From Fedora Project Wiki
Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2008-05-06}
Present
- JasonTibbitts (
tibbs
) - RalfCorsepius (
racor
) - RexDieter (
rdieter
) - TomCallaway (
spot
) - ToshioKuratomi (
abadger1999
) - XavierLamien (
SmootherFrOgZ
)
Votes
The following proposals were considered:
- Tracking the upstream status of patches
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus
- A new draft this week.
- Accepted (5 - 1)
- Voting for: spot SmootherFrOgZ tibbs rdieter abadger1999
- Voting against: racor
- Mandatory verification of desktop files
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopVerify
- A new draft this week, modifying the existing guidelines.
- Accepted (6 - 0)
- Voting for: spot rdieter hansg (on-list) abadger1999 tibbs SmootherFrOgZ
Other Discussions
A proposal to change the meeting time to 15:00UTC (two hours earlier) was discussed and will be further discussed via email.
IRC Logs
[12:03] <tibbs> So, FPC? [12:04] <rdieter> spot: ? [12:04] * spot is here [12:05] <spot> ok, i see rdieter and tibbs are here too [12:07] * SmootherFrOgZ is here [12:07] <spot> racor, abadger1999? [12:07] <abadger1999> 3/4 here. [12:08] * abadger1999 is in an ad hoc meeting about pkgdb as well. [12:08] <spot> i don't see Rathann or delero [12:09] * abadger1999 pings rathannin f-devel [12:09] <racor> I am almost absent, this time slot simply doesn't work for me :( [12:10] <spot> racor: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NewMeetingTime doesn't have any entries from you [12:10] <spot> (or anyone else, for that matter) [12:11] <spot> well, ok, i see abadger1999's blanket acceptance. :) [12:11] <abadger1999> spot: I wrote a note that all those times are good for me. [12:11] <abadger1999> heh :-) [12:12] <tibbs> I don't have significant restrictions, either. [12:12] <spot> ok, well, with 3/4 abadger1999 and almost absent racor, that is quorum [12:12] <spot> we don't have very much on the agenda today [12:12] <spot> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus [12:12] <spot> ^ first item [12:13] <tibbs> I like the idea; my proposal for extending it to arbitrary metadata didn't gain traction so I guess this one wins. [12:13] <abadger1999> Ambivalent. Comments == Good. Should items are always kind of wishy-washy, though. [12:13] <tibbs> Certainly not a requirement, though. [12:13] <spot> if it encourages people to do it, i'm supportive of it. [12:13] <racor> spot: I don't see any need to vote. We once had decided to switch meeting time with DST, but this hasn't happened. [12:14] <spot> racor: ok, let me be a bit more specific, would 15.00 - 16.00 work better for you? [12:15] <racor> 15:00 UTC, that's 17:00 CEST - much better [12:16] <spot> i'll send out email proposing that we switch to that time slot, we'll see if everyone can make that work. [12:16] <tibbs> 10AM for me; doable most of the time. [12:16] <rdieter> good here too [12:16] <rdieter> better than now even. :) [12:16] <spot> ok, lets vote on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus [12:16] <spot> +1 from me [12:17] <SmootherFrOgZ> +1 [12:17] <tibbs> +1 although I will still present a proposal for extending it in the future. [12:17] <spot> tibbs: you know how we roll. ;) [12:18] <rdieter> +1 , though nervous about slippery slope of wishy-washy common-sense items in guidelines. [12:18] <racor> -1, personal preference/stylishness, should not be made part of theFPG [12:18] <abadger1999> +1 [12:18] <rdieter> racor: srsly? prefer *not* to document patch status? [12:19] <tibbs> Well, if we waht to have tools that gather these, then we at least need to document what the tools will accept. [12:19] <spot> ok, thats +5 to the draft [12:19] <spot> abadger1999: is Javascript ready? [12:19] <racor> rdieter: common sense should direct maintainers to document patches at *their* preference. [12:19] <tibbs> Honestly I believe that it would be better for the tools to exist first, but nobody but me seems interested so I'll just make them accept what this draft suggests. [12:19] <spot> racor: isn't that what a SHOULD means? [12:20] <tibbs> racor: How does this guideline not do that? [12:20] <abadger1999> spot: No. I haven't had time to package another library up. [12:20] <abadger1999> tibbs: I'd be interested in seeing your patch metadata in these comments. [12:20] <rdieter> tibbs: orthogonal, this doesn't need to block on tools existing or not (tho tools would certainly be preferable) [12:20] <racor> rdieter: I see the SHOULD, ... [12:20] <tibbs> abadger1999: BTW, it was indicated to me that it's spelled "JavaScript". Not that I particularly care. [12:21] <abadger1999> tibbs: Yah. I need to do that and include the comments from the last meeting. [12:21] * abadger1999 fixes spelling now since it's easy [12:21] <spot> okay. thats all i have on the agenda for today. [12:21] <tibbs> I recall an on-list proposal that people were discussing. [12:22] <spot> tibbs: which one? [12:22] <tibbs> I forgot to tick it so the article expired from my folder. There was no draft, so.... [12:22] <rdieter> caillon had posted awhile back wondering if desktop-file-validate could be added, anyone's feelings change since that was discussed way back when? [12:22] <tibbs> Maybe that was it. [12:23] <spot> rdieter: oh, yes, i remember that [12:23] <rdieter> can't pull up the archive, redhat.com is down. heh. [12:24] <abadger1999> rdieter: I'm +1 to that proposal. [12:24] <spot> Since the purpose of this guideline is to validate, I propose to amend the section of the packaging guidelines on desktop-file-install usage[1] as follows: [12:24] <spot> * Rename the sub-heading from "desktop-file-install" to ".desktop file installation and validation" [12:24] <spot> * Change the first sentence to: [12:24] <spot> << [12:24] <spot> It is not simply enough to just include the .desktop file in the [12:24] <rdieter> he wanted this added as an example of d-f-* usage: desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop [12:24] <spot> package, one MUST run desktop-file-install OR desktop-file-validate in [12:24] <spot> %install (and have BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils), to help ensure [12:24] <spot> .desktop file safety and spec-compliance. desktop-file-install MUST be [12:24] <spot> used if the package does not install the file or there are changes [12:24] <spot> desired to the .desktop file (such as add/removing categories, etc). [12:24] <spot> desktop-file-validate MAY be used instead if the .desktop file's content/location does not need modification. Here are some examples of usage: [12:24] <spot> >> [12:24] <spot> * Add the following example: [12:24] <spot> << desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/foo.desktop [12:24] <spot> (sorry for the mini flood) [12:25] <spot> seems pretty obviously correct to me. [12:25] <rdieter> I'm ok with that too: +1 [12:25] <spot> hans had an onlist +1 [12:26] <SmootherFrOgZ> hm, that could be a feature for rpmlint (?) [12:26] <abadger1999> +1 [12:27] <spot> ok, i see +4 total on this proposal [12:27] <tibbs> Actually it could be a rpmbuild script as well, I guess. [12:27] <SmootherFrOgZ> i'm ok with that too [12:28] <tibbs> This is yet another thing that probably shouldn't have to be done explicitly, but until we get there I have no problem requiring, so +1. [12:28] <racor> I got to go, bye ... [12:28] <spot> ok, thats +5. anyone else want to get a vote for the record? [12:29] <SmootherFrOgZ> +1 from me [12:29] <spot> alright, any other issues for today? [12:29] <tibbs> Can someone write this up into an actual draft? [12:29] <spot> i will. [12:30] <spot> ok, i think we're done for today. [12:30] <spot> thanks all [12:31] <abadger1999> Thanks spot