FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.

» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-27-2011, 02:03 AM
Kevin Fenzi
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-04-27)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on

Links to all tickets below can be found at:

= Followups =

#topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
.fesco 515

#topic #517 Updates Metrics
.fesco 517

#topic #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
.fesco 563

= New business =

#topic #585 Plan date for dist-git branch renames
.fesco 585

= Fedora Engineering Services tickets =


= Open Floor =

For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at

If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.

devel mailing list
Old 04-27-2011, 06:27 PM
Kevin Fenzi
Default Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-04-27)

#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-04-27)

Meeting started by nirik at 17:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process (nirik, 17:30:01)

* #585 Plan date for dist-git branch renames (nirik, 17:33:15)
* ACTION: 2011-05-10 scheduled for the change. (nirik, 17:42:03)

* #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases (nirik,

* #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
(nirik, 17:48:25)

* Open Floor (nirik, 17:49:48)

Meeting ended at 18:26:42 UTC.

Action Items
* 2011-05-10 scheduled for the change.

Action Items, by person
* 2011-05-10 scheduled for the change.

People Present (lines said)
* cwickert (71)
* nirik (65)
* mjg59 (49)
* gholms (22)
* Oxf13 (19)
* mclasen (18)
* notting (16)
* ajax (8)
* zodbot (7)
* mmaslano (2)
* rsc (2)
* rwmjones (1)
* SMParrish (0)
* kylem (0)
17:30:01 <nirik> #startmeeting FESCO (2011-04-27)
17:30:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 27 17:30:01 2011 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:30:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:30:01 <nirik> #meetingname fesco
17:30:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:30:01 <nirik> #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax cwickert mjg59 mmaslano
17:30:01 <nirik> #topic init process
17:30:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting
17:30:39 <mjg59> Afternoon
17:30:48 * notting is here
17:31:34 * mmaslano here
17:31:38 <ajax> come on party people, throw your hands in the air
17:31:54 <gholms> Going to go for the third <20m meeting in a row?
17:32:01 <ajax> yesplz
17:32:06 <nirik> I think they are nice, yes.
17:32:13 <mjg59> As long as nobody brings up systemd
17:32:13 * mclasen is here
17:32:21 <gholms> mjg59: Shh! :P
17:32:21 <mjg59> (Oh no!)
17:32:47 <nirik> cwickert said he would be a bit late...
17:33:11 <nirik> lets start with an easy one:
17:33:15 <nirik> #topic #585 Plan date for dist-git branch renames
17:33:15 <nirik> .fesco 585
17:33:17 <zodbot> nirik: #585 (Plan date for dist-git branch renames) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/585
17:33:59 <mjg59> Oxf13: You around?
17:34:03 <nirik> this looks like a short outage. I'm happy to have it done whenever.
17:34:08 <nirik> sooner better than later I guess.
17:34:17 <Oxf13> that I am
17:34:40 <Oxf13> the outage is short, what I'm looking for is guidance and thought on how long we should wait for the proper fedpkg packages to "soak" in stable
17:34:48 <Oxf13> for a reasonable amount of people to have them installed
17:34:57 <mjg59> Oxf13: Are they in every relevant release now?
17:35:05 <ajax> f15 final change deadline is May 9
17:35:11 <Oxf13> I do also need to create or have help creating a wiki landing page that we can direct people to to help them through the transition.
17:35:24 <Oxf13> mjg59: I believe they're still in testing for el5/6
17:35:32 <ajax> so, presumably, that would be a point after which nobody needs to use git to fix things for f15
17:35:36 <Oxf13> but went stable elsewhere lastweek/this week
17:35:55 <mjg59> Oxf13: tbh, I don't think there's any real soak test required if the code is already available to people
17:36:03 <mjg59> They're not going to be pushing to git unless they have network access...
17:36:06 <Oxf13> unfortunately I'm buried this week trying to finish a presentation for a conference.
17:36:17 <Oxf13> mjg59: that is true.
17:36:27 <mjg59> So I'm happy with it once they're stable everywhere
17:36:33 <Oxf13> and push attempts to the old path will be stopped by the ACL system, pointing them to a wiki page
17:36:35 * notting would prefer after f15 is frozen
17:36:40 <Oxf13> said wiki page would say "Download the update, run the fixbranches"
17:36:55 <mjg59> If there's any other infrastructure outages in the near future then doing it alongside one of them would be nice
17:36:55 <mclasen> we just want to avoid changing branch names before the fixed fedpkg is available via yum update on all releases, I guess
17:37:28 <nirik> well, I am hoping to have an outage next week on db01 to upgrade/move to new hardware.
17:37:50 <ajax> notting: may 10 then?
17:38:00 <nirik> that would affect wiki/smolt/wordpress/zarafa... so not really related to this.
17:38:29 <Oxf13> heh
17:38:29 <notting> ajax: something like that, yes.
17:38:39 <Oxf13> the mid-may timeline is fine by me.
17:38:56 <Oxf13> gives me time to create/polish the wiki page and the patch to the ACL system.
17:39:17 <nirik> note that that is in infrastructures change freeze, but we can get an exception for it.
17:39:27 <Oxf13> nod
17:39:34 * cwickert is here
17:39:53 <nirik> so, shall we tenatively say 10th? or thats summit, and go later in that week?
17:40:06 <nirik> no, thats the week before, nevermind
17:40:31 <ajax> 10th.
17:40:58 <mclasen> +1
17:41:07 <mjg59> +1
17:41:28 <notting> +1
17:41:31 <mmaslano> +1
17:41:37 <Oxf13> worksforme
17:41:53 <nirik> ok, cool.
17:42:03 <nirik> #action 2011-05-10 scheduled for the change.
17:42:18 <nirik> anything more on this topic?
17:43:06 <Oxf13> just a note
17:43:28 <Oxf13> that after this, there won't likely be any feature development on fedpkg for a while, as I'll be working on a massive overhaul to make it work with multiple sites
17:43:41 <Oxf13> (to use it in part for the internal Red Hat infrastructure)
17:43:52 <Oxf13> I'll still do bugfixes though.
17:44:15 <nirik> ok, thanks for all the work on it.
17:44:43 <nirik> #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases
17:44:43 <nirik> .fesco 515
17:44:44 <zodbot> nirik: #515 (Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/515
17:44:47 <nirik> cwickert: any news on this one?
17:44:53 <cwickert> nope
17:44:54 <cwickert>
17:45:21 <rsc> nirik: is this EPEL or Fedora?
17:45:32 <nirik> fedora.
17:45:34 <rsc> ok
17:45:52 <nirik> althought I suppose a similar setup could be used in epel perhaps.
17:46:15 <cwickert> once we have resolved the issues
17:46:30 <nirik> right
17:46:39 <cwickert> the biggest problem is how to resolve BuildRequires
17:46:57 <cwickert> I'm afraid we will run into a lot of buildroot overwrite requests
17:47:05 <cwickert> and cause a lot of work for rel-eng
17:47:38 <nirik> well, work is ongoing to automate/self service those.
17:47:44 <nirik> hopefully that will land soon.
17:47:55 <cwickert> cool
17:48:11 <nirik> anyhow, moving on I guess...
17:48:11 <cwickert> in this case one of my biggest problems is solved
17:48:17 <cwickert> yeah, lets move
17:48:18 <nirik> cool.
17:48:25 <nirik> #topic #563 suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags
17:48:25 <nirik> .fesco 563
17:48:29 <zodbot> nirik: #563 (suggested policy: all daemons must set RELRO and PIE flags) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/563
17:48:29 <nirik> no kylem...
17:48:39 <nirik> so, I guess we are still waiting for data here.
17:49:48 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:49:53 <nirik> ok, anything for open floor?
17:50:14 <gholms> So much for a sub-20m meeting.
17:50:36 <nirik> will try harder next time.
17:50:40 <gholms> Heh
17:50:50 <gholms> This time there was actually a topic with news.
17:51:38 <nirik> so, f15 is coming closer... how does everyone feel about it's readyness? Looking ok?
17:51:56 <mjg59> Shell is in a much better state than I expected
17:52:17 <ajax> i've got a few things in mesa still to shake out, but i'm reasonably confident in them
17:52:42 <ajax> if anyone wants to help me out with that, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/llvm-2.8-11.fc15 could use some love
17:52:53 <gholms> Anyone have any thoughts/opinions about the fact that one can't remove packagekit any more without ripping out the entire desktop stack?
17:53:26 * cwickert thinks that F15 will be the worst release ever
17:53:35 <cwickert> gholms: good point
17:53:39 <nirik> sadly, deps sometimes grow... but I haven't looked at that case.
17:53:51 <cwickert> it could be fixed easily
17:53:51 <nirik> cwickert: why so?
17:54:04 <cwickert> because of the gnome fallout on all of us
17:54:08 <mclasen> gholms: I think thats just fine
17:54:24 <nirik> ah. I think the fallout is somewhat overblown, but I guess we will see.
17:54:40 <nirik> anyhow, if nothing else, will close out the meeting in a minute.
17:54:51 <mjg59> If it's resulting in non-gnome environments ending up with lots of gnome, that's a problem. If it's resulting in gnome environments requiring packagekit, I don't think that's a problem at all.
17:55:02 <cwickert> take the look of GTK3 vs. GTK2 for example
17:55:33 <cwickert> or the fact that we have no update notifications in Xfce and LXDE because of the changes in libnotify
17:55:33 <gholms> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that, people.
17:55:42 <mclasen> mjg59: that is true
17:56:14 <cwickert> all: for the packagekit bug please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699348
17:56:16 <nirik> cwickert: I thought panu had a patch to help with that, but I guess it never went to a conclusion.
17:56:34 <cwickert> and for background discussion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699263
17:57:08 <cwickert> nirik: panu didn't write a patch but a new update notification icon for Xfce
17:57:18 <mclasen> cwickert: if it was up to me, I'd close that notabug
17:57:35 <cwickert> mclasen: then look at the number of people cc please
17:57:39 <mclasen> the updates plugin is not an optional part of g-s-d
17:58:04 <cwickert> mclasen: why not? why can it not be packaged separately?
17:58:22 <cwickert> and what is the use of the plugin if gnome-packagekit is not installed?
17:58:43 <mclasen> the plugin gives you notification about available updates
17:58:59 <cwickert> and then? how to install them without gnome-packagekit?
17:59:29 <mjg59> If there's no impact on non-gnome environments then I don't think this is a fesco issue and I don't think we need to discuss it here
17:59:41 <notting> surely the fix is that PackageKit-glib should not require PackageKit (c.f. NetworkManager-glib?
18:00:08 <cwickert> mjg59: there is, other spins are using gdm for example and gdm requires g-s-d
18:00:11 <mclasen> mjg59: there is indirect impact via g-s-d running in the gdm login session
18:00:33 <mjg59> Ok, then there's an argument for working out some way to relax that constraint
18:00:42 <mclasen> not sure how many non-gnome spins still use gdm, though
18:00:49 <cwickert> at least one, Xfce
18:01:25 <mjg59> But the right way to fix this isn't to dictate that the maintainer removes something that they feel is a dependency
18:01:28 <cwickert> the plugin should be in gnome-packagekit and not in g-s-d, but this is something that needs to happen in GNOME 3.2 upstream
18:01:58 <mjg59> So if people want to work with upstream on that, I think that makes sense
18:02:10 <cwickert> mjg59: the dependency is only half of what we need. strictly speaking we need to have a dep on gnome-packagkit, too
18:02:12 <notting> cwickert: how so? perhaps the fix is a different update UI in 3.2 that doesn't use gpk?
18:02:27 <mjg59> What does the overhead end up being?
18:02:36 <mjg59> ie, how much of gnome gets pulled in?
18:03:09 <cwickert> not much GNOME but PackageKit
18:03:14 <mjg59> Oh
18:03:18 <mjg59> Well, that doesn't seem so bad
18:03:48 <cwickert> well, but pulling in PackageKit is only half of what we need because we also need gnome-packagekit
18:04:01 <cwickert> and people don't want that
18:04:08 <notting> huh?
18:04:14 * notting didn't parse that
18:04:23 <cwickert> ok, lemme explain again
18:04:48 <cwickert> the updates plugin of g-s-d is useless without gnome-packagkit
18:04:54 <cwickert> so we need to require it
18:05:02 <cwickert> understood?
18:05:30 <mjg59> So g-s-d should require gnome-packagekit?
18:05:45 <cwickert> no, my suggestion is: have the updates plugin be a sub-package of g-s-d and that package can then require gnome-packagekit
18:05:52 <cwickert> everybody happy then
18:05:55 <mjg59> Why is this better?
18:06:00 <cwickert> and no changes upstream required
18:06:21 <gholms> mjg59: Then the xfce spin doesn't end up with gnome-packagekit?
18:06:25 <nirik> some people want just g-s-d and some people want the updates plugin + gnome-packagekit?
18:06:36 <mjg59> gholms: And why is that a problem?
18:06:40 <cwickert> mjg59: because we git rid of the dep on PackageKit for the people who don't want it and can add a dep on gnome-packagekit for those who want it
18:06:56 <mjg59> I'm trying to work out why "The people who don't want it" is something we care about in the slightest
18:07:01 <gholms> mjg59: Doesn't it drag in a bunch of other gnome deps?
18:07:05 <cwickert> gholms: the Xfce spin has gnome-packagekit anyway
18:07:13 <mjg59> Who are these people? What are they trying to accomplish?
18:07:14 <gholms> Oh, cool.
18:07:29 <cwickert> mjg59: because there are quite a number of them and some of them are honored Fedora Red Hat developers
18:07:33 * notting notes that PackageKit itself is pulled into @base
18:07:40 <mjg59> Could a precise description of actual real problems other than "We have packagekit installed and don't want it" be made?
18:08:01 <mjg59> Because if it's just that, I don't think this is our problem at all
18:08:07 <cwickert> mjg59: we install something that does not work
18:08:18 <mjg59> Why does it not work?
18:08:37 <cwickert> it does not work for the people who don't have gnome-packagekit installed
18:08:48 <mjg59> So it should depend on gnome-packagekit?
18:08:58 <gholms> If the problem is just that the deps are wrong you can bring that up with the maintainer.
18:09:01 <nirik> cwickert: so, the people who want to install g-s-d but DON't want gnome-packagekit are who?
18:09:07 <cwickert> mjg59: only the sub-package
18:09:09 <nirik> or why is better
18:09:14 <mjg59> cwickert: There is no sub-package
18:09:18 <gholms> nirik: Hi, I'm one of those people.
18:09:28 <cwickert> nirik: people like gholms or rwmjones
18:09:29 <mjg59> cwickert: I'm asking what the *current* problem is
18:09:34 <nirik> ok, why?
18:09:40 <nirik> whats the usage?
18:10:04 <cwickert> mjg59: the current problem is that if you install g-s-d you don't necessarily get gnome-packagekit
18:10:19 <nirik> which could be fixed by adding a dep
18:10:32 <mjg59> cwickert: Right, so g-s-d should depend on gnome-packagekit.
18:10:44 <mjg59> cwickert: What problem does that result in?
18:10:58 <cwickert> that people DO NOT WANT it
18:11:09 <mjg59> I don't give a fuck whether people want it or not
18:11:12 <mjg59> What problem does it cause?
18:11:25 <cwickert> there are several package managers out there, why should we force people to install one?
18:11:36 <mjg59> Because that's the one that the entire gnome platform is based around
18:11:49 <mjg59> I can't swap out gtk with qt, either
18:11:52 <nirik> they wish gnome-settings-daemon, but not gnome-packagekit?
18:12:07 <cwickert> mjg59: GNOME is not *based* on gnome-packagekit
18:12:10 <nirik> I don't doubt there could be a use case here, I just don't understand what it is.
18:12:11 <mjg59> We don't cater to everyone's requirements
18:12:17 <notting> mjg59: potentially an issue for users of g-s-d without the updates plugin enabled (gdm session, live users)
18:12:22 <gholms> nirik: I don't want PK to grab the yum lock whenever it decides to update itself or to show me any GUI notifications.
18:12:28 <cwickert> you cannot compare GTK to gnome-packagekit
18:12:39 <gholms> nirik: For all I know those are fixable with config, but historically I've fixed those by removing PK.
18:12:46 <mjg59> cwickert: The gnome maintainers have decided that gnome-packagekit is part of their platform
18:12:53 <mjg59> That's their decision to make
18:13:01 <nirik> gholms: ok, and you are running gnome or gdm?
18:13:03 <notting> gholms: try disabling the service?
18:13:07 <cwickert> mjg59: upstream or downstream?
18:13:13 <gholms> nirik: Yep
18:13:15 <mjg59> cwickert: Either
18:13:38 <rwmjones> mjg59: basically if we could make packagekit not run (don't really care if it's installed), that would be good
18:13:39 <mjg59> If it's a decision that our maintainers agree with, I definitely see no reason to attempt to overrule them
18:14:11 <cwickert> I think saying that GNOME is based on PackageKit is nonsense. There are other package managers out there and most distributions don't even ship PackageKit
18:14:21 <cwickert> it is an optional component
18:14:33 <cwickert> and it could be made optional with a little change in packaging
18:14:34 <nirik> ok, so that makes sense. So subpackaging out the part that deps on gnome-packagekit would be a solution, or alternately have a way to disable gnome-packagekit from running easily if it's installed.
18:14:41 <mjg59> Anyway, I see nothing here for fesco to rule on
18:15:02 <gholms> nirik: Either of those would perfectly fine with me.
18:15:09 <cwickert> mjg59: cutting dependency bloat is a fesco effort
18:15:14 <nirik> right, it's down to convincing the owners...
18:15:16 <gholms> I would be underinformed, for all I know.
18:15:21 <gholms> *could
18:15:26 <mjg59> cwickert: Where dependency bloat causes real problems, yes. I see no real problems here.
18:15:40 <notting> cwickert: http://git.gnome.org/browse/jhbuild/tree/modulesets/gnome-suites-core-3.0.modules
18:15:47 <mjg59> "I want to be able to configure packagekit not to run" seems like a valid discussion to have with the maintainer
18:15:49 <cwickert> mjg59: but there is quite a lot of people who disagree with you
18:15:55 <mjg59> cwickert: And they're wrong and I'm right
18:16:05 <cwickert> ah, sorry, I forgot this
18:16:11 <notting> cwickert: gnome-packagekit is in the core gnome 3 modules
18:16:17 <nirik> I'd suggest we should talk with maintainers and try and advocate for one of those 2 things...
18:16:22 <notting> cwickert: so, saying it's based on it is *not* nonsense
18:16:37 * gholms reluctantly agrees with mjg59
18:17:15 <notting> nirik: you could also drop the dependency between PackageKit-glib and PackageKit; this would allow PK to be removed, while keeping the plugin around
18:17:28 <mjg59> cwickert: It's not fesco's job to second guess decisions of maintainers unless those decisions have a significant impact upon the rest of the distribution
18:17:36 <cwickert> notting: it is *included* in the default selection but not *based*. we don't ship other modules either
18:17:53 <mjg59> Where that effect is limited to "I have some packages installed and I don't use them" I really don't think it's up to us to overrule decisions
18:18:28 <cwickert> so what is so bad about my proposed solution? does it hurt anybody?
18:18:32 * nirik thinks more discussion with maintainers should be done. If nothing at all can be worked out, revisit if needed.
18:18:41 <cwickert> does it cause problems for anybody?
18:18:46 <nirik> cwickert: I don't think so...
18:19:01 <mjg59> cwickert: I have no problem with that solution if the maintainers choose to implement it. But I strongly disagree with it being something that we should attempt to enforce.
18:19:34 <cwickert> it is a fact that especially our GNOME maintainers don't give much about the rest of the distribution
18:19:35 <gholms> mjg59: The question for me is more along the lines of "PK introduces delays when I want to run yum." If that's fixable with a config file that's fine with me, but if I can't stop that from happening it's a distro integration problem fesco has to address.
18:20:20 * nirik doesn't in fact see any comment yet from the owner on that issue...
18:20:51 * mclasen was away for a bit, sorry
18:21:03 <gholms> nirik: Most of the discussion is in bug 699263.
18:21:20 * nirik looks.
18:21:26 <cwickert> I think we are facing a deeper problem here: what if developers don't give much about user requests? it's not the first time that the developer completely ignores what people say
18:21:45 <mclasen> cwickert: 'what people say'
18:21:51 <mclasen> you are just unhappy that we ignore you :-)
18:22:09 <cwickert> mclasen: no, I am unhappy that *many* people get ignored
18:22:21 <gholms> They do?
18:22:21 <cwickert> not only in Fedora but also in other bug trackers
18:22:38 <cwickert> take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485846
18:22:43 <cwickert> same maintainer/developer
18:23:01 <cwickert> and the complainants are not only in our bugzilla but also in GNOME's or in launchpad
18:23:26 <cwickert> and the very same maintainer also introduced installation of packages for non-root users
18:23:33 <mclasen> same complainer too
18:23:56 <cwickert> mclasen: but at least I have people supporting me, richard doesn't
18:24:02 <notting> FESCo is not an I DON'T LIKE WHAT UPSTREAM IS DOING MAKE THEM DO WANT I WANT button
18:24:08 * mclasen not very interested in this level of discussion
18:24:17 <mclasen> I agree that we have a practical problem with the gdm dependencies
18:24:25 <mclasen> send a patch and we'll get it solved
18:24:37 <cwickert> ok
18:24:45 <nirik> I think there are some valid usecases that would be served by subpackaging the updates plugin in g-s-d.
18:25:08 <nirik> at least until a better upstream solution is created.
18:25:09 * mclasen has done package splits for xfce that he personally disagreed with before
18:25:39 <nirik> great, so, lets communicate and solve things and close out the meeting?
18:25:50 * nirik doesn't see any fesco action items here.
18:26:14 <cwickert> ok, lets stop this discussion here,
18:26:27 <cwickert> thanks everybody for their time, I really don't want to waste it
18:26:31 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone.
18:26:42 <nirik> #endmeeting
devel mailing list

Thread Tools

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:05 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org