From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2008-08-26
Members Present
- Denis Leroy (delero)
- Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
- Hans de Goede (hansg)
- Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
- Ralf Corsepius (racor)
- Rex Dieter (rdieter)
- Tom Callaway (spot)
- Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
Summary
- Approved the draft Haskell packaging guidelines: PackagingDrafts/Haskell
- Approved the draft Lisp packaging guidelines: PackagingDrafts/Lisp
- Discussed two submissions related to the bundling of fonts: PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles and PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages.
- Neither was approved as-is, but as a result of the discussion, FPC approved one general guideline addition and two related documents:
- "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package."
- TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2
- TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2
- Neither was approved as-is, but as a result of the discussion, FPC approved one general guideline addition and two related documents:
IRC Logs
| *** tibbs sets the channel topic to "Packaging Committee Meeting". | 12:00 | |
| * Rathann present | 12:00 | |
| * tibbs here | 12:00 | |
| * spot is here | 12:01 | |
| racor | i am here, have ca. 15 mins time. | 12:01 |
|---|---|---|
| spot | racor: thanks for coming | 12:02 |
| tibbs | rdieter, abadger1999: ping | 12:02 |
| rdieter | here | 12:02 |
| tibbs | Anyone else I missed? | 12:02 |
| --> delero has joined this channel (n=denis@AMontsouris-156-1-79-180.w90-24.abo.wanadoo.fr). | 12:03 | |
| abadger1999 | here | 12:03 |
| delero | here | 12:03 |
| tibbs | That's seven. | 12:03 |
| spot | we're missing hans and Xavier | 12:04 |
| spot | but hey, quorum. :) | 12:04 |
| abadger1999 | Woo hoo :-) | 12:04 |
| spot | okay, first order of business, the drafts that i sent around via email | 12:04 |
| spot | some of you voted over email, thanks. | 12:04 |
| spot | however, some of you did not | 12:04 |
| tibbs | I saw five sets of votes including my own. | 12:05 |
| spot | yep. | 12:05 |
| * Rathann wonders why the members list link on FPC wikipage points nowhere | 12:05 | |
| abadger1999 | Haskell +1, Lisp: +1, fonts.... I'd like to know if the fonts sig will enforce those if we vote 0. | 12:05 |
| spot | delero: would you like to vote? | 12:06 |
| spot | we have votes for everyone else | 12:06 |
| Rathann | abadger1999: or at least how much work it is to enforce that | 12:06 |
| * rdieter just sent email minutes ago, in short, I +1'd all of them (including fonts). | 12:06 | |
| tibbs | Rathann: Probably more damage from the conversion. I keep cleaning things up but there's always something else. | 12:06 |
| delero | i went over them, +1 for me for all 3 | 12:06 |
| tibbs | There were four. | 12:07 |
| Rathann | but two were about fonts and related | 12:07 |
| tibbs | True. But two separate proposals. | 12:07 |
| Rathann | yup | 12:07 |
| spot | okay, haskell and lisp clearly pass | 12:08 |
| Rathann | which is why I should add my vote for font bundles: 0 | 12:08 |
| spot | On the Lisp draft, the following comments were made: | 12:08 |
| abadger1999 | I like both the font proposals. If the fonts-sig is going to enforce them anyways 9as part of a SIG best practice) then I have even more reason to vote +1. | 12:08 |
| spot | Needs adding an ASDF system definition file template (or link to syntax). | 12:08 |
| spot | needs to add an empty %build to his spec template | 12:09 |
| tibbs | I think the link at the bottom should suffice. | 12:09 |
| delero | i'm ok with the font bundling proposal as well, +1 from me | 12:09 |
| spot | my concern around the font bundling proposal is that they were drafted specifically to prevent texlive | 12:09 |
| abadger1999 | spot: Err... specifically in response to texlive. | 12:09 |
| spot | yes, rather. | 12:10 |
| spot | while i think that texlive is a clear exception to that guideline | 12:10 |
| Rathann | I wonder how much work it would be for texlive packager to adapt texlive to follow that guidline | 12:10 |
| tibbs | Well, texlive does need cleanup. | 12:10 |
| racor | my concern is that fonts are being bundled with other sources, whatever the font sig wants doesn't change much about it | 12:11 |
| tibbs | But it's going to have to evolve in that direction. | 12:11 |
| rdieter | grandfather'd exception for texlive, +1 (that doesn't mean that efforts to fix it shouldn't happen) | 12:11 |
| Rathann | if it's doable in reasonable time, then I'd vote +1 on both font proposals | 12:11 |
| tibbs | I think the "no bundling of fonts" proposal is simply unworkable. | 12:11 |
| tibbs | If I have a game or something that has a simple bitmap font in its own internal format. | 12:12 |
| Rathann | hmm | 12:12 |
| Rathann | good point | 12:12 |
| tibbs | It's a "font" according to the guideline, but I doubt there's going to be any call to split it. | 12:12 |
| spot | ok, lets vote on the font bundles proposal first (with an exception for texlive for the time being) | 12:12 |
| racor | -1 | 12:13 |
| tibbs | -1 | 12:13 |
| rdieter | +1 | 12:13 |
| spot | this is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles | 12:13 |
| abadger1999 | +1 | 12:13 |
| tibbs | I also have to wonder why fonts are special here. | 12:14 |
| Rathann | tibbs: because they can be used by other apps? | 12:14 |
| tibbs | The arguments work for more than just fonts. | 12:14 |
| spot | well, to be fair, we don't generally permit multiple software items from multiple sources to live in the same srpm | 12:15 |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: That's true. I could go for a more general rule. | 12:15 |
| racor | Rathann: Many files can be used by other apps (shared libs, images, sound, movies ...) | 12:15 |
| rdieter | tibbs: good point, there's currently a best-practice/unwritten rule already about separate sources => separate pkgs. | 12:15 |
| abadger1999 | But that doesn't eliminate my +1 for the subset :-) | 12:15 |
| tibbs | I don't know if everyone saw my suggested alternative. | 12:15 |
| rdieter | tibbs: please refresh our memory. | 12:15 |
| tibbs | I would | 12:16 |
| tibbs | consider it it were distilled to a simple strong suggestion that separate | 12:16 |
| tibbs | upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package. I | 12:16 |
| tibbs | believe that's an unwritten rule already. | 12:16 |
| spot | tibbs: "a simple strong suggestion that separate upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package." | 12:16 |
| tibbs | But I don't want to derail the current vote. I can write a proposal later. | 12:16 |
| rdieter | I can totally support that. | 12:16 |
| spot | i'm much more in favor of that | 12:16 |
| Rathann | 0 unless a list of font formats to which this guideline is applicable is supplied (+1 then) | 12:16 |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: I'd love to have that written down rather than unwritten. | 12:16 |
| delero | strictly enforcing it on existing packages is going to be tough, especially on dormant projects where the fedora packager has become the ad-hoc maintainer | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | Although textlive, for instance, has already brought issues up wrt that :-( | 12:17 |
| Rathann | tibbs has a good point about bundled fonts that could not be used system-wide | 12:17 |
| tibbs | Enforcing anything on existing packages has always proven difficult. | 12:17 |
| delero | pstoedit is an example, it ships with an old bitmap font | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | as texlive is an upstream but is also a conglomeration of other upstreams, how does the rule apply? | 12:17 |
| abadger1999 | I don't need that answered now, just saying that question has already been raised. | 12:18 |
| Rathann | also, it doesn't always make sense to make some obscure fonts (symbol fonts, incomplete fonts) visible system-wide | 12:18 |
| spot | I think that we should say something like "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." | 12:18 |
| rdieter | I'd say let's ask for the current bundles draft to strike paragraph 1, pending a more general soon-to-come guideline. | 12:19 |
| Rathann | so while I agree with the guideline in the spirit, it needs to allow for common sense and not be as strict | 12:19 |
| abadger1999 | I just got a call. I have an electrician coming out to the house and will have to leave when he gets here. | 12:19 |
| delero | Rathann: +1 | 12:19 |
| rdieter | Rathann: I read it that way already, it says SHOULD | 12:19 |
| Rathann | ah | 12:20 |
| Rathann | right, the last paragraph of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages clears it up a bit | 12:20 |
| Rathann | but I'd limit it to what I suggested above | 12:21 |
| racor | i think paragraphs 2+3 should be striked. They attempt to special case something which isn't a special case. | 12:21 |
| Rathann | i.e. not only general-purpose formats but general usability | 12:21 |
| tibbs | rdieter: The Packaging font bundles proposal doesn't seem to say SHOULD. Lots of MUSTs there. | 12:21 |
| rdieter | I'm reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles , which includes MUST only in paragraph 1, which I think we've all agreed needs to be stricken anyway | 12:22 |
| spot | with two -1, and one 0, there is no way that "Packaging_font_bundles" can pass | 12:22 |
| rdieter | the only must remaining is the licensing bit, but maybe that's not required hee | 12:22 |
| tibbs | Email from Xavier: he'll be a bit late. | 12:22 |
| Rathann | does "packaged separately" mean a totally separate package or can it be a subpackage? | 12:22 |
| Rathann | hm looks like the former | 12:23 |
| rdieter | Rathann: I read that as either | 12:23 |
| tibbs | I read it as "totally separate package". | 12:23 |
| racor | source or binary package? | 12:23 |
| rdieter | sorry. context matters. ignore me | 12:23 |
| tibbs | Otherwise arguments about separate upstream release cycles and such make no sense. | 12:23 |
| racor | demanding a separate source package is silly | 12:23 |
| spot | can we vote on adding "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." to the main guidelines? | 12:23 |
| rdieter | spot: +1 to that | 12:23 |
| Rathann | spot: +1 | 12:23 |
| delero | spot: +1 | 12:23 |
| tibbs | Will we need to discuss exemptions? | 12:24 |
| racor | -1, superflous not of any importance | 12:24 |
| tibbs | Circular dependencies was always an interesting one to me. | 12:24 |
| tibbs | +1 | 12:24 |
| spot | +1 from me | 12:24 |
| tibbs | racor: What existing guideline does this duplicate? | 12:24 |
| Rathann | it may be common sense, but common sense is sometimes most difficult to follow ;) | 12:25 |
| spot | with a +5, it passes | 12:25 |
| spot | now, it seems like we might be able to reword the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to make it more sensible | 12:25 |
| abadger1999 | Would it be better to phrase it as a MUST? ie: any package which bundles multiple separate upstream projects MUST justify that decision? | 12:26 |
| racor | tibbs: this sentence is a waste of text - whether this sentence is presence or not doesn't change anything | 12:26 |
| tibbs | I don't follow your argument. | 12:26 |
| racor | upstreams don't care about what we decide | 12:26 |
| racor | to new-comer packagers this text is not helpful | 12:27 |
| racor | it's just bloat | 12:27 |
| tibbs | It answers a question that has been asked of me several times already. | 12:27 |
| tibbs | I guess I could simply continue to answer as I wish, but I'd rather have an actual guideline. Which it seems we'll have. | 12:27 |
| * rdieter is confused now, this guideline only describes downstream packaging, not much to do with upstreams at all | 12:28 | |
| racor | bring this to attention of major upstream projects - You'll be laughed at. | 12:28 |
| Rathann | racor: some upstreams start caring when we explain it to them | 12:28 |
| spot | okay, so, if we replace the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to "As noted in the Packaging Guidelines, Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. This applies equally to font packages." | 12:28 |
| spot | then, leave the rest as is... i think that makes it more reasonable | 12:29 |
| racor | Rathann: Do you care about SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo packaging desires in packages you are upstream? I don't. | 12:29 |
| rdieter | I'm still not sure about the "each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package", that seems to be itching for a generalized rule too, no? | 12:29 |
| Rathann | racor: nobody laughed at me when I started packaging inchi separately from openbabel and submitted patches to fix building with external inchi | 12:29 |
| racor | try glibc, try gcc, ... | 12:30 |
| spot | rdieter: i think it makes some sense to do it that way for fonts specifically, especially if other applications want to rely on a single font | 12:30 |
| racor | anyway, i've got to quit now, sorry. | 12:30 |
| spot | they wouldn't need to Requires: foo-superfonts-dump, they could Requires: foo-superfonts-myfont | 12:31 |
| rdieter | umm... do apps really need to care about the fonts used licensing-wise? | 12:32 |
| rdieter | if so, doesn't that get very scary, very fast? | 12:32 |
| spot | rdieter: generally, no, but it does make for a reasonable divisor | 12:32 |
| Rathann | but licensing is a good reason for splitting packages in general | 12:33 |
| Rathann | i.e. foo licensed under GPL and foo-libs under LGPL | 12:33 |
| Rathann | assuming that's what upstream does | 12:33 |
| Rathann | or foo-someplugin under another license (say, BSD) | 12:34 |
| abadger1999 | You have my +1 to this. | 12:34 |
| abadger1999 | Electrician is here, gotta run. | 12:34 |
| Rathann | I wouldn't put so much stress on packaging fonts separately due to licensing issues, it is a more general thing | 12:35 |
| spot | take a look at this: | 12:35 |
| spot | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 | 12:35 |
| tibbs | The first MUST there implies that this guidelines is stronger than the general one. | 12:36 |
| Rathann | doesn't say why, though | 12:36 |
| tibbs | Is that still the intention, or is this just supposed to be a clarification of the other guideline as it applies to fonts? | 12:36 |
| delero | this means ONE font per subpackage ? | 12:36 |
| Rathann | delero: one font family | 12:36 |
| spot | delero: font family | 12:37 |
| * rdieter likes that draft more. happy happy | 12:37 | |
| spot | i think this is a clarfication for fonts | 12:37 |
| Rathann | well if it's phrased that way, it becomes redundant | 12:38 |
| Rathann | the first paragraph | 12:38 |
| Rathann | but +1 too | 12:38 |
| delero | I assume this would apply to a package like gnuplot, which ships postscripts fonts | 12:38 |
| rdieter | not this draft, afaict, the other one... maybe. :) | 12:39 |
| Rathann | delero: but does it make sense to use them outside gnuplot? | 12:39 |
| spot | well, should we take a vote on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ? | 12:40 |
| delero | Rathann: unlikely | 12:40 |
| Rathann | I wouldn't want to force any package to split their fonts if it doesn't make sense to use them outside their apps | 12:40 |
| spot | keep in mind that all reasonable exceptions are okay. | 12:40 |
| spot | (as always) | 12:40 |
| rdieter | spot: +1 P_F_B2 draft | 12:40 |
| delero | spot: +1 on v2 draft | 12:40 |
| spot | +1 from me | 12:40 |
| Rathann | +1 on v2 draft | 12:40 |
| spot | abadger1999: gave us a +1 before he left... tibbs? | 12:41 |
| tibbs | I guess I don't really understand why it mandates a split by license, but I don't have any real problems with it. | 12:42 |
| tibbs | +1 | 12:42 |
| spot | tibbs: it doesn't mandate that anymore | 12:42 |
| spot | i changed it to read "make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. " | 12:42 |
| Rathann | rather, splitting by license is a general "should, if makes sense" | 12:42 |
| tibbs | I've been reloading but I don't see the change. | 12:42 |
| Rathann | not only with fonts | 12:42 |
| spot | tibbs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ? | 12:42 |
| tibbs | I'm still seeing "but he MUST make sure each bundled font..." | 12:43 |
| spot | note that i made a copy with changes for v2 | 12:43 |
| tibbs | Yeah, I'm looking at v2. | 12:43 |
| spot | If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. | 12:43 |
| spot | old version said "If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package." | 12:44 |
| spot | anyways, thats +6 | 12:44 |
| spot | i can't think of a quick way to reword No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages in such a way that it would be acceptable | 12:45 |
| spot | well, i take that back | 12:45 |
| spot | maybe if we changed item 1 to | 12:45 |
| spot | 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package | 12:46 |
| rdieter | item 2 isn't really a MUST, just a pointer | 12:46 |
| Rathann | spot: I'm fine with a MUST in your modified version even | 12:47 |
| spot | yeah, but if it makes people think about font licenses, i'm not opposed to it | 12:47 |
| rdieter | spot: your version of 1 is a lot better, likey likey | 12:48 |
| --> hansg has joined this channel (n=hans@ip32-174-211-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl). | 12:48 | |
| hansg | Hi all | 12:48 |
| Rathann | also if such font has value outside the application, maybe ask upstream to publish font source separately? | 12:48 |
| hansg | I just saw spot's invitation | 12:48 |
| hansg | any votes needed from me, or did we already have the quorum? | 12:49 |
| spot | hansg: you're not too late, we're just going through the last pending draft | 12:49 |
| Rathann | hansg: we're discussing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages | 12:49 |
| hansg | -1 | 12:49 |
| spot | hansg: we're trying to fix it. :) | 12:49 |
| Rathann | <spot> maybe if we changed item 1 to | 12:49 |
| Rathann | <spot> 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package | 12:49 |
| hansg | For reasons already mentioned | 12:49 |
| Rathann | well? any comments on my suggestion? | 12:50 |
| spot | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 | 12:50 |
| spot | take a look at that | 12:50 |
| spot | Rathann: i'm on the fence as to whether it should be a "SHOULD" or a "MUST" | 12:51 |
| spot | i can see both sides of that argument | 12:51 |
| spot | (i'm leaning towards a must, as a sub-package) | 12:51 |
| Rathann | spot: no, I mean the other suggestion ;) | 12:52 |
| Rathann | I said I was fine with either should or must here | 12:52 |
| spot | oh yes, that is good, i'll add it | 12:52 |
| hansg | Hmm, just read Spot's draft I dunno what to think of this | 12:52 |
| Rathann | hansg: it's just the 1st point that's different | 12:52 |
| Rathann | I think that was the main contention | 12:53 |
| hansg | All in all it seems well balanced between making clear that generic fonts must be packaged separately and that specials could be bundled | 12:53 |
| hansg | I would like to see some language in here about how this all applies only to fonts in font format. | 12:53 |
| Rathann | "fonts in font format"? | 12:54 |
| tibbs | Think back to my earlier question. | 12:54 |
| Rathann | hansg: the last paragraph is not enough? | 12:54 |
| hansg | Games often package fonts as just a bmp which when you lay a 64x64 grid over it you get each letter | 12:54 |
| Rathann | ah | 12:54 |
| Rathann | then the first solves it | 12:54 |
| hansg | or on XxX format for that mayyer | 12:54 |
| spot | okay, i added Rathann's suggestion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 | 12:54 |
| spot | hansg: if i made it say "bundled font files" | 12:55 |
| spot | would that be more appropriate? | 12:55 |
| spot | or "bundled fonts (in font format)" | 12:55 |
| hansg | I'm not sure about the "any value outside of the package " wording, that is a bit vagu | 12:55 |
| hansg | vague I mean | 12:56 |
| hansg | Spot, +1 for "bundled font files" | 12:56 |
| hansg | That is better IMHO | 12:56 |
| hansg | And maybe we should replace the "any value outside of the package " wording by a list of formats and a MUST be in a subpackage if in one of these formats | 12:56 |
| Rathann | hansg: it's not just formats | 12:57 |
| Rathann | it's also the usability | 12:57 |
| hansg | For example if a game has some special font created for it in ttf, it would be good to put it in a sub package so that it can be used more general | 12:57 |
| hansg | (assuming the licensing is ok) | 12:57 |
| hansg | Rathann, explain | 12:57 |
| Rathann | it doesn't make sense if such font contains just a limited subset of characters or symbols which is usable only in that game | 12:57 |
| rdieter | hansg: but "good" for who? if no one can/will ever use it? | 12:58 |
| Rathann | hence it also needs to be usable outside the original application | 12:58 |
| hansg | Rathann, ah yes | 12:58 |
| hansg | rdieter, will never use it just a matter of advertising, can never user it is another story | 12:58 |
| spot | how about something like "especially if the font is in a standardized format, and contains a set of characters or symbols which are useful for other packages." | 12:58 |
| hansg | Ok, lets stick with the "any value outside of the package " | 12:59 |
| hansg | spot +1 | 12:59 |
| hansg | (although that violates the less is more principle) | 12:59 |
| spot | it does, and i think the "any value outside of the package" is actually broader. | 12:59 |
| hansg | I'm fine with keeping just "any value outside of the package " | 13:00 |
| * Rathann is fine with either | 13:00 | |
| Rathann | obviously some people need explaining the spirit of the rule ;) | 13:00 |
| Rathann | so more precise language won't hurt IMHO | 13:01 |
| spot | how about this | 13:01 |
| spot | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 | 13:01 |
| spot | i added it as a clarifier | 13:01 |
| tibbs | Seems OK to me. | 13:02 |
| Rathann | yup | 13:02 |
| delero | excellent | 13:02 |
| tibbs | I wonder whether we're still within the spirit of the original draft which was submitted. | 13:02 |
| spot | well, we'll hear back for sure if we're not. | 13:02 |
| spot | i think we are | 13:02 |
| hansg | spot, good, about font source, its that mandatory, or does it depend on the font license? | 13:02 |
| Rathann | I think so too | 13:02 |
| Rathann | we just added some common sense ;) | 13:02 |
| spot | hansg: not sure i follow | 13:03 |
| Rathann | hansg: you mean the point about asking upstream to publish font source separately? | 13:03 |
| Rathann | it's not mandatory | 13:03 |
| hansg | Well if someone designed a font for project X and gave project X just the .ttf file and a license to do whatever they want with the ttf, there will be no font source | 13:03 |
| spot | how about i change that to just "font files" | 13:04 |
| spot | not "font source" | 13:04 |
| spot | to eliminate confusion | 13:04 |
| Rathann | yes | 13:04 |
| Rathann | that's what I meant | 13:04 |
| hansg | spot, hmm yes and no | 13:04 |
| hansg | We do want the preferable format for modification when available | 13:04 |
| <-- delero has left this channel. | 13:05 | |
| spot | hansg: yes, but thats a licensing issue | 13:05 |
| Rathann | the idea is that generally useful fonts should migrate to separate packages alltogether | 13:05 |
| Rathann | hence my suggestion to ask upstream to publish font files | 13:05 |
| hansg | spot again yes and no, it can be that we don't need the font "source" from a license pov, that doesn't mean we don't want it if available | 13:05 |
| spot | by not specifying, we can safely assume we want source | 13:06 |
| hansg | true | 13:06 |
| spot | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2 | 13:06 |
| spot | it now says "font files" on that line | 13:06 |
| spot | guys, i need to dash off to the board meeting | 13:06 |
| spot | can we vote on this quickly? | 13:06 |
| Rathann | hansg: but isn't that is already in font packaging guidelines? | 13:06 |
| rdieter | spot: +1 to v2 | 13:07 |
| spot | +1 from me | 13:07 |
| hansg | +1 | 13:07 |
| Rathann | hansg: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format" | 13:07 |
| tibbs | +1 | 13:07 |
| Rathann | +1 from me | 13:07 |
| spot | do we have quorum? delero dropped... | 13:07 |
| hansg | Rathann, we should add: "if upstream does not provides them in a source format, the packager should contact upstream and ask them to provide source if possible" | 13:07 |
| spot | wait, that is +5 | 13:07 |
| spot | ok, it passes. | 13:07 |
| hansg | yes thats enouh, right?? | 13:08 |
| spot | and with that i have to go to the board call | 13:08 |
| Rathann | hansg: that is fine by me | 13:08 |
| spot | thanks guys | 13:08 |
| Rathann | thanks spot ;) | 13:08 |
| * hansg wonders why my typing is even lousier then normal | 13:08 | |
| spot | i'll update the todo page this afternoon | 13:08 |
| tibbs | I will try to get minutes out today; with the FESCo move, we have no way to make their 24 hour deadline. | 13:09 |
| hansg | well that was short (for me) when is the next meeting? | 13:12 |
| Rathann | hansg: we should discuss the possible times and choose one that works well for everyone if possible, current one was difficult for me until recently | 13:17 |
| hansg | Didn't we try that by using a wiki page were we all wrote down what worked, and then failed? | 13:18 |
| Rathann | and I won't know until next week if it continues to be | 13:18 |
| tibbs | The problem seems to be that there's always some kind of conflict. | 13:18 |
| abadger1999 | tibbs: FTR, I'm +1 to spots revised fonts guideline. | 13:33 |