16:04:36 <abadger1999> #startmeeting FPC
16:04:36 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jul  3 16:04:36 2014 UTC.  The chair is abadger1999. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:04:36 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:04:40 <abadger1999> #meetingname FPC
16:04:40 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:04:44 <abadger1999> #topic Roll Call
16:04:47 <abadger1999> #chair geppetto
16:04:47 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 geppetto
16:04:57 * racor is here
16:05:03 <abadger1999> #chair racor
16:05:03 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 geppetto racor
16:05:27 <abadger1999> Rathann, spot, SmootherFrOgZ, tibbs: FPC ping
16:06:21 * Rathann here
16:06:35 <abadger1999> #chair Rathann
16:06:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann abadger1999 geppetto racor
16:09:07 <abadger1999> Remi is definitely out this week and spot said that July through flock would be his busiest month before his schedule started going back to normal.
16:09:36 <abadger1999> Looking like no quorum today.
16:09:45 <abadger1999> But 4 is enough to have some discussion and vote on tickets.
16:10:10 <geppetto> yeh, tibbs usually pops in a bit too … might just be doing something for a few.
16:11:08 <abadger1999> #topic #339     software collections in Fedora
16:11:08 <geppetto> abadger1999: forgot to forward to you, but someone emailed me to ask if we could look at 317 again.
16:11:15 <abadger1999> langdon: You around?
16:11:37 <langdon> abadger1999: yeah.. but i am not sure we have anything for you .. im sorry to say
16:11:40 <abadger1999> remi's on vacation so we weren't able to continue our talk about the email he sent about scldevel.
16:11:41 <abadger1999> langdon: okay.
16:12:02 <abadger1999> langdon: Should I continue to hold up things waiting on you or just forge ahead?
16:12:05 <langdon> i think this is a bad week here (in the US) too
16:12:12 <abadger1999> <nod>  Very true.
16:12:16 <langdon> sorry?
16:12:29 <langdon> like "table for today"?
16:12:36 <langdon> or do you mean something else?
16:12:48 <geppetto> langdon: yeh, table until next week
16:13:08 <langdon> geppetto: abadger1999 yeah, let's table it..
16:13:27 <abadger1999> I was thinking we were waiting to approve or disapprove the ruby scl naming for getting a counter proposal on naming.
16:14:07 <abadger1999> but if the counter proposal isn't forthcoming... maybe we should vote to approve or not and then address any name change in an update.
16:14:23 <abadger1999> #chair tibbs|w
16:14:23 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann abadger1999 geppetto racor tibbs|w
16:14:32 <abadger1999> Hey tibbs.
16:14:41 <tibbs|w> Howdy.  Sorry, sometimes Thursday doesn't work out all that well for me.
16:15:11 <langdon> i think current status on naming is that there are arguments against "any name changes" ... but no arguments on "alternate name changes". So, I am not sure of the preference of the FPC..
16:15:24 <abadger1999> Yeah.  Maybe we should think about looking for a new time again... but I guess after August when spot gets back is a better time to think about it.
16:15:35 <abadger1999> langdon: k
16:16:01 <langdon> so, if the FPC "believes" the name change is the "right answer" then it should proceed. I don't have a counter on the "type" of change.
16:16:56 <abadger1999> langdon: alright, I guess we'll try to move ahead with voting on the current names that we proposed then.
16:17:05 <abadger1999> So one thing that came up this week in releng and fesco tickets
16:17:34 <abadger1999> was that the SCL team wanted to continue to put scl macros into packages for now because the guidelines say they can.
16:17:44 <abadger1999> and then keep them in there later under grandfathering.
16:18:17 <abadger1999> So I guess we need to take a vote on that now since we want them to be strictly separate.
16:18:30 <geppetto> wtf is grandfathering?
16:18:31 <abadger1999> and allowing that to go on for now and then changing it later will mean more work.
16:18:50 <abadger1999> geppetto: Allowing hte old behaviour to continue after the guidelines are updated.
16:18:52 <langdon> geppetto: american euphemism for "new laws don't apply to old things"
16:18:56 <geppetto> yeh, so -1, -1, -1, -1
16:19:24 <geppetto> abadger1999: Yeh, but we've never allowed that apart from maybe a short conversion period
16:19:26 <abadger1999> Really -- our usual definition of grandfathering, though, is that we don't require the packager to update (although  it would be nice) but they must take patches to fix that.
16:19:29 <geppetto> abadger1999: Have we?
16:19:45 <abadger1999> geppetto: Some things are longer term like package naming.
16:20:13 <abadger1999> geppetto: When we update package naming we usually use grandfathering to mean, as long as the package is active, you can continue to use the old name.
16:20:31 <geppetto> fair enough
16:21:02 <abadger1999> But yeah -- really in most cases we'd ideally want a conversion period but we lack manpower and enforcement to actually achieve that.
16:21:16 <abadger1999> anyhow..
16:21:21 <abadger1999> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change
16:22:07 <abadger1999> Hmm..
16:22:11 * abadger1999 realizes something
16:22:39 <abadger1999> My terminology in that draft also expects that SCLs will be placed in a separate package rather than a separate branch of an existing repo.
16:22:56 <Rathann> yes
16:23:10 <abadger1999> Does FPC want to vote on making that our official recommendation at this time as well?
16:23:26 * Rathann is +1 to both proposals
16:23:28 <abadger1999> I was on the fence before but over the past few days I've come to think that's the right thing to do.
16:23:52 <abadger1999> Proposal: SCL packages must be separate packages, not separate branches in the git repos
16:23:55 <abadger1999> +1
16:24:22 <Rathann> +1
16:25:17 <geppetto> +1
16:25:33 <abadger1999> IF we want to talk about this more that's fine too... I can update the other proposal to specify either package or branch of pacakge.
16:25:47 <tibbs|w> +1 though this almost seems a releng issue.
16:26:13 <abadger1999> <nod>  dgilmore said that he'd implement it according to FPC recommendations.
16:26:40 <geppetto> tibbs: You won't think that the first time you have to alter a normal package that's been sclized in the main branch ;)
16:26:42 <abadger1999> If he has reservations later, I'll bring his concerns back here.
16:26:54 <racor> 0, I have been absent too many times in recent weeks to be able to follow.
16:27:43 <abadger1999> #info Proposal: SCL packages must be separate packages, not separate branches in the git repos (+1: 4, 0:1, -1:0) Seeking more votes in ticket
16:28:33 <abadger1999> Proposal: Approve: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change which makes for strict separation between mainstream and SCLized packages
16:28:34 <abadger1999> +1
16:29:18 <Rathann> +1
16:30:48 <abadger1999> geppetto, tibbs|w, racor: votes?
16:31:08 <tibbs|w> +1
16:33:51 <abadger1999> Okay, well, we'll probably need to vote in the ticket anyhow so geppetto and racor can vote there.
16:34:13 <abadger1999> #info  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change which makes for strict separation between mainstream and SCLized packages (+1:3, 0:0, -1:0) Seeking more votes in ticket
16:34:14 <racor> I am confused.  What are we voiting on? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change was what I just voted on.
16:34:14 <geppetto> abadger1999: I'm confused … how is this different?
16:34:22 <abadger1999> #undo
16:34:22 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: INFO by abadger1999 at 16:34:13 : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change which makes for strict separation between mainstream and SCLized packages (+1:3, 0:0, -1:0) Seeking more votes in ticket
16:34:55 <abadger1999> racor, geppettoSorry -- the prior vote was about whether SCL-ized packages could be done in separate branches or had to be separate git repos.
16:35:40 <geppetto> Ok, I'm +1 on the latest one.
16:35:49 <abadger1999> Cool.
16:35:53 <geppetto> The previous one was +1 == allowed to use a branch?
16:36:25 <abadger1999> geppetto: the previous one was +1 *not* allowed to use a branch
16:36:34 <geppetto> ok
16:36:58 <abadger1999> Wsa your vote there okay?
16:37:15 <abadger1999> racor: The same question for you.
16:37:24 <geppetto> Yeh, I'm still +1, but for anyone reading the logs later … I could probably be convinced to relax that given a reason.
16:38:01 <racor> Yes, I am on 0 in the first vote. Still trying to understand the 2nd one.
16:38:10 <abadger1999> k
16:38:26 <abadger1999> The second one was where the rest of us voted on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change
16:38:37 <geppetto> racor: the latest one is basically … you can't put scl macros into a non-scl package.
16:39:27 <racor> Thanks for the explanations, +1
16:39:29 <abadger1999> The first one was bordering with a releng issue: in implementing SCLs, should SCLs be put into separate branches of an existing package or into a separate git repo than the existing package.
16:39:58 <abadger1999> racor: okay, so you're 0 for the first one and +1 for the second, correct?
16:40:18 <racor> abadger1999: yes.
16:40:40 <abadger1999> #info  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/SCL_Macros_Change which makes for strict separation between mainstream and SCLized packages (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
16:41:26 <abadger1999> #topic #382     Go Packaging Guidelines Draft
16:41:32 <abadger1999> Needs input from vabatts
16:41:44 <abadger1999> mattdm said he'd poke him again for us.
16:41:55 <abadger1999> #topic #414     Please consider requiring AppData for all desktop
16:42:05 <abadger1999> Need input from spot and from rhughes.
16:43:03 <abadger1999> There seems to be a desire from the desktop team to use MUST instead of SHOULD... mattdm is getting more information for us about reasons for that or anything else that might help us make a decision.
16:43:14 <abadger1999> #topic #419     ruby193 in SCL
16:43:19 <abadger1999> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/419
16:44:11 <abadger1999> So the update from langdon earlier is that we don't need to block on the naming questions.
16:44:44 <abadger1999> But there's still the issues in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/419#comment:3
16:45:11 <abadger1999> I added one compat question to the page itself after last week's meeting as well.
16:45:38 <abadger1999> #topic #435     %py3dir not removed by rpmbuild --clean
16:45:51 <abadger1999> No movement in bz and that's where this needs to come from :-(
16:45:56 <abadger1999> #topic #439     update for Packaging:Tmpfiles.d
16:46:01 <abadger1999> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/439
16:46:27 <abadger1999> I dropped the ball on this.  I was supposed to rewrite the draft to take care of the issues we identified last meeting.
16:46:38 <geppetto> no problem
16:46:40 <abadger1999> I'll do that tomorrow before the kids get up for the festivities.
16:46:47 <abadger1999> #topic #440     mimeinfo scriptlet update
16:46:51 <abadger1999> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/440
16:48:18 <abadger1999> I voted +1 in ticket.  It's just a scriptlet for running update-mime-database so that it doesn't have such a big performance hit.
16:48:49 <abadger1999> According to comment:4 we should be able to use it on all Fedora versions (not in EPEL yet).
16:49:02 <geppetto> looking at the history … this is just adding -n to the command, right?
16:49:11 <geppetto> if so +1
16:49:20 <abadger1999> It will only improve performance in rawhide.  On older releases -n is a forward compat no-op
16:49:24 <abadger1999> +1
16:49:41 <tibbs|w> +1
16:50:16 <abadger1999> racor, Rathann: votes for the mimeinfo scriptlet update?
16:50:22 <tibbs|w> Though the split with epel is a pain in this case.  If someone insists on keeping the same spec, the conditionals will get nasty.
16:50:58 <Rathann> hm I'm a bit confused about fesco decision
16:51:15 <tibbs|w> I'm confused about all of that, too, but I think it's a separate issue.
16:51:37 <geppetto> yeh, I wasn't sure what that was saying … but it didn't seem like I needed to
16:51:39 <tibbs|w> Basically, there's a new -n option that makes things faster.  Update guidelines to use it.
16:51:46 <abadger1999> Rathann: The fesco decision was that we wouldn't force the package maintainer to push the version of the update-mime-info package that makes -n actually improve performance back to F20 and F19.
16:51:47 <geppetto> yeh
16:52:01 <geppetto> abadger1999: ahh, cool. thanks.
16:52:09 <abadger1999> So F19 and F20 just has a version where -n is a no-op for compat
16:52:19 <Rathann> ok then, +1
16:52:44 <abadger1999> racor: if you vote on this one we can close it.
16:52:47 <abadger1999> :-)
16:54:40 <abadger1999> #info mimeinfo scriptlet update (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) Will seek additional vote in ticket
16:54:59 <abadger1999> #topic Bundled Library exception request for Gazebo
16:55:04 <abadger1999> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/317
16:55:17 <abadger1999> We were asked to look at this in the mailing list
16:55:22 <racor> abadger1999: Sorry, was distracted on the phone ... trying to catch up ...
16:55:29 <abadger1999> k
16:55:32 <abadger1999> No worries
16:56:43 <geppetto> seems fine to me
16:56:56 <abadger1999> The description of this ticket sounds fine to me.
16:57:12 <tibbs|w> Yes, seems OK.
16:58:04 * abadger1999 starts off voting
16:58:06 <abadger1999> +1
16:58:08 <tibbs|w> +1
16:58:24 <abadger1999> subpackaging is sufficient to consider this a fork rather than bundling
16:58:39 <racor> my vote on #440: +1
17:00:28 <abadger1999> Rathann, geppetto: votes on #317 now being acceptable (fork, not bundling)?
17:00:42 <geppetto> yeh, +1
17:00:49 <abadger1999> racor: and you too but I know you're catching up :-)
17:02:17 <racor> my vote on #317 subpackaging seems fine to me ... +1
17:02:31 <abadger1999> #info Approve 317 as forking rather than bundling: (+1:4, 0:0, -1:0) Will seek more votes in ticket
17:02:44 <abadger1999> #topic #440     mimeinfo scriptlet update
17:02:50 <abadger1999> #info EDIT: mimeinfo scriptlet update PASSED (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:02:54 <abadger1999> #topic Open Floor
17:03:03 <abadger1999> Okay, anything else people want to discuss today?
17:04:04 <Rathann> +1 on #317
17:04:28 <abadger1999> #info EDIT: Approve 317 as forking rather than bundling: APPROVED (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:04:45 <abadger1999> Alrighty, if nothing else, I'll close in 60s
17:05:01 <tibbs|w> Hooray.
17:05:32 <abadger1999> :-)  barely went into the second hour this week !
17:05:47 <abadger1999> #endmeeting