From Fedora Project Wiki
(Redirected from Packaging:IRCLog20061128)
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:03] <tibbs> So....
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:22] <lutter> tibbs: what's up ?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:45] <tibbs> Meeting should be about now.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:00:57] <tibbs> Odd, what happened to the topic for this channel?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:02:18] Join racor has joined this channel (n=rc040203@Tb0f6.t.pppool.de).
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:03:47] Join abadger1999 has joined this channel (n=abadger1@090.164-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net).
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:03:56] <lutter> doesn't look good for a quorum again
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:11] <abadger1999> Hey all
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:24] <racor> hi
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:30] <tibbs> I see four. I guess spot doesn't ever set himself as being away.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:04:57] <tibbs> And abadger1999's away even though he's here.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:10] <spot> i'm here
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:20] <spot> sorry, distracted by internal RHAT stuff happening
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:24] <tibbs> Wow, spot!
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:37] <abadger1999> I'm here.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:05:41] * spot has been neck deep in work and Aurora lately
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:06:30] <spot> so, before i start trolling the depths of the todo list, any business items?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:06:52] <tibbs> There was question about thimm's membership.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:07:09] <tibbs> Probably best discussed on the list, though, so that he can participate.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:07:24] <spot> yeah, i think thimm wants to step aside
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:09:06] <tibbs> Obviously he'll need to be replaced if he does leave the committee.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:09:52] <tibbs> I don't recall that we have an actual policy for how to replace him.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:11:22] <abadger1999> Does at large nominations followed by package committee vote not cover this instance?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:11:44] <tibbs> Probably.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:03] <tibbs> But does anyone want to spend time on this today?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:28] <abadger1999> List is fine.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:12:34] <tibbs> spot?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:13:23] <spot> sorry. internal stuff keeps getting in my face.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:14:02] <spot> all of the items on the Todo list which say "Ratify" need to be written up
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:14:06] <tibbs> Indeed, that's the case for everyone.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:14:47] <tibbs> We should see if thimm wants to write up his approved item or if someone else should do it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:15] <spot> do we want to reconsider making the Group tag optional for FC7+ ?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:38] <tibbs> Will rpm in rawhide deal with it?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:15:46] <spot> with a one line patch it will.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:06] <spot> paul said he'd take the patch in devel if the committee passes the "optional" resolution
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:47] <tibbs> I seem to recall this committee agreed that we wanted to move in that dirction.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:16:55] <spot> yeah, but we never voted on it
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:17:02] <spot> thus, its been sitting on the list for a while
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:17:28] <tibbs> I don't think it has any downsides besides not currently being supported by rpm.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:17:38] <tibbs> Chicken and egg problem, that.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:02] <tibbs> It would have to be a unanimous vote today, though.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:10] Join Rathann|work has joined this channel (n=rathann@gw.icm.edu.pl).
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:14] <spot> well, lets see if it passes
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:30] <tibbs> Make Group: tag optional: +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:37] <abadger1999> +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:18:37] <spot> +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:17] <abadger1999> lutter, racor?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:33] <lutter> abadger1999: sorry .. baby started crying .. lemme read back
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:19:58] <racor> confused - what are we voting on?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:24] <tibbs> Making the Group: tag optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:24] <f13> oh crap, a meeting :/
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:28] * f13 was on another call.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:34] <spot> making the Group tag optional in FC7+
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:35] <lutter> +1 for making the group tag optional
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:50] <f13> spot: doesn't that require RPM changes? Didn't we go through this before?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:20:57] <spot> f13: a one line patch
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:06] * f13 could have sworn we voted on this already once, and it was blocked by rpm changes that Paul wouldn't apply
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:07] <spot> paul said he'd take it if the committee approved the optional resolution
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:19] <spot> he also didnt want to slide it into fc6
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:26] <spot> which was the original thought
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:43] <f13> ok, so we're just taking the vote we already approved and moving it to say FC7+ ?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:49] Join rdieter has joined this channel (n=rdieter@sting.unl.edu).
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:21:51] <racor> why?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:04] <spot> racor: because Comps is what matters, Group is a throwaway tag
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:26] <racor> comps is irrelevant to pure rpm
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:44] <spot> racor: nothing uses Group anymore. anaconda doesnt. yum doesnt.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:51] <racor> apt does
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:22:53] <f13> spot: not nothing. smart does and apt.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:09] <f13> but they like to duplicate grouping information. because you know, its not confusing or anything
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:14] * rdieter looks in late...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:22] <spot> f13: they use both comps and group?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:28] <f13> spot: I do believe so
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:32] <spot> eww.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:36] <f13> indeed
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:49] <spot> well, the alternative to making Group optional is to try to standardize on a set of Groups.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:23:50] <f13> racor: thats the big problem here, we've got two different ways of expressing what group a package belongs in.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:03] <spot> i personally feel this is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:10] <f13> racor: comps gives way more control over this than the rpm itself. and as such the rpm itself is often incorrect or doesn't match comps
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:20] <spot> but if the committee feels that way, i'll do it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:24] <racor> f13, so far comps is RH proprietary, rpm is not
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:35] <f13> spot: don't we already have a standard set of groups?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:41] <f13> racor: and this is a Fedora packaging committee.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:47] <spot> racor: how is an xml file any more or less than proprietary than groups?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:48] <f13> racor: of which, comps exists and is used extensively
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:24:56] <spot> especially since Fedora ships with it
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:18] <spot> (and every Fedora cvs user has commit access to it)
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:32] <f13> spot: So I think there are 3 options here.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:46] <spot> f13: not really. we have a list of "loose recommendations"
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:25:46] <f13> 1) Make groups optional, don't really pay attention to it during review
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:05] <f13> 2) Make groups required, have a strict set of possible groups
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:18] <f13> 3) Ignore groups all together
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:35] <racor> 4) derive comps from rpm's groups etc.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:53] <f13> racor: doesn't work.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:26:57] <racor> why
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:05] <f13> racor: a package could live in multiple groups in comps, plus there are group requirements in comps
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:18] <spot> comps is more intelligent/comprehensive than Group
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:23] <f13> racor: like package foo is in language group bar, but only make it a default if group baz is already selected.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:38] <f13> racor: also, Group: has no way to define 'default', 'manditory', 'optional'
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:27:51] <racor> f13: like rpm
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:28:42] <spot> we can't derive comps from groups, nor can we use the comps values to populate Group
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:28:50] <f13> which is why none of our package management applications use rpm by itself.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:04] <racor> f13: bug?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:08] <spot> the fedora direction is towards comps, as far as i can see.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:08] <f13> racor: no.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:16] <f13> racor: rpm is a very low level tool.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:18] <racor> f13: i disagree
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:23] <f13> racor: thats nice.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:29:34] <spot> racor: i'm sure that paul would take a patch to enable a "Comps" field in rpm
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:04] <rdieter> I'd have to say, until Groups go away completely (which afaict isn't soon), we're stuck with option 2.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:18] <f13> rdieter: not really
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:35] <f13> rdieter: since all the tools we use to express groupings use comps, we can really just ignore what is in the Group: field of a package.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:41] <f13> rdieter: it becomes useless data
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:50] <spot> f13: except apt and smart
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:30:59] <rdieter> f13: useless to you maybe...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:04] <racor> and synaptic
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:09] <f13> spot: I'd consider it a bug that they use the Group: tag (:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:11] <rdieter> I think it's the best compromise is all.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:29] <spot> alright. i'll work on a list of "approved groups" and we can go over it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:37] <racor> f13: RH living on an island and "cooperating" with the community
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:46] <racor> :(
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:50] <tibbs> So what do these nonstandard package managers do when they see a group of "(none)" or whatever RPM stores when Group: is missing?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:31:52] <f13> racor: no, hte Fedora project has picked its package management tools.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:04] <racor> correction: RH has
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:07] <f13> racor: if people want to write their own and go off in different directions, well, bummer.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:21] <spot> tibbs: presumably the same thing that they see when they look for "Packager"
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:25] <f13> racor: no, Fedora has. THe decision to use it in the installer and everywhere else had community input.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:29] <spot> or any of the other optional fields
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:31] <racor> FYI: I actively participate in apt-repomd development
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:33] <tibbs> So exactly what gets broken?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:47] <spot> tibbs: presumably it would confuse the grouping it does
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:32:56] <tibbs> People don't sensibly choose Group: as is, so it's currently useless already.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:12] <f13> racor: the Fedora project isn't going to bend over backwards to support every possible package mangement tool that understands rpm.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:19] <spot> but as i never used apt/smart for more than a few minutes without being annoyed, i'm not qualified to speak in depth
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:33:30] <tibbs> It's not something that's checked on review. There is no standardization. All of the effort is in cleaning comps up. That should be the way forward.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:14] <spot> ideally, i'd like to see Group reworked in rpm to enable packagers to store the Comps groups (note plural) in that field
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:34] <spot> but thats above and beyond the mandate for this committee
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:47] <tibbs> That would be semi-reasonable, except that you'd be duplicating that data.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:52] <spot> indeed.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:34:56] <f13> and youd still have to hand edit comps.xml
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:08] <spot> f13: or that field could be autopopulated by the buildsystem
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:11] <spot> from comps.xml
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:21] <tibbs> Or the other way around, I guess.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:46] * f13 refrains from going further down the rabbit hole
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:35:57] <spot> either way, we need to do something around group now
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:16] <f13> why?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:19] <spot> as it is, we've got a mixed standard of reviewers insisting on the listed Groups, and some just ignoring group entirely
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:20] <tibbs> How about just picking a primary location in comps and stuffing that into Group:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:26] <f13> can't it continue to be just as irrelevant as before?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:39] <spot> f13: because its not clear that it is irrelevant.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:36:43] <f13> ah.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:03] <spot> and if possible, i'd like to avoid making apt/smart convoluted.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:33] <f13> isn't that too late?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:45] <rdieter> yeah, let's just standardize it, enforce it, and be done with it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:37:45] <spot> well, if we standardize on a set of valid Group tags...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:07] <f13> then we _still_ have duplicate info
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:12] <spot> yeah.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:23] <spot> fix rpm, then we'll revisit making that duplicate info go away.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:33] <tibbs> I don't see what those alternate package managers lose by making Group optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:38:41] <f13> and if apt/smart want to use the same things that say anaconda/pirut use for groupings, they're going to have to either ignore group, deal with conflicts, or have lots of duplication
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:14] <racor> tibbs: apt doesn't use comps at all, but can filter on many other rpm-details
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:20] <tibbs> So?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:32] <tibbs> I still don't see what is lost by making Group: optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:34] <racor> tibbs: synaptics uses rpm groups to list packages
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:38] <tibbs> So?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:41] <f13> hurray for a package manager not showing the same options as the isntaller. _thats_ not confusing at all.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:46] <tibbs> You're not getting it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:39:55] <tibbs> It already contains useless information.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:18] <rdieter> tibbs: but it's not useless...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:27] <tibbs> People don't put useful things there. They just make something up.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:40] <racor> f13: because comps is an isolated, yum/anaconda/pirut proprietary solution
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:52] <rdieter> tibbs: that's why we standardize the darn thing, and be done with it. End of discussion.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:58] <tibbs> Instead of forcing them to make up something random thing, just allow them to leave the tag off.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:40:59] <f13> racor: yum/anaconda/pirut are all opensource, how is this proprietary?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:19] <abadger1999> tibbs: People do put useful things in there. Some people put non-useful things in there. But getting rid of Groups would get rid of the useful ones as well.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:32] <racor> f13: OK nitpicking on wordings, again
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:38] <f13> abadger1999: he didn't say get rid of Group. He said making it optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:44] <tibbs> abadger1999: How does "making optional" equal "getting rig of"?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:52] <racor> yum etc. are not used by anybody else but RH based distros
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:54] <f13> racor: the only reason apt/smart/whatever doesn't use comps is because they choose to not support it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:41:57] <f13> racor: lazy.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:09] <rdieter> imo, making it optional is almost as bad as getting rid of it. Either use it, and use it *properly*, or not at all.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:10] <racor> RH has comps , SuSE has their own config.languages
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:29] <tibbs> rdieter: One thing at a time, though.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:35] <racor> f13: No. because these are using rpm, not comps
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:42:46] <f13> rdieter: frankly I'd rather go with the last option, since duplication and non-insync data is more harmful.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:01] <f13> racor: again, their choice.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:02] <racor> f13: because they assume a packageing system is complete
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:20] <f13> racor: if they assumed that, why did they have to write somethign to manage rpm?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:21] <racor> comps is "band-aid" on top of rpm
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:33] <f13> if a 'packaging system' is complete, why do we need things like yum and apt to handle it?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:43:51] <rdieter> racor: yeah, but it's a needed bandaid.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:08] <racor> i've not used comps ever since
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:08] <f13> racor: you could claim that apt is a bandaid on top of rpm and deb
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:44:32] <abadger1999> tibbs: That is partially true. Compared to the current situation, allowing people to just not specify Group doesn't add to the problem. But compared to standardizing on a set of Groups it is a losing proposition (for apt).
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:00] <abadger1999> Because a non-existent group is as bad as a made up category.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:08] <racor> f13: Yes, in fact it is, all such tools implement deptracking, etc. because rpm lacks it
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:17] <abadger1999> It doesn't help the end user find a package that can help them do hat they want.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:35] <f13> racor: rpm lacks it, deb lacks it, slackware tgzs lack it, etc...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:45:36] <spot> i see two options. Either we standardize on a set of groups or we make group optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:02] * rdieter nods
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:03] <f13> racor: so no packaging system is 'complete' until you consider the entire stack needed. Some people build on top of rpm+comps, some people do their own thing.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:27] <spot> So, we should vote for one of those two options.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:41] <f13> my feelings are we shouldn't waste effort on data that isn't used by the installer, the default package updater, the default package installer, etc...
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:51] <tibbs> Groups optional +1.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:46:56] <racor> f13: rpms contain the datasets to populate a database, yum/apt work on it.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:19] <f13> Groups optional (and unreviewed) +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:21] <racor> comps is an additional dataset, outside of the rpmdataba
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:35] <rdieter> standardize Groups: +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:49] <f13> racor: becuase package grouping is highly dependant on who is grouping the packages.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:47:58] <racor> standardize Group: +1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:03] <f13> racor: I may want to take the build packages and group them in one way for one product, an entirely different way in another product
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:05] <racor> Groups optional -1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:16] <f13> assuming how the end user would want to group thigns at package build time is forcing their hand.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:21] <racor> f13: symbolgrounding problem
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:29] <f13> package grouping belongs OUTSIDE of the rpm itself.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:34] <rdieter> racor: you only get 1 vote. (:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:47] <spot> lutter/abadger1999 ?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:53] <abadger1999> spot: I vote +1 to either one with preference to Group optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:48:58] <racor> rdieter: this is absurd
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:09] <spot> abadger1999: we could do a hybrid.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:10] * rdieter is won't disagree.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:21] <racor> -1
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:21] <spot> Group is optional, but here is the approved list if you want to use it
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:36] <f13> useless
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:57] <f13> spot: thats just saying standardized groups, where one of the groups is blank.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:49:59] <tibbs> Frankly I don't want to waste five more meetings coming up with an approved group list.ll
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:50:47] <rdieter> tibbs: then stop arguing... (:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:50:47] <racor> tibbs: Then come up with a proposal for comps and copy it one to one into rpm groups
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:05] <tibbs> So now it's my job?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:08] <spot> racor: doesn't work, can't have more than one rpm group
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:16] <spot> lots of things are in multiple comps groups
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:45] <f13> and really, package grouping depends on the person creating the repodata, not the person building the package.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:51:53] <tibbs> rdieter: You honestly think I'm arguing?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:23] <f13> what if I want to take all the fedora packages, put them in a different repo, group them differently and build a distro off that? why should I have to rebuild every package and change every package just to get different groupings?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:42] <spot> i think group is a relic, a piece of the past, and we should make it optional
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:50] <spot> +1 to group optional
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:52:55] <f13> grouping of packages should _not_ be in the package. It belongs in the repodata, which can be expressed differently
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:53:19] <spot> lutter: need you to vote here.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:54:23] * spot looks at the clouds
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:54:51] <f13> 12:24 <lutter> +1 for making the group tag optional
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:06] <spot> yeah, but that was on the old vote. we don't let votes recycle
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:20] <spot> and i'm not going to assume.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:55:26] <f13> 'old vote"
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:56:04] <f13> I haven't seen anything form lutter since then. Did he wander off?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:56:06] <spot> ok. i don't see quorum for either item.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:56:18] <spot> thus, we'll continue to do nothing on group.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:56:40] <spot> new topic
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:56:53] <spot> racor: are you interested in writing guidelines for packaging cross compilers?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:57:09] <tibbs> Recall that I was trying to do so.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:57:10] <spot> you seem to have a vested interest in this area, as well as experience
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:57:21] <racor> spot: I would have been, but tibbs wrote something
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:57:41] <spot> racor: i seem to recall you being rather opposed to his draft
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:57:54] <racor> spot: well, yes.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:58:06] <spot> so, i'm interested in seeing a draft from you.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:58:17] <tibbs> Yes, please do be constructive.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:00] <racor> I'd have to check details again, but IIRC, his proposal was "beyond reality" (doesn't match with practice esp in GCC)
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:17] <tibbs> And you of course suggested improvements.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:17] <spot> racor: would you take a try at writing a proposal that matches reality?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [11:59:26] <tibbs> Unfortunately I don't recall seeing what those improvements were.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:24] <lutter> f13: sorry (to all) .. had a bit of an emergency with the baby going nuts
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:24] <racor> tibbs: I had edited some remarks into your wiki, but you preferred to shout at me when I pointed you at them
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:33] <f13> lutter: completely understandable 9:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:34] <f13> (:
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:48] <spot> lutter: you can vote on the group issue if you'd like
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:00:48] * f13 sees this going nowhere.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:03] <spot> lutter: either standardize groups or make Group optional
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:10] <f13> racor: can you create a proposal based on your experience/thoughts? May the best draft win?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:26] <f13> spot: I think its important that he reads backlog a bit
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:27] <spot> racor: i would like to see your proposal
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:50] <rdieter> I think we all would.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:01:50] <lutter> spot: +1 for making groups optional (and eventually getting rid of them)
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:02] <tibbs> My draft was only an attempt to get something done.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:11] <spot> ok. thats +5 for making groups optional.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:15] <lutter> the rpm groups tag doesn't really have much value by itself IMHO .. you really need some overarching mechanism like comps
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:32] <racor> spot: A black day in RH's history :(
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:43] <tibbs> Finally some progress.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:02:58] <f13> its the doom and gloom show!
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:03:17] <rdieter> it's more a light shade of grey, imo.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:03:19] <racor> f13: yes, you finally managed to kick out apt
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:03:20] <spot> ok, thats an hour. anything anyone else wants to throw in before i close this out?
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:03:59] <spot> ok. thanks for coming.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:05] <abadger1999> We should think of some better way to reach consensus.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:06] <tibbs> Nothing from me; license tag can wait until next week.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:11] <f13> racor: apt could easily make use of comps files, since it's the _actual_ _way_ that Fedora is defining package groupings.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:14] <racor> Final last words from me: I'll look into the cross-compiler stuff
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:19] <spot> racor: thanks.
[Tue Nov 28 2006] [12:04:26] Quit racor has left this server ("Leaving").