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 Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-10-2010, 01:56 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On Mon, 10 May 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 12, at its
> regular time of 16:00 UTC, and in its regular location of
> #fedora-meeting. Here is the expected agenda:
> =====
>
> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
>


I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of the FPC on:

https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/373



and in general metadata explosions of its type.

-sv

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-10-2010, 02:00 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 08:56 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 May 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
>> The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 12, at its
>> regular time of 16:00 UTC, and in its regular location of
>> #fedora-meeting. Here is the expected agenda:
>> =====
>>
>> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
>> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
>>
>>
>
> I'd be interested in hearing the opinions of the FPC on:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/373
>
>
>
> and in general metadata explosions of its type.
>
> -sv
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
Sweet weeping $_DEITY!

More nuanced views and suggestions to follow at FPC meeting. . .

-J
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-10-2010, 05:46 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.

I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
*didn't* want FESCo review.

Bill
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-10-2010, 06:14 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
>> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
>> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
>
> I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
> FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
> with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
> *didn't* want FESCo review.

Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
with the FPC proposals.

~spot
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-10-2010, 06:24 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 01:14 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
>>
>>> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
>>> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
>>>
>> I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
>> FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
>> with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
>> *didn't* want FESCo review.
>>
> Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
> vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
> passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
> went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
> procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
> with the FPC proposals.
>
> ~spot
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
>
Words right out of my mouth, but I'd definitely like to have
conversation around it in the next meeting.

-J
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-10-2010, 10:16 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:
> >> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
> >> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.
> >
> > I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
> > FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
> > with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
> > *didn't* want FESCo review.
>
> Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
> vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
> passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
> went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
> procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
> with the FPC proposals.
>
I'd like FESCo to have the right of appeal but not necessarily review.
If I just link to my previous writeup, will other FPC members be good enough
to read it?
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/358#comment:8

Basically, I think the current way that ratification by fesco works in
practice delays guidelines getting put into effect and getting written up
with little benefit.

The actual times when FESCo points out problems are largely when the issue
gets discussed on the mailing lists between the FPC meeting and the FESCo
meeting. This could just as easly tie into the process where FESCo
represents the packagers to the FPC to get a change in an established
guideline as opposed to having a separate step where the guidelines must be
explicitly ratified by FESCo. In our present process, fesco is supposedly
reviewing the Guidelines between the time that the FPC passes them and the
FESCo meeting but it's apparent that this seldom happens in practice.

As noted in that ticket, it would make it easier to get FPC guidelines
written up as the accountability for writing up passed guidelines could be
handed out directly following the meeting rather than getting lost in the
shuffle between FPC meeting - FESCo meeting - FPC meeting.

The real benefit is probably to FESCo, though, as it clears out ten to
fifteen minutes that they would no longer need to spend on it in meeting and
however long the members actually do spend on reviewing the guidelines
outside of the meeting as the current method of review is assuming they do.

So if it's brought to a vote in FPC, I'll vote that FESCo stop explicitly
having a review step and moves to just pushing things they notice as
problems back to FPC. But I won't mind overly much if it doesn't win out
there -- I'd be more concerned about it if I were on FESCo and had to try to
add reviewing of the guidelines to the other things on the FESCo agenda.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-11-2010, 08:25 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 03:49 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 12, at its
> regular time of 16:00 UTC, and in its regular location of

Thursday, May 13 is a public holiday in Germany.

Therefore, it's likely I'll quit working "early" on May 12, and not be
able to attend the meeting at 16:00 UTC (18:00 local time).

Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-11-2010, 01:04 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/11/2010 04:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 03:49 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 12, at its
>> regular time of 16:00 UTC, and in its regular location of
>
> Thursday, May 13 is a public holiday in Germany.
>
> Therefore, it's likely I'll quit working "early" on May 12, and not be
> able to attend the meeting at 16:00 UTC (18:00 local time).

Thanks for the heads-up, enjoy your holiday.

~spot

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-11-2010, 01:20 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 05:16 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 02:14:33PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:


On 05/10/2010 01:46 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:


Tom spot Callaway (tcallawa@redhat.com) said:


If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
this meeting, please feel free to let us know.



I'd like FPC to decide and clearly state their Official(tm) opinion on
FESCo review of approved guidelines; it came up again in the thread-of-doom,
with claims both that FPC-as-a-whole wanted FESCo to review, and that they
*didn't* want FESCo review.



Well, I want FESCo review. If the FPC disagrees with me and wants to
vote on it, I'd be happy to let them. I think the fact that things have
passed FPC, only to be reviewed by FESCo and found wanting (which then
went back to FPC for revision and eventual acceptance) means that the
procedure works, even if it is rare that FESCo find anything at issue
with the FPC proposals.



I'd like FESCo to have the right of appeal but not necessarily review.
If I just link to my previous writeup, will other FPC members be good enough
to read it?
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/358#comment:8



Good food for thought, I will certainly mull this over the next 27
hours.*



One thing this highlighted for me, and maybe it's something I missed,
being the FPC NKOTB, but it never occurred to me that FPC members could
attend FESCO meetings.* I see the notifications, I just never put 2 and
2 together. <facepalm>



In any event, thanks for writing this up, it gives us a good place to
debate from and, I hope, will lead to a more efficient process without
sacrificing quality.



-J


Basically, I think the current way that ratification by fesco works in
practice delays guidelines getting put into effect and getting written up
with little benefit.

The actual times when FESCo points out problems are largely when the issue
gets discussed on the mailing lists between the FPC meeting and the FESCo
meeting. This could just as easly tie into the process where FESCo
represents the packagers to the FPC to get a change in an established
guideline as opposed to having a separate step where the guidelines must be
explicitly ratified by FESCo. In our present process, fesco is supposedly
reviewing the Guidelines between the time that the FPC passes them and the
FESCo meeting but it's apparent that this seldom happens in practice.

As noted in that ticket, it would make it easier to get FPC guidelines
written up as the accountability for writing up passed guidelines could be
handed out directly following the meeting rather than getting lost in the
shuffle between FPC meeting - FESCo meeting - FPC meeting.

The real benefit is probably to FESCo, though, as it clears out ten to
fifteen minutes that they would no longer need to spend on it in meeting and
however long the members actually do spend on reviewing the guidelines
outside of the meeting as the current method of review is assuming they do.

So if it's brought to a vote in FPC, I'll vote that FESCo stop explicitly
having a review step and moves to just pushing things they notice as
problems back to FPC. But I won't mind overly much if it doesn't win out
there -- I'd be more concerned about it if I were on FESCo and had to try to
add reviewing of the guidelines to the other things on the FESCo agenda.

-Toshio



--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging





--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 05-11-2010, 02:03 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting - Wednesday May 12, 16:00 UTC

On 05/10/2010 03:49 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Packaging Committee will meet on Wednesday, May 12, at its
> regular time of 16:00 UTC, and in its regular location of
> #fedora-meeting. Here is the expected agenda:
As I'd likely not be able to attend, here are my preliminary votes:

> * CMPI Plugin Guideline:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CMPIPlugins
This is useful as "cooking recipe" for packaging such packages, but feel
this is too specialized to be suitable for guidelines.

OK as an "inofficial" appendix, but not OK as part of the main FPG.

> * Static Library PICness:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ajax/Static_Library_PICness_Guidelines
Basically OK, except of the naming proposal (libpic-foo.a etc.).

-1 in its current shape, because this would
a) break with tradional usage of static libs.
b) would require intrusive works on some packages' sources.

+1 with the library naming scheme removed.

> * Mark VCS in spec files:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/Packaging_VCS_key_proposal
-1 ... superfluous bureaucracy.

> * Use %{_isa} to make hardcoded Requires Arch Specific:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ArchSpecificRequires
As repeatedly said, I am opposed to using %{_isa} in general, because I
consider it to be redundant to library paths and to only be adding bloat.

Also, the current proposal seems "uncooked", to me
(E.g. I don't understand when the author want packagers to use %{_isa}
or not).

Proposal: Have the author rework it and table it for now.

Should you insist on voting on it, count me as "-1".


> * Correct existing definitions of RPM Macros in guidelines to match
> current reality:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RPMMacros_sharedstatedir_optflags_and_admonitions

It's step into the right direction, but if being pedantic, there are
mistakes in this draft:

* autoconf variable datarootdir is missing
(Off head, I don't know if rpm meanwhile has adopted it. It's in
autoconf for many (10?) years)

* _lib is not an autoconf variable.
Its documentation should be moved into the "non-autoconf" section.

Otherwise OK.

+1 with the changes above applied, 0 otherwise.


> =====
>
> If there is something else that you feel should be on the agenda for
> this meeting, please feel free to let us know.

We need strict definitions (or at least documentation) of which packages
to expect in each specific distro's buildroots, shouldn't we already
have them (ATM, I can't find them).

Background: In recent days, I have been observing "package-rebuild
errors", seemingly originating from some packages having been removed
from buildroots. As I was rebuilding packages maintained by other folks,
I don't know for how long these build error have been present (they did
not cause build aborts, but caused the packages to be "mis-built").

Ralf
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:26 PM.

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