From Fedora Project Wiki
< Extras | SteeringCommittee
Summary
Present from FESCo: thl, scop, mschwendt, spot, jeremy, Sopwith,
- FESCo election
- round about only 50 votes so far
- thl will send out a "go voting" reminder
- CTRL-C problem (cvs-commits-mails can be prevented by hitting CTRL+C during commit)
- Ticket 2006070210000016 created in OTRS
- Weekly sponsorship nomination
- Orion Poplawski upgraded to sponsor
- some discussion about making Steve Pritchard sponsor. He he doesn't do much reviews but he maintains 83 packages in Extras. Some people say "Given the large # of packages he maintains, I think we know his loyalties and it wouldn't hurt to give it to him. (He probably wont screw things up.) Whether it would benefit us is unclear though if he doesn't review." while others "like to see more reviews".
- Sponsors' obligations are not documented anywhere, unfortunately
- discuss this on the list further
- legacy updates in build roots
- added by dgilmore; more discussion on the list
- scop gave a quick summary from the first packaging committee meeting
- A real summary will be sent out soon
- /usr/libexec is ok
- mono is all %{_libdir}, no noarch
- ruby packaging guidelines are a-ok
- php guidelines need some work, moratorium called
- confirmed packaging committee members: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGroup
- Note: this was the last meeting of the "old" FESCo. The newly elected FESCo will meet for the first time next Thursday
Full Log
0:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress
0:00 < thl> | Welcome everybody!
0:00 < thl> | who's around?
0:00 < thl> | who's around from FESCo?
0:00 * | nirik is in the rabble section.
0:01 * | scop is around, in another parallel meeting for a while
0:01 --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt) has joined #fedora-extras
0:02 * | dgilmore is here
0:02 < tibbs> | Currently wrapping up fedora-packaging meeting...
0:02 < spot> | i'm here, packaging is almost done
0:02 * | thl didn#t even know about this meeting but hasn't finished reading mails yet
0:02 < thl> | then let'S start slowly
0:03 < thl> | spot, btw, regarding packaging
0:03 * | bpepple is here.
0:03 < mschwendt> | Only 49 votes for FESCO election so far? Is the number accurate?
0:03 < thl> | spot, I saw axel added kernel modules to the ToDo list
0:03 < thl> | don't know
0:03 < thl> | mschwendt, where did you get that number?
0:03 < mschwendt> | thl: after voting
0:04 < thl> | mschwendt, ahh, okay
0:04 < thl> | maybe we should send out a reminder
0:04 --> | Sopwith (Undisclosed) has joined #fedora-extras
0:04 < thl> | spot, scop, can you watch axel and the kernel module thing?
0:05 < thl> | I think we all don't want to re-invent everything
0:05 < spot> | thl: sure.
0:05 < thl> | spot, warren, f13, jeremy, regarding kernel-modules
0:05 < thl> | was the GFS stuff converted?
0:05 < f13> | gfs2 went upstream.
0:06 < spot> | ok, packaging meeting is done
0:06 < f13> | gfs1 went out of core.
0:06 < f13> | I don't believe there are any current gfs kernel module packages in Core or Extras at this time.
0:06 < jeremy> | correct
0:07 < thl> | dlm?dlm and the other stuff is also gone?
0:07 --> | jpo (Jose Pedro Oliveira) has joined #fedora-extras
0:07 < thl> | gnbd?
0:07 < f13> | the userland packages exist, which just depend on the kernel.
0:07 < spot> | gnbd was userspace iirc
0:07 < thl> | cman?
0:08 < f13> | some were rolled together a same package.
0:08 < thl> | okay
0:08 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- FESCo future/election
0:08 < thl> | any status update?
0:08 * | cweyl (rabble) is here
0:08 < thl> | Sopwith ?
0:09 * | jwb is here
0:09 < thl> | btw, I'll send out a reminder for the election tomorrow
0:09 < thl> | for those that joined late
0:09 < spot> | do i need to send out my ninjas to enforce voter participation? :)
0:09 < thl> | < mschwendt> | Only 49 votes for FESCO election so far? Is the number accurate?
0:09 < thl> | spot, yes please ;-)
0:10 < cweyl> | that's 49 people voting so far, not 49 individual votes, right?
0:10 < thl> | Sopwith, do you know if the number is accurate?
0:10 < dgilmore> | how many people are eligible to vote?
0:10 < thl> | round about 240 iirc
0:10 < f13> | anybody with a signed CLA no?
0:10 < f13> | or is it maintainers?
0:11 < tibbs> | cvsextras only.
0:11 < thl> | f13, anyone in cvsextras
0:11 < mschwendt> | cweyl: yes
0:11 < f13> | ah
0:11 * | f13 looks for where to vote
0:11 < jwb> | drfickle, go vote
0:11 < mschwendt> | https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/vote.cgi
0:11 < rsc> | <- was no. 10
0:11 * | jwb was #1
0:12 < spot> | i voted several times.
0:12 < jwb> | i win :)
0:12 < Sopwith> | thl: I didn't get told how to run reports :)
0:12 < dgilmore> | spot: id hope you didint
0:12 < drfickle> | jwb: but i barely know anyone :)
0:12 < thl> | Sopwith, you were told
0:12 < spot> | dgilmore: its the chicago way! :)
0:12 < thl> | Sopwith, two minutes ago ;-)
0:12 < cweyl> | spot: did you put your ninjas in cvsextras for this? ;)
0:12 < thl> | Sopwith, a short report would be helpful
0:12 < thl> | anyway
0:12 < dgilmore> | spot: :) cool as long as you voted for me
0:12 < thl> | let's move on
0:13 <-- | _wart_ has left #fedora-extras ( )
0:13 < jwb> | drfickle, fair enough. all seem good candidates to me though :)
0:13 < Sopwith> | thl: Scrolling back, hang on :)
0:13 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- CTRL-C problem (cvs-commits-mails can be prevented by hitting CTRL+C during commit)
0:13 * | f13 files teh 50th vote
0:13 < thl> | warren, Sopwith any status there ?
0:13 < spot> | really? wow, i could have spared everyone several hundred emails of bad jokes... ;)
0:14 < warren> | thl, I had no traction from the last admin meeting, and now I don't have any access to the cvs server at all until the election is done. defer.
0:14 < Sopwith> | thl: It is high on my list of "things I am ignoring" :)
0:15 < jwb> | ah, honesty
0:15 < thl> | Sopwith, how to we get it moved to the "high-priority list"?
0:15 < f13> | whats the major problem with this?
0:15 <-- | roozbeh has quit ("Leaving")
0:15 < f13> | IE why is this a high priority?
0:16 < tibbs> | I can change your packages and hit Ctrl-C at the proper moment and you won't be notified.
0:16 < thl> | well, getting trojans into fedora extras should not that easy imho
0:16 < f13> | the check in information is held elsewhere no? in the CVS system?
0:17 < f13> | it doesn't just rely on email to figure out what people did?
0:17 < Sopwith> | f13: Yea. It's a valid concern, if a bit paranoid.
0:17 < Sopwith> | I think a fix should be easy (just ignore the signal in the syncmail script)
0:17 < warren> | Having a reliable mail record makes it a LOT easier to have confidence in the changes going in.
0:17 < Sopwith> | But getting someone who knows how to reproduce & test it is key
0:17 < thl> | Sopwith, well, "middle-priority list" would be okay, too
0:18 < f13> | warren: its not like this information isn't kept in CVS itself.
0:18 < thl> | f13, do you want to check all the md5sum's?
0:18 < Sopwith> | thl: Huh?
0:18 < cweyl> | I still think it would be nifty if there were a way to send only update notices for packages I'm maintaining/on-cc. there's a _lot_ of traffic on the commits list
0:18 < f13> | thl: if sources changed, it would bark when you try to make a new package or bump a package from your check out.
0:18 < Sopwith> | cweyl: Yea, packageDBproject should enable that, I think :)
0:19 < warren> | cweyl, ideally that is something that we want to achieve with the package database project
0:19 < thl> | Sopwith, well, just changin the md5sum and commiting that change is probably the easiest solution
0:19 < thl> | to get a trojan in
0:19 < cweyl> | yah. warren, if I can help with that in any way...
0:19 < dgilmore> | cweyl: i like to monitor packages i have approved also
0:19 < tibbs> | Wasn't dgilmore messing with syncmail yesterday? I got the impression he was working on this problem.
0:19 < warren> | cweyl, please do... we need people to drive that subproject
0:19 < dgilmore> | though im not on cc for them
0:19 < Sopwith> | Look, this worrying is a bit over the top, but I think we can fix it easily, so let's not get stuck on this
0:19 < Sopwith> | By the way
0:19 < warren> | tibbs, he was working on a different problem
0:19 < f13> | *shrug*
0:19 < Sopwith> | Is there a ticket filed for this in OTRS?
0:20 < dgilmore> | tibbs: I wanted to mess with it but couldnt get the script we use
0:20 < thl> | Sopwith, don't know
0:20 < f13> | if you're going to trojan somebody's package, you'd probably need to steal an account somehow, and if you've done that, well...
0:20 < scop> | f13, some people take fresh checkouts for all modifications every time for various reasons -> nothing can trigger the bark
0:20 < Sopwith> | 542 votes placed by 51 individuals.
0:21 < Sopwith> | thl: If it's not there, it doesn't exist...
0:21 < spot> | so, we have about 20% voter turnout.
0:21 < jima> | 121 unused votes? wow.
0:21 < warren> | spot, isn't that about regular?
0:21 < thl> | Sopwith, warren wanted to look after it ;-)
0:21 < thl> | Sopwith, shall I create such a ticket?
0:21 < spot> | warren: eh, probably.
0:21 < Sopwith> | thl: Please
0:21 < thl> | Sopwith, URL? (i have it somewhere, but...)
0:22 < jima> | 20% sounds fairly typical
0:22 * | jima muses over a second slice of free pizza
0:22 < spot> | actually, its pretty low
0:22 < f13> | scop: sure, it just seems like an overblown issue. Sure we should fix it, but not a high priority IMHO. anywho....
0:22 < spot> | http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html
0:22 < Sopwith> | thl: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/tickets/
0:23 < scop> | f13, FWIW, I tend to agree
0:23 < Sopwith> | (Login with your Fedora Account)
0:23 < thl> | Sopwith, k, thx
0:23 < thl> | k, let's move on
0:23 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Encourage Extras reviews
0:23 < thl> | tibbs, any news?
0:24 < tibbs> | Now that the packaging committee is going, I plan to work on improved documentation under that umbrella.
0:24 < jima> | other than that he's a reviewing machine?
0:24 < tibbs> | Unfortunately I'm not enough of a people person to understand how to actually motivate people to do reviews.
0:24 --> | RTLM (RTLM) has joined #fedora-extras
0:24 < thl> | tibbs, okay, that's enough for now
0:25 < thl> | tibbs, and thx for being a "reviewing machine"
0:25 < jima> | i haven't checked the timestamps on the bugzilla comments, but i think he may review in his sleep.
0:25 < thl> | :-)
0:25 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- Weekly sponsorship nomination
0:25 < tibbs> | If anyone has ideas for motivating people, please let me know.
0:25 < thl> | edhill nominated Orion Poplawski
0:25 < jwb> | i'd like to nominate j-rod
0:25 < jima> | tibbs: sadly, i'm horribly undermotivated. i probably can't be motivated to figure out how to motivate people. it's really sad. :(
0:26 < bpepple> | thl: +1
0:26 < f13> | tibbs: approach max or greg about doing up a cafepress shirt that says "I did 200 package revies and all I got was this lousy tshirt and carpel tunnel" to give to reivewers that reach milestones.
0:26 < thl> | I didn't hear any "-1" for Orion and most people seemed to agree
0:26 < abadger1999> | tibbs: Mentoring.
0:26 < jima> | f13: oooh!
0:26 < jwb> | thl, +1
0:26 < thl> | so I thing we should make him a sponsor if no "-1" show up soon
0:26 < bpepple> | thl: Sounds good.
0:26 < jima> | orion's the one with the most reviews for a non-sponsor, right?
0:26 < f13> | jwb: j-rod has only been a packager in Extras for a short time. While he's got GREAT info and is hleping with reviews, I'd like to see him get a few more reviews under his belt first.
0:27 < thl> | jima, yes
0:27 < jwb> | f13, fair enough
0:27 < jima> | can rabble +1? ;)
0:27 < f13> | j-rod: no offence (:
0:27 < warren> | f13, I concur
0:27 < jwb> | jima, rabble +1's are not ignored
0:27 < f13> | j-rod: although if you manage to get libhugetblfs in, thats a pretty damn good step in the right direction.
0:27 < jima> | thl: +1 on orion
0:27 < cweyl> | jima: I do it all the time ;)
0:27 < jwb> | f13, he did
0:27 < jima> | cweyl: 'k :)
0:28 < f13> | jwb: nice!
0:28 < thl> | okay, I'll upgrade Orion Poplawski
0:28 * | mschwendt wonders who r-jod is (is there a quick way to do a username to real name lookup anywhere?)
0:28 < jima> | yeah, that libhugetblfs was a real bear
0:28 < thl> | same game once more:
0:28 < f13> | mschwendt: jarod Wilson
0:28 < jima> | mschwendt: jarod wilson
0:28 < jima> | haha
0:28 < thl> | tibbs nominated Steve Pritchard
0:28 < f13> | mschwendt: recent Red Hat hire, maintians the stable MythTV branch.
0:28 < thl> | any "-1" for Steve?
0:28 < thl> | from the discussions on the list he seems mostly okay
0:29 < thl> | he doesn#t do much reviews
0:29 < f13> | tibbs: I'd say a -1 for not having done many reviews
0:29 < thl> | but maybe that changes when we make him a sponsor
0:29 < thl> | f13, he maintains 83 packages
0:29 < bpepple> | Personally, I'd like to see him do some more reviews before being made a sponsor.
0:29 < Sopwith> | thl: Nah, doubtful it'll change
0:29 < tibbs> | I agree that lack of reviews could be a problem. I think he's back from a trip now; I can talk to him.
0:29 < mschwendt> | Ah, the rrdtool guy. ;)
0:29 < tibbs> | Note that I was suggesting him, not championing him.
0:30 < jwb> | small point of order: are there "sponsors for the sponsors" ?
0:30 < warren> | Given the large # of packages he maintains, I think we know his loyalties and it wouldn't hurt to give it to him. (He probably wont screw things up.) Whether it would benefit us is unclear though if he doesn't review.
0:30 < jwb> | e.g. people that look after sponsors to make sure they aren't being lax?
0:30 --> | mdomsch (Matt Domsch) has joined #fedora-extras
0:30 < warren> | If he only exercises it in cases where he's responsible for new member education, I think it is OK. As long as he is perfectly clear on that.
0:30 < jima> | yeah, i'd like to see more reviews
0:30 < nirik> | jwb: who watches the watchers? :)
0:30 < f13> | warren: if he wants to be a sponser, I'd assume that means he wants to review some new people and sponsor them.
0:31 < cweyl> | nirik: I was just typing that :)
0:31 < thl> | nirik, Pratchett? ;-)
0:31 < cweyl> | is there any distinction to a sponsor aside from their additional commitment to help bring "new blood into the fold"?
0:31 < tibbs> | So I'll -1 for Steve at this time.
0:31 < thl> | okay
0:32 < mschwendt> | cweyl: sponsors' obligations are not documented anywhere, unfortunately
0:32 < jwb> | cweyl, they have to watch the people they sponsored and educate them when necessary
0:32 < thl> | so let's postpone Steve for now
0:32 < thl> | and discuss this on the list further
0:32 < thl> | that okay for everybody?
0:32 < f13> | worksforme
0:32 < bpepple> | thl: Sounds good.
0:32 < cweyl> | mschwendt: that might be a good idea, so it's not a "status" thing...
0:32 < mschwendt> | jwb: it is _not_ that clear
0:33 < thl> | okay, any new nominations?
0:33 --> | zack (Zack Cerza) has joined #fedora-extras
0:33 < thl> | btw, this is the last meeting of the old FESCo
0:33 < thl> | next week is the first meeting of the new one
0:33 * | f13 looks for the bottle of booze
0:33 < cweyl> | jwb: "...and if necessary, beat them appropriately"? :)
0:33 < jwb> | mschwendt, that was simply my understanding of it, not necessarily the official answer
0:34 * | thl drunk to cocktails already this evening
0:34 < jwb> | cweyl, the beatings will continue until morale improves
0:34 < f13> | holy crap!
0:34 * | f13 sees the time and realizes he has a doc appointment in about 30 minutes.
0:34 < jima> | uh-oh
0:34 * | f13 showers and leaves
0:34 < mschwendt> | thl: I see several non-FESCO people here anyway
0:34 * | cweyl waves
0:34 * | thl will move on soon
0:35 < cweyl> | mschwendt: that's rabble, to you :)
0:35 < jima> | jwb: i was considering beatings as a suggestion for motivating people to review, but i was worried someone would like the idea.
0:35 < thl> | mschwendt, I think the current concept mostly works
0:35 < thl> | if the number of voices from non-FESCo people get higher we migh need to change things again
0:35 < thl> | but currently it works fine for me this way
0:35 < thl> | or do other disagree?
0:36 < jwb> | usually the non-FESCO people make worthwhile comments
0:36 < warren> | I think it is OK as is.
0:36 < thl> | jwb, exactly
0:36 * | jwb hopefully being one of them
0:36 < dgilmore> | non-Fesco people's apinions can always be ignored
0:36 < thl> | dgilmore, exactly ;-)
0:36 < jima> | thl: sorry i'm annoying :(
0:36 < dgilmore> | though i hope us non-Fesco people are positive
0:36 * | jima will stfu if requested during meetings
0:37 < cweyl> | ditto. I've always hoped I contributed to the conversation
0:37 < thl> | jima, nobody said you are annoying
0:37 < cweyl> | --in a overall productive fashion, that is :)
0:37 < jima> | thl: that's not true, i do regularly :D
0:37 < thl> | jima, we all do now and then ;-)
0:37 < dgilmore> | thl so whats next?
0:37 < thl> | well, let's move on
0:37 < cweyl> | another thing to think about here, is that the rabble learn and are motivated to participate more by being involved here...
0:37 * | jima = 10% contributing to conversation, 90% smart-ass comments
0:38 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- legacy updates in build roots
0:38 < thl> | dgilmore, added that to the schedule iirc
0:38 < jima> | yes, he did
0:38 < dgilmore> | yep i did
0:38 < thl> | well, do we really need to discuss this?
0:38 < thl> | adding legacy to the buildroots seems like the right thing to do
0:38 < dgilmore> | probably not but i really think it should be done
0:38 < thl> | or does anyone disagree?
0:39 < scop> | +1
0:39 < jima> | someone-or-other thought it would be good to run it by fesco
0:39 < jima> | +1, but i was involved in the original discussion :)
0:39 < thl> | any "-1" for adding legacy to the buildroots?
0:39 < dgilmore> | so who can implement this?
0:40 < cweyl> | thl: +1. makes sense by me
0:40 < thl> | dgilmore, good question
0:40 < mschwendt> | Always the question, where can be learned more about this?
0:40 < jima> | the "who" was the other reason we ran it by FESCo :)
0:40 < thl> | dgilmore, you probably need to poke skvidal, Sopwith or jeremy
0:40 < mschwendt> | I load the Extras/Schedule and find no link. :(
0:40 < dgilmore> | thl: ok ill do that
0:40 < scop> | or dcbw
0:41 < dgilmore> | Sopwith, skvidal, jeremy: ping
0:41 < thl> | dgilmore, after the meeting please
0:41 < dgilmore> | thl: ok
0:41 < thl> | otherwise we'll never finish
0:41 < jima> | dgilmore: packet dropped
0:41 < thl> | dgilmore, but please answer "mschwendt> | Always the question, where can be learned more about this?"
0:41 < thl> | or jima
0:42 < thl> | were there real-world problems so far?
0:42 < thl> | or just "it's the right thing to do"?
0:42 < jima> | not that i've heard, but from my understanding, some things likely to be BuildReqs have been updated in legacy
0:42 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: theres not really anywhere. I guess i should add something to the wiki. but if legacy provides an update to a core package there could be extras packages linking that need a rebuild
0:43 < jima> | like he said
0:43 < dgilmore> | to make the correct linking and not break anything the buildsys needs to know where to get legacy updates
0:43 < scop> | does legacy do updates that could result in needs to rebuild stuff?
0:43 < mschwendt> | okay, -1 then
0:43 < dgilmore> | thl:im not aware of issue yet
0:43 < scop> | (accidents aside)
0:44 < dgilmore> | scop: hopefully not but you never know
0:44 < thl> | mschwendt, "-v" please
0:44 < mschwendt> | Since when do we (as extras packagers) need to track legacy updates?
0:44 < mschwendt> | I don't want anybody to break my old FE packages.
0:44 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: legacy is soon to be integrating within fedoraproject it is sanctioned by the board. there really is no reason to not do it
0:45 < jwb> | dgilmore, there is though
0:45 < mschwendt> | Who within FESCO has been informed about that?
0:45 < jwb> | dgilmore, once stuff goes Legacy, it's legacy not extras
0:45 < jima> | well, people are probably going to use both legacy and extras whether or not we're building against the legacy updates.
0:45 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: we as maintainers should support our packages though to EOL. if you dont maintain for older relases then the security team will do so
0:46 < jwb> | so like mschwendt said, why should extras packagers need to track legacy updates? shouldn't legacy be fixing the things needing respins as well
0:46 < dgilmore> | jwb: legacy has stated they dont have resources to maintain extras
0:46 < jima> | not building against the updates, imo, increases the likelihood of something breaking.
0:47 < mschwendt> | We've had a lengthy "EOL" discussion some time ago. All this needs to be revisited now? Now legacy updates can require FE packages to need a rebuild? What has the security team to do with general maintenance issues?
0:47 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: f13 is the organising it
0:47 < warren> | Legacy updates in build roots is something we cannot avoid.
0:47 < jwb> | note that i'm not saying people _can't_ do it, i'm just saying that it's perhaps a contentious point to require them to
0:47 < jima> | (i don't know how likely it is, honestly. but if headers change...)
0:48 < mschwendt> | I don't understand this thing and why there has not been any discussion on FESCO list prior to this meeting!
0:48 < dgilmore> | the security team has nothing to do with general maintainece but they have a responsibility to ensure that everything supported is updated with security fixes
0:48 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: but now they need to step in when a legacy update breaks FE?
0:48 < jima> | mschwendt: because it wasn't discussed within fesco until the meeting.
0:49 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: someone has to
0:49 < dgilmore> | if the maintainer does nothing it needs fixing
0:49 < mschwendt> | jima: not good, since that means one cannot prepare for a meeting like this
0:49 < scop> | if that means that I as a member of the security team should be shipping updates to packages I don't have a clue about to distros which I no longer have access to, then no thank you
0:49 < jwb> | dgilmore, yes. but i think the EOL policy might need revisiting
0:49 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: yes, and bears the risk of requiring upgrades in _more recent_ FE branches, too!
0:49 < warren> | Should we bring this discussion to fedora-maintainers until next weekk?
0:50 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: not if done properlly
0:50 < jima> | why would updates in older FE branches necessitate updates in newer branches?
0:50 --> | lmacken (Luke Macken) has joined #fedora-extras
0:50 < jwb> | scop, +1
0:50 < jima> | %{?dist}.1
0:50 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: which is the hard part
0:50 < mschwendt> | jima: nah
0:51 < dgilmore> | lets move this to fedora-maintainers as warren said
0:51 < mschwendt> | jima: version upgrades, API changes
0:51 < cweyl> | dgilmore: +1
0:51 < mschwendt> | jima: all those wreckage we see in the broken deps + broken upgrade paths reports more frequently
0:51 < jwb> | dgilmore, warren: yeah. fedora-maintainers is a good place to discuss
0:51 < nirik> | jima: thats fine if you always backport fixes instead of updating, but thats increasingly difficult.
0:51 < mschwendt> | nirik: right
0:52 <-- | Sopwith has quit ("Leaving")
0:53 < dgilmore> | thl: next item
0:53 < jima> | mschwendt: how is "API changes" a reason NOT to build against legacy updates?
0:53 < thl> | sorry, was afk
0:54 < thl> | okay, does anyone want to talk about MIA/AWOL or Incompatible package upgrade policy
0:54 < thl> | or do we leave that to the next FESCo?
0:54 < jima> | thl: cue: evil laughter
0:54 < jwb> | thl, i thought the policy mjk- had going on the list was a good start
0:54 < bpepple> | Next FESCo sounds good.
0:54 < dgilmore> | lets leave for next week it has similar ramifications to older release support
0:54 < jwb> | thl, it worked for the gnome-yum AWOL maintainer recently
0:54 * | thl didn't read the two threads on fedora-extras-list yet -- sorry
0:55 < scop> | next fesco and/or packaging committee
0:55 < thl> | okay
0:55 --- | thl has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting in progress -- free discussion
0:55 < thl> | anything else?
0:55 < cweyl> | I'd like to take a second and thank the outgoing FESCo for their hard work.
0:55 * | dgilmore has nothing right now
0:55 < jwb> | just a thank you to the current FESCo
0:55 < cweyl> | it's appreciated, especially by the rabble :)
0:55 < dgilmore> | cweyl: +1
0:55 < nirik> | yeah, thanks for all the efforts, FESCo. ;)
0:55 < mschwendt> | jima: if a legacy _upgrade_ breaks FE, what do you do to fix FE?
0:56 < jima> | mschwendt: the legacy upgrade is going to break FE either way.
0:56 < scop> | quick summary from the first packaging committee meeting (I believe a real summary will be sent out soon)
0:56 < scop> | - /usr/libexec is ok
0:56 < jima> | just because we're not pulling that upgrade into our buildroot doesn't mean end-users aren't installing it.
0:57 < scop> | - mono is all %{_libdir}, no noarch
0:57 < scop> | - ruby packaging guidelines are a-ok
0:57 < scop> | - php guidelines need some work, moratorium called
0:57 < thl> | scop, spot, btw are the meetings public?
0:58 < jima> | ignoring legacy updates isn't going to keep problems away, just keep us unaware of them until people start complaining.
0:58 < thl> | and will a summary posted somewhere?
0:58 < warren> | jima, take the discussion to fedora-maintainers please. We've moved on.
0:58 * | nirik wonders who is on the packageing committee...
0:58 < scop> | dunno about publicity, but IIRC spot mentioned about posting a summary to fedora-packaging
0:58 * | thl is not in the packageing committee
0:58 < jima> | warren: 'k.
0:58 < mschwendt> | jima: I want to know what will be done to FE! I don't care about the breakage. I'm only interested in _who_ shall attempt at fixing "legacy FE" and how.
0:59 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: mailing list
0:59 < nirik> | a copy to fedora-extras and/or maintainers would be good IMHO.
0:59 < jima> | mschwendt: we've been asked to take this matter to fedora-maintainers.
0:59 < mschwendt> | thl: creating the packaging committee during FESCO elections is bad timing
0:59 * | cweyl would like to lurk at the packaging committee meetings, if they're open, for educational purposes :)
0:59 < scop> | confirmed packaging committee members: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGroup
1:00 < thl> | mschwendt, that was not my idea
1:00 < scop> | (looks slightly outdated already, will fix)
1:00 < thl> | mschwendt, I didn't even know about this unti 60 minutes ago
1:00 < mschwendt> | I'm bombed with mails and cannot read/react to everything either
1:01 < thl> | mschwendt, I have the same problem currently :-/
1:01 * | thl dind't even vote yet
1:01 < mschwendt> | spot has sent out a private mail to several people (in Cc)
1:02 < mschwendt> | ah, there it is: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 0:54:58 -0500
1:02 * | thl wonders if I missed that one or if I wasn't in th Cc
1:03 < scop> | thl, you weren't in Cc
1:03 < thl> | ahh, okay :)
1:03 < thl> | anyway does this lead to anything or shall we close the meeting for today?
1:04 * | thl will close the meeting in 60
1:05 * | thl will close the meeting in 30
1:05 * | jwb hands thl a Master Cat Header certificate
1:05 * | thl will close the meeting in 10
1:05 < jwb> | s/Header/Herder
1:05 < thl> | -- Mark: Meeting end --