested in that job?
19:35 <   mschwendt> | not necessarily
19:35 <   mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already
19:35 <   mschwendt> | it just needs more time
19:35 <   mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed
19:36 <         thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho

nirik suggested 'package review days'. We'll try this out and see how it works:

19:30 <       nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)?
19:30 <       nirik> | perhaps sometime next week?
19:32 <       nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling.

• EOL Policy for FE

Still under discussion. See the full log for all details. Highlights:

19:40 <   mschwendt> | we cannot offer an old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially
19:43 <         jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE
19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about.  do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes?
19:44 <   mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on
19:44 <   mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5
19:47 <         thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list
19:52 <    dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras
19:52 <         jwb> | the entire thing?
19:53 <    dgilmore> | jwb: yes  i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux
19:53 <   mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team.
19:53 <         thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list?
19:54 <    dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do

• Broken deps report

Waiting for further discussion on the list.

• Weekly sponsorship nomination

Andreas Bierfert (awjb) was nominated and accepted.

BTW, It seems some people hesitate to nominate people in a public IRC channel. Therefore I'll modify the process slightly: FESCo-Members will discuss nominations directly on the FESCo-mailinglist in the future. If other sponsors or Extras packagers want to nominate someone just drop me a mail and I'll forward it. Okay for everybody?

• Kernel module standardization

What remains to be done? buildsys :( thl will try to get this moving again.

Full Log

18:55            --> | Sopwith (Elliot Lee)  has joined #fedora-extras
18:58            --> | jpo (Unknown)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:00              * | thl looks around
19:00 <         thl> | anyone around?
19:00 <   dgilmore> | thl: im here
19:00 <    Sopwith> | thl :)
19:01              * | skvidal is here
19:01 <         thl> | welcome back skvidal ;-)
19:01 <        jpo> | thl: also here
19:01 <         thl> | well, then lets start slowly
19:01 <    skvidal> | thl: thanks
19:02 <         thl> | skvidal, have you seen the mail from caillon "Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager?"
19:02              * | jeremy is here
19:02            --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:02 <    skvidal> | thl: umm, yes
19:02 <    skvidal> | thl: why?
19:03 <         thl> | is there any reason why we don't set those fields?
19:03 <         thl> | can we set them?
19:03 <    Sopwith> | thl: The build system should probably set them in its rpmrc...
19:03 <     Sopwith> | or macros or whatever
19:03 <    skvidal> | thl: there's a field in the mock config that lets you set that sort of stuff
19:04 <         thl> | then we should do that imho
19:04 <     skvidal> | in the .rpmmacros file of the mockbuild user in the chroot
19:04 <         thl> | or does anyone don't like the idea?
19:04 <    skvidal> | thl: okay - it's a setting that needs to be handled on the builder nodes
19:04 <         thl> | what do we put in those?
19:05 <         thl> | Vendor=Fedora Extras
19:05 <     skvidal> | no, just one sec
19:05 <     skvidal> | in the mock config file
19:05 <     skvidal> | there are a bunch of things like
19:06 <     skvidal> | config_opts = """ some stuff here"""
19:06 <     skvidal> | there's one named config_opts
19:06 <     skvidal> | it's default is:
19:06 <     skvidal> |     config_opts = """
19:06 <     skvidal> | %_topdir %s/build
19:06 <     skvidal> | %_rpmfilename   %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
19:06 <     skvidal> | """ % config_opts
19:07 <     skvidal> | so all we need to do is define it in the mock config file and add %vendor and %packager, I think.
19:07            --> | thomasvs (Thomas Vander Stichele)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:07 <     skvidal> | and then those fields will be set
19:07 <         thl> | skvidal, sounds great
19:07 <         thl> | how about:
19:07 <         thl> | Vendor:	Fedora Extras
19:07 <         thl> | Packager: Fedora Extras <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
19:08 <     skvidal> | no problem here - I just don't know how to set that in the mock configs on the builders
19:08 <     skvidal> | like I do not know how to get to the machines.
19:08 <         thl> | Sopwith?
19:09 <     Sopwith> | skvidal: Info on logging into the machines was posted to fedora-sysadmin-list - check archives
19:09 <     skvidal> | Sopwith: it's not on the wiki?
19:09 <     Sopwith> | no
19:10 <     skvidal> | and that doesn't seem silly to you?
19:10 <     Sopwith> | No
19:10 <     skvidal> | so instead of it being searchable and in an obvious place it's in an obscure place in the archives from 2005
19:10 <     skvidal> | oooooooookie doke
19:11 <         thl> | well, let's proceed -- Sopwith, skvidal can you take care of this stuff ?
19:11 <         thl> | I take that as yes ;-)
19:11 <     skvidal> | yah
19:11 <    Sopwith> | thl: I can help out, yea.
19:12 <         thl> | jeremy, Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5
19:12 <     Sopwith> | I try to let other people cover the build system :)
19:12 <     jeremy> | thl: I think core is done/almost done at this point... so it's probably worth having people start say the beginning of next week?
19:13              * | jeremy hasn't talked to f13 yet today for a status on the core rebuild, but sees beehive being less cluttered
19:13 <         thl> | sounds like a plan
19:13 <         thl> | so we'll simply use the "guys, please rebuild your packages now" solution?
19:13 <      jeremy> | yeah -- I think that's the better approach
19:13 <   mschwendt> | Yes, good opportunity for Extras maintainers to take a look at their dependencies on Core+Extras.
19:13 <      jeremy> | and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed
19:14 <         thl> | okay
19:14 <         thl> | next one:
19:14 <    dgilmore> | so the load doesnt get huge  should the request be  only build for fc5  not fc3 and 4  as well
19:14 <     ignacio> | When will the FE5 branch be created and devel be pushed to 6?
19:14 <   mschwendt> | dgilmore: why rebuild for fc3/fc4?
19:15 <         thl> | ignacio, will probably happen when core is branched. Or am I wrong with that? jeremy , Sopwith ?
19:15 <    dgilmore> | mschwendt: alot of people  might build on all to keep spec files the same across all releases
19:15 <      jeremy> | ignacio: when we branch core.  so basically right at release time
19:16 <   mschwendt> | dgilmore: I consider that weird.
19:16 <      jeremy> | dgilmore: I'd say it's worthwhile to suggest just building on devel to make it clear
19:16 <     ignacio> | Should we start with an empty FE5 repo and rebuild the packages for it, or will we clone from devel again?
19:16            --- | nman64_away is now known as nman64
19:16 <      jeremy> | ignacio: clone from devel is the only sane way to go
19:16 <   mschwendt> | ignacio: the latter
19:16 <         f13> | jeremy: I have a list of failures to sort through, but it looks like a good chunk went through last night.
19:16 <     Sopwith> | ignacio: I think the branching decision is best made by FESCO to meet the needs of the extras packagers :)
19:16 <    dgilmore> | mschwendt: theres no need to rebuild fc3/fc4  but id make it clear  in requesting  that its devel only
19:16 <         f13> | jeremy: I'd say give it another day.
19:16 <      jeremy> | f13: I noticed.  :)
19:17 <         f13> | he
19:17 <         f13> | h
19:17 <         thl> | jeremy, f13, is sunday okay?
19:17 <   mschwendt> | Sopwith: who can create the FC-5 branch when we need it?
19:17 <     jeremy> | thl: seems like a reasonable thing to shoot for
19:17 <      jeremy> | if something changes, I'll send mail
19:17 <       nirik> | what about removing orphan packages from the repos? it seems we have some in there in devel currently...
19:17 <        f13> | thl: 8-ball says "Outlook good"
19:18 <     Sopwith> | mschwendt: Anyone with root on the cvs box (admin@fedoraproject.org will get the request through if nothing else...)
19:18            --> | scop (Ville Skytta)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:18 <         thl> | removing the orphan packages before the rebuild sounds like a good idea
19:18 <   mschwendt> | Sopwith: So somebody within FESCO can jump it when we discuss it on the list, right?
19:18 <   mschwendt> | nirik, thl: +1
19:19 <         thl> | who can take care of it?
19:19 <         thl> | should happen soon, e.g. before sunday ;-)
19:19 <  mschwendt> | thl: I'm going to take a look
19:19 <         thl> | mschwendt, do you have access to the right box to remove the packages yourself?
19:19 <   mschwendt> | yes
19:19 <         thl> | great
19:19 <        scop> | sorry for being late and not quite up to date on things, but what "the rebuild"?
19:19 <       nirik> | getting rid of orphans should clean up the broken depends some too.
19:20 <         thl> | scop ?
19:21 <       scop> | thl, "removing the orphan packages before the rebuild ..."
19:21 <      nman64> | scop: FE5
19:21 <       nirik> | scop: rebuild of packages in extras for fc5.
19:21 <        scop> | I thought that was left to package maintainers
19:21 <   mschwendt> | scop: orphans are without a maintainer
19:22 <   mschwendt> | and when they are broken, they don't work anyway
19:22 <        scop> | mschwendt, yes, but if they're being removed, what's going to be rebuilt?
19:22 <         thl> | scop, the whole stuff
19:22 <      nman64> | The orphaned packages will no longer be present.
19:22 <   mschwendt> | scop: nearly everything else for the new GCC
19:23 <         thl> | we're at "Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5"
19:23 <         thl> | we plan to start on sunday
19:23 <        scop> | ok, so it's no longer left to the maintainers...?
19:23 <         thl> | with the maintainers build their own packages when they want
19:23 <        scop> | ok
19:23 <         thl> | solution
19:23 <         thl> | ok, anything left to discuss on this topic?
19:24            --- | thl has changed the topic to: Encourage Extras reviews
19:24 <         thl> | some SIG's were created
19:25 <         thl> | but how are they doing to work?
19:25 <         thl> | any ideas?
19:25 <         jwb> | erm, did we skip EOL?
19:25 <         thl> | jwb, ohh, sorry
19:25 <         jwb> | no problem, just wondering
19:25 <         thl> | let's talk about this one now
19:25 <         thl> | got the wrong line while cut and pasting ;-)
19:26 <         thl> | or are there other ideas how to encourage reviews?
19:26              * | skvidal has to go do some work - ping me by name if you need me
19:26            --> | mdomsch (Matt Domsch)  has joined #fedora-extras
19:26 <   mschwendt> | SIGs have been created? Where can I learn about it prior to a meeting?
19:27 <         jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
19:27 <         jwb> | mschwendt, there was some discussion on the list about it
19:27            --- | edhill_ is now known as edhill
19:28 <      nirik> | thl: perhaps we could setup a 'review exchange' ? ie, you put in that you would like someone to review your package X, and you will review their package Y? might be too complicated I though...
19:28 <         jwb> | nirik, hard to account for ones that need sponsors
19:28 <   mschwendt> | jwb: I think SIGs need more on-list discussion before discussing this here. I see empty pages in the Wiki or pages listing two people, but nothing else.
19:28 <         thl> | nirik, do you mean a general wiki page for that?
19:28 <   mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least.
19:29 <         thl> | Or a section in the wiki pages of the SIGs?
19:29 <         jwb> | mschwendt, sure i agree
19:29 <       nirik> | mdomsch: +1
19:29 <      nirik> | thl: not sure, just tossing out an idea. I suspect it would be too hard to manage...
19:29 <      nirik> | thl: there is also possibly a 'package review day' idea.
19:30 <         thl> | nirik, the idea imho is worth a try
19:30 <         thl> | both actually
19:30 <         jwb> | i like the package review day
19:30 <       nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)?
19:30 <       nirik> | perhaps sometime next week?
19:31 <   mschwendt> | SIG - Let's take this as an example:
19:31 <         thl> | nirik, +1
19:31 <   mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
19:31 <   mschwendt> | There's some content.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | i.e. do they collect review requests for their field of interest?
19:32 <      nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling.
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html
19:32 <       nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages.
19:32 <         thl> | nirik, thx
19:32 <  mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page
19:33 <  mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points
19:33 <       nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;)
19:33 <         thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-|
19:34 <  mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general
19:35 <         thl> | anyone interested in that job?
19:35 <   mschwendt> | no necessarily
19:35 <   mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already
19:35 <   mschwendt> | it just needs more time
19:35 <   mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps
19:35 <   mschwendt> | s/no/not/
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed
19:36 <         thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho
19:36 <       nirik> | as an additional unrelated idea, how about suggesting to people that they publish a link to their new/review package review upstream and ask for reviwers from the upstream pool. They might not know rpm/fedora, but they could at least test the package...
19:36 <         thl> | ignacio, could you take care of that?
19:36 <         thl> | ignacio, shouldn't be to much work
19:36 <   mschwendt> | nirik: not worth the effort as many upstream people think very different than we do.
19:37            <-- | finalzone  has left #fedora-extras ( )
19:37 <   mschwendt> | nirik: they would consider the entire reviewing process an unnecessary "burden"
19:37 <       nirik> | yeah, it would depend on the upstream I guess.
19:37 <         jwb> | it does.  i've done that in the past and gotten good and bad results
19:37 <         thl> | well, we're running out of time
19:37 <         thl> | let's stop here for today
19:38            --- | thl has changed the topic to:  EOL Policy for FE
19:38 <         thl> | any modifications needed to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy
19:38 <  mschwendt> | thl: followup to your SIG message on extras-list will happen...
19:39 <         thl> | mschwendt, thx :-)
19:39              * | thl will take that as "no" soon
19:40 <   mschwendt> | w8 a sec
19:40 <   mschwendt> | that is the old proposal, but it's not covering an
19:40 <   mschwendt> | announcement that a version of FE has reached end-of-life
19:40 <         thl> | I thought f13 updated it
19:40 <   mschwendt> | we cannot offer and old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially
19:40 <   mschwendt> | s/and/an/
19:41 <         thl> | well, it's not EOL (yet)
19:41 <         thl> | Maintenance state
19:41 <         thl> | was the definition iirc
19:41 <   mschwendt> | that's not helpful, when some packagers still maintain it while others don't
19:42 <   mschwendt> | either the full show or none at all
19:42 <         thl> | do you suggest to remove FE3 soon?
19:42 <   mschwendt> | no, we need to declare end-of-life
19:42 <         thl> | when?
19:43 <         jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE
19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about.  do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes?
19:44 <   mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on
19:44 <   mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5
19:44 <         thl> | mschwendt, well, I suspect some people ignored FE3 already
19:45 <         thl> | so it might be insecure already...
19:45 <  mschwendt> | thl: that's why we need to declare EOL
19:45 <         jwb> | mschwendt, which means no updates?
19:45              * | jwb doesn't like this
19:45              * | scop neither
19:45 <   mschwendt> | I don't mean "no updates".
19:46 <      nman64> | More like "no promises".
19:46 <   mschwendt> | I just don't like the proposal of "some packagers may update it, others won't update it and won't do security fixes either"
19:46 <         jwb> | oh, i see
19:46 <   mschwendt> | nman64: more like "even less promises"
19:46 <         jwb> | that i can agree to i suppose
19:46 <         thl> | mschwendt, well, that a general problem with extras
19:47 <  mschwendt> | thl: sure, but it is bigger problem for legacy dists
19:47 <         jwb> | mschwendt, i have no problem with EOL as long as the maintainers that _do_ care are still able to put updates out for fixes/etc.
19:47 <         thl> | it get more complicated when releases get older
19:47 <      nman64> | It is difficult to assure anything with a volunteer project.
19:47 <   mschwendt> | jwb: sure
19:47 <         thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list
19:48 <         jwb> | cool
19:48 <   mschwendt> | with the example of fedora.us
19:48 <   mschwendt> | Extras for FC-2 and older have been open for updates, but hardly anybody had interest in the old dists
19:48 <  mschwendt> | thl: yeah, move on
19:49 <         thl> | mschwendt, that might be a bit different with the official extras now
19:49 <         thl> | because it's easier
19:49 <         thl> | anyway, let's move on
19:49            --- | thl has changed the topic to:  Broken deps report
19:49 <         thl> | I think we should skip this for this week
19:49 <         thl> | and wait for the results of mschwendt posting to extras-list
19:49 <         thl> | okay?
19:50 <   mschwendt> | fine with me
19:50 <         jwb> | i'd like to point out that mschwendt's current posts rock
19:50            --- | thl has changed the topic to: Weekly sponsorship nomination
19:50 <         thl> | I suggest Andreas Bierfert / awjb
19:51 <   mschwendt> | +1
19:51 <      edhill> | +1
19:51 <         thl> | anyone that does not like the idea?
19:52 <         thl> | okay, I'll upgrade him to a sponsor
19:52 <         thl> | any other nominations?
19:52 <    dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras
19:52 <         jwb> | the entire thing?
19:53 <    dgilmore> | jwb: yes  i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux
19:53 <    dgilmore> | and as aurora 2.0 is based on fc3  i based on that
19:53 <   mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team.
19:53 <         thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list
19:53 <         thl> | ?
19:54 <   dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do
19:54 <         thl> | dgilmore, thx
19:54 <         thl> | okay
19:55 <         thl> | does anybody want to discuss anything else from the schedule?
19:55 <         thl> | "Extras to handle multilib" for example?
19:55 <        jwb> | thl, i have a sponsor-ish question
19:55 <         thl> | jwb, shoot
19:56 <         jwb> | at one point any RH engineer had automagical sponsor auth (was a while ago).  does that still hold, or have we moved away from that?
19:56 <         thl> | jwb, good question... I don't know...
19:57 <         thl> | anyone else?
19:57 <         jwb> | question comes from the seamonkey review where someone nominated chris allion as their sponsor but he isn't listed in the sponsor page
19:57 <         jpo> | I believe they need to be sponsored
19:57 <      jeremy> | I thought we moved away from that
19:57 <         jwb> | ok, that's what i thought as well
19:58 <         thl> | jwb, ping spot or send him a mail
19:58 <         thl> | he'll know the details
19:58 <         jwb> | will do
19:58 <         thl> | scop, now that your are here:
19:58            --- | thl has changed the topic to: Kernel module standardization
19:58 <         thl> | what remains to be done?
19:58 <        scop> | buildsys :(
19:58 <         thl> | patch for rpm-macros?
19:59 <        scop> | not essential
19:59 <         thl> | scop, did you talk with dcbw
19:59 <        scop> | nope
19:59 <         thl> | someone should...
19:59 <        scop> | I just had a brief look at things, tweaked the extras Makefile.common and friends so that eg "make i686" does the right thing, but that's about it
20:00 <         thl> | jeremy, Sopwith, can you poke dcbw?
20:00 <        scop> | finding out that mock doesn't apparently support passing in arbitrary arguments (or even --defines) to builds was an unpleasant surprise
20:01 <         jwb> | that can be changed, yes?
20:01 <         thl> | scop, I mad a patch for this ages ago
20:01 <         thl> | that at least allowed some sepcial arbitrary arguments
20:01 <        scop> | well, yes, and mach did support it, but nevertheless the current mock doesn't
20:02 <         thl> | scop, I'll try to get things moving
20:02            --- | thl has changed the topic to: free discussion
20:02 <         thl> | okay, anything left?
20:02            --> | finalzone (gaim)  has joined #fedora-extras
20:03 <        scop> | the "rebuild everything" stuff is still fuzzy to me
20:03 <         thl> | scop, what precisely ?
20:03 <         thl> | we chose to ignore the deps
20:04 <         thl> | and just to it similar to core
20:04 <        scop> | if I take care of rebuilding my packages, will someone do an automated rebuild of them after next sunday again anyway?
20:04 <         thl> | simply rebuild everything
20:04 <         thl> | scop, no, that should now happen
20:04 <    dgilmore> | scop: maintainers will be asked on sunday to start rebuilding there packages  at there convenience
20:04 <        scop> | okay
20:04 <        scop> | is there a reason one should hold on until sunday?
20:04 <         thl> | scop, anything else unclear?
20:05 <    dgilmore> | scop: it was to wait till core was done building
20:05 <   mschwendt> | scop: unless we have a very good tool which can to bottom-up rebuilding of everything, we need maintainers to get a good understanding of their dependencies on Core/Extras, so they coordinate rebuilds if necessary
20:05 <   mschwendt> | scop: s/can to/can do/
20:05 <         thl> | I don't think coordinating works
20:06 <         thl> | a simply uncoordinated rebuild works in core, too
20:06 <         thl> | I thinks it'S okay if we do it that way now, too
20:06 <   mschwendt> | if you depend on other packages which are broken, we need solutions for that. Like "bump and rebuild yourself"? Or like "file bug report"?
20:06 <         thl> | but we should find a better solution for FE6
20:06            --> | hlieberman (http://rate.affero.net/hlieberman)  has joined #fedora-extras
20:06 <  hlieberman> | I'm having some scrollkeeper and rpath problems.... If anyone can help me, that'd be great.
20:07 <  mschwendt> | thl: multilib proposal needs work on various fronts (buildsys, packaging policies, reviewing policies) a bit much for IRC
20:07 <         thl> | mschwendt, file a bug report, wait one week, and then bump and rebuild yourself
20:07 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed
20:07              * | nirik needs to find time to file bugs on the packages from the mock-rebuild. A number are fixed now.
20:07 <      |Jef|> | thl: its appropriate for me to bump and rebuild another maintainers package?
20:07 <   mschwendt> | |Jef|: that could result in big chaos
20:08 <    dgilmore> | |Jef|: i would say if they havent responded to a bugzilla request yes
20:08 <         thl> | |Jef|, not now
20:08 <      |Jef|> | thl: im in that situation right now waiting for thomasvs to fix a blocker
20:08 <         thl> | |Jef|, but that might be neccessay if we get closer to release of FC5
20:08 <         jwb> | |Jef|, is a fix involved or is it just a bump and rebuild?
20:08 <   mschwendt> | |Jef|: we need just another RE SIG for that ;)
20:09 <       |Jef|> | jwb: its looks like a minor packaging fix
20:09 <       |Jef|> | mschwendt: shurg
20:09 <       |Jef|> | jwb: and thl knows exactly what im talking about.. since he figured out the underlying problem
20:09 <       nirik> | |Jef|: is there a bug filed? perhaps you could file one and add a patch?
20:10 <       |Jef|> | jwb: so i bring it up as a concrete example that thl should understand..
20:10 <         thl> | |Jef|, I'll think a bit about this whole situation/problem and will post something to the list
20:10 <         thl> | |Jef|, that okay?
20:10 <      |Jef|> | thl: shrug
20:10 <      |Jef|> | thl: im just pointing out a current example that relates to this discussion
20:10 <         thl> | yeah, I know
20:10 <   mschwendt> | Well, escalate the issue, and FESCO needs to deal with it. ;)
20:11 <       |Jef|> | mschwendt: that assumes that i actually want it fixed
20:11 <         thl> | where is thomasvs btw -- he joined soon after the meeting started...
20:11 <       nirik> | I think where possible you shouldn't modify/rebuild other peoples packages. If it gets bad perhaps there should be a way to change maintainers on a package for someone who's unresponsive?
20:11 <       |Jef|> | mschwendt: if istanbul doesnt rebuild.. less work for me :->
20:12 <         thl> | guys, let's call it a day
20:12 <       |Jef|> | mschwendt: not a horrible problem since its not in fc4.. no upgrade path to worry about for this one
20:12              * | thl will end the meeting in 30 if no new topics hit the floor
20:12              * | thl will close in 15
20:13              * | thl will close in 7
20:13              * | thl will close in 3
20:13              * | thl will close in 2
20:13              * | thl will close in 1
20:13 <         thl> | MARK meeting end
20:13 <         thl> | thx guys