17:02:18 <jds2001> #startmeeting FESCo meeting 20091211
17:02:18 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Dec 11 17:02:18 2009 UTC.  The chair is jds2001. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:18 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:29 <jds2001> #meetingname fesco
17:02:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:02:33 <jds2001> #chair dgilmore dwmw2 notting nirik sharkcz jds2001 j-rod skvidal Kevin_Kofler
17:02:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler dgilmore dwmw2 j-rod jds2001 nirik notting sharkcz skvidal
17:02:42 * nirik is here.
17:02:46 * sharkcz is here
17:02:50 <skvidal> jds2001: I'm in the middle of making sure out mail will work for the phx move
17:02:58 <skvidal> jds2001: so I'm "here" but not very responsive
17:03:03 <jds2001> np
17:03:11 <dgilmore> hello hello
17:03:18 <jds2001> the mail getting through is more important :D
17:03:26 <Kevin_Kofler> Present.
17:03:26 <notting> sorry, was grabbing lunch
17:03:36 <jds2001> np
17:03:36 <rjune> Hello
17:03:52 * jds2001 got a little busy with $DAYJOB and missed noon on the dot :)
17:04:08 <jds2001> anyhow....
17:04:24 <jds2001> #topic provenpackager request - rakesh pandit
17:04:24 * j-rod tardy
17:04:39 <jds2001> j-rod: i was too, dont feel lonesome :)
17:04:51 <jds2001> +1
17:05:00 <jds2001> .fesco 284
17:05:01 <zodbot> jds2001: #284 (request for provenpackager - Rakesh Pandit (rakesh)) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/284
17:05:03 <jds2001> oops
17:05:20 <nirik> +1 here. ;) rakesh does good work.
17:05:59 <j-rod> +1. no objections
17:06:06 <dgilmore> +1 no objections
17:06:09 <notting> +1; feedback was positive on the list
17:06:14 <sharkcz> +1
17:06:40 <jds2001> #agreed rakesh provenpackager membership is approved.
17:06:54 <jds2001> #topic provenpackager request - sdz
17:07:03 <jds2001> .fesco 267
17:07:04 <zodbot> jds2001: #267 (Proven packager request - Sebastian Dziallas) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/267
17:07:13 <j-rod> +1, makes sense, doing good work
17:07:18 <sharkcz> +1
17:07:23 <jds2001> I failed here....forgot to put it on the agenda after sending it to the list :(
17:07:26 <jds2001> +1
17:07:27 <notting> +1, no brainer.
17:07:29 <dgilmore> +!
17:07:31 <dgilmore> +1
17:07:47 <jds2001> #agreed sdz provenpackager membership is approved
17:07:59 <nirik> +1 here too
17:08:00 <jds2001> #topic man pages guidelines
17:08:01 <Kevin_Kofler> For the record, +1 to both the provenpackager requests from me too.
17:08:03 <jds2001> .fesco 291
17:08:04 <zodbot> jds2001: #291 (Man pages Packaging Guideline) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/291
17:08:22 * jds2001 is not sure what she's after
17:08:30 <sharkcz> ivana: ping
17:08:32 <jds2001> spot, abadger1999 and I talked about this
17:08:50 <Kevin_Kofler> Something like Debian's "all binaries need manpages" rule, but only for stuff in /bin and /sbin, not /usr/bin, /usr/sbin and the like.
17:08:55 * abadger1999 can help here
17:09:05 <Kevin_Kofler> (Debian requires it even for GUI programs in /usr/bin, that's quite silly.)
17:09:12 <nirik> I think it's nice to have man pages, but I think requiring them is a bit much.
17:09:30 <dgilmore> -1 if we are going to mandate man pages it should be for everything
17:09:47 <jds2001> especially if upstream doesnt provide them
17:09:58 <Kevin_Kofler> Well, -1 to dgilmore's proposal for sure! ;-)
17:10:02 <jds2001> we should *encourage* the practice, but far be it from us to dictate it.
17:10:19 <Kevin_Kofler> Just for /bin and /sbin stuff is more realistic.
17:10:23 <dgilmore> jds2001: i fully agree we should encourage it.
17:10:25 <Kevin_Kofler> Those are commands designed to be used on the command line.
17:10:27 <notting> so, what should we do to encourage it?
17:10:33 <notting> make it a 'should' item in the packaging guidelines?
17:10:42 <dgilmore> i personally run <prog> --help much much more than man <prog>
17:10:44 <Kevin_Kofler> Maybe a better formulation would be that command-line tools need manpages?
17:10:46 <abadger1999> Kevin_Kofler: That's what she wants. FPC decided that requiring that would need to either be a FESCo mandated policy ("Allprograms in /usr/bin should have a man page") or a tips and tricks item.
17:10:46 <notting> have a resource for people writing them?
17:10:47 <jds2001> notting: +1
17:10:49 <Kevin_Kofler> Just like GUI tools need menu entries.
17:11:25 <Kevin_Kofler> GUI programs generally have their own way to provide documentation.
17:11:34 <nirik> a desktop file is much easier than a man page to whip up
17:11:41 <Kevin_Kofler> (e.g. yelp, khelpcenter etc.)
17:11:50 <dgilmore> notting: making it a should item would help
17:11:56 <Kevin_Kofler> Though KDE upstream recently started shipping manpages for everything, contributed by the Debian folks.
17:12:01 <Kevin_Kofler> Those manpages are quite useless though.
17:12:08 <nirik> many man pages are.
17:12:17 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: thats what you get when you force the issue
17:12:27 <Kevin_Kofler> They usually just repeat the options common to all KDE apps (handled by Qt or kdelibs) and add a one-line description of the application.
17:12:39 <nirik> especially the 'this is the man page for foo, see 'info foo' for content' which many of the gnu utils have.
17:12:49 <Kevin_Kofler> Yeah, that's really silly too.
17:13:04 <dgilmore> people spit out crap to satisfy some requirement
17:13:12 <nirik> I would be ok adding a SHOULD or a tips on it, but I am -1 for making it a requirement.
17:13:17 <Kevin_Kofler> dgilmore: Indeed.
17:13:38 <dgilmore> nirik: i'm +1 on that
17:13:50 <sharkcz> a SHOULD item is +1 for me
17:14:05 <Kevin_Kofler> Could we specify the exact formulation of the SHOULD item?
17:14:10 <jds2001> +1 to nirik's proposal (or what it notting's? :) ) to add it as a SHOULD guideline
17:14:24 <notting> from the ticket: "The binaries and scripts which are in /bin and /sbin directories should have man page which describes their behaviour."
17:14:33 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: executables should have a man page
17:14:40 <abadger1999> Here's the summary of why FPC rejected it: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-December/msg00004.html
17:15:01 <Kevin_Kofler> I'd write something like "Executables designed to be used from the command line SHOULD have a man page which describes their behavior."
17:15:13 <j-rod> -1 for making a man page a hard req, fine with a SHOULD
17:15:18 * j-rod going mobile... back in a few moments...
17:15:39 <Kevin_Kofler> We can add something like "(usually the ones located in /bin or /sbin)" if you think it's useful.
17:15:47 <Kevin_Kofler> I don't think basing this on location only is that great.
17:15:56 <Kevin_Kofler> There are command-line tools in /usr/bin too.
17:15:57 <nirik> or add "If your package does not, work with upstream to add man pages"
17:16:10 <Kevin_Kofler> nirik: That too.
17:16:37 <sharkcz> nirik: + coordinate with other distros
17:16:52 <Kevin_Kofler> In any case, I'm +1 to the idea to a SHOULD (though I think we'd better flesh out the exact text ASAP), 0 to a MUST for /bin and /sbin, -1 to a global MUST.
17:17:33 <dgilmore> gui apps can have command line flags. i think a simple. "executable files should have man pages" is enough
17:17:57 <Kevin_Kofler> Even if the man page says "This application has no command-line options."? :-/
17:18:00 <notting> i'm +1 to the combination of Kevin_Kofler and nirik's writeup there
17:18:11 <rjune> dgilmore, would it not be reasonable to say here's what you should have as well?
17:18:20 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: if that is the man page its a waste of time and effort to do it
17:18:33 <Kevin_Kofler> Maybe we should be specific on what a manpage should contain.
17:18:57 <Kevin_Kofler> Otherwise we get tons of "No options. Consult Help / Index for usage help." "manpages".
17:19:02 <dgilmore> rjune: i dont understand what your trying to say?
17:19:09 * nirik notes you can't legislate common sense, and getting too detailed tries to do that
17:19:13 <rjune> dgilmore, what Kevin_Kofler just said.
17:19:25 <rjune> There's already a fairly established convention of what should be in a man page. it's more than *just* command line options
17:19:46 <dgilmore> i dont think we need to codify that
17:20:05 <nirik> SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for command line binaries/scripts. If it doesn't work with upstream to add them.
17:20:32 <dgilmore> nirik: i think command line needs removing from there
17:20:46 <Kevin_Kofler> Please add a comma after "doesn't" to make this sentence LR(1). ;-)
17:21:04 <Kevin_Kofler> Otherwise, when you read it, you first misparse it and then have to reread it.
17:21:05 <nirik> SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
17:21:14 <nirik> SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
17:21:18 <notting> +1
17:21:26 <sharkcz> +1
17:21:29 <dgilmore> nirik: +1 for the last proposal
17:21:37 <Kevin_Kofler> +1
17:22:08 <jds2001> +1
17:22:29 <jds2001> #agreed add to packaging guidelines SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
17:22:48 <jds2001> #topic better hostname feature
17:22:55 <jds2001> .fesco 278
17:22:56 <zodbot> jds2001: #278 (Better Hostname - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/BetterHostname) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/278
17:23:00 * j-rod_ back...
17:23:26 * jds2001 failed a bit and hasnt had the time to read what i should have on this feature as i recall from the last meeting
17:23:28 * nirik is confused where we are with this.
17:23:34 <nirik> didn't we pass it?
17:24:10 <notting> Last Time, on FESCo... i believe we left this unpassed waiting for responses to questions on the discussion page
17:24:18 * j-rod_ vaguely recalls discussing already
17:24:28 * nirik nods. At least 2 times.
17:24:47 <notting> there were two comments added since then
17:24:47 * dgilmore still does not see what good it does for us
17:24:57 * jds2001 sees current comments on the discussion page and no answers :(
17:25:14 <jds2001> well current as of 11/20 :(
17:26:34 <Kevin_Kofler> simo's question is probably the most important unanswered question.
17:26:56 <j-rod_> defer yet again?
17:27:21 <jds2001> yeah :(
17:27:32 <notting> we can vote and defer, if we can't come to an agreement?
17:27:38 <mclasen> maybe add some more questions to the page too ?
17:27:47 <jds2001> vote and defer?
17:27:52 <jds2001> vote *to* defer?
17:27:54 <mclasen> there wasn't exactly much to answer there, I think
17:28:15 <notting> jds2001: misplaced comment
17:28:18 <notting> vote, and defer if...
17:28:22 <mclasen> anyway, both david and  I are busy with other things atm, so it doesn't hurt to defer it
17:28:59 <Kevin_Kofler> mclasen: simo asked a "what's the point?" question like dgilmore did here, and went on to ask about security implications.
17:29:24 <Kevin_Kofler> And to this date, his question got no answer.
17:29:48 <mclasen> see above
17:30:11 <jds2001> ok
17:30:34 <jds2001> #agreed the better hostname feature is deferred as there are unanswered questions on the talk page
17:30:45 <jds2001> #topic color management
17:30:49 <jds2001> .fesco 292
17:30:50 <zodbot> jds2001: #292 (Color Management - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ColorManagement) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/292
17:31:29 <dgilmore> the spelling of this feature needs correcting
17:31:36 <dgilmore> its Colour
17:31:39 <nirik> ha.
17:31:52 <jds2001> dgilmore: i think not :D
17:31:58 <rjune> +1 dgilmore
17:32:05 <notting> dgilmore: hughsie's a brit. if he wants to spell it without a 'u', i have to take him at his word
17:32:25 <dgilmore> notting: hes a pom,  they get everything wrong ;)
17:32:53 <jds2001> shall we move on to the actual feature, rather than the spelling of it? :)
17:33:04 * mclasen notes that all the u's got moved over to udisks, upower, etc
17:33:11 <dgilmore> having worked in environments where colour was critical to be correct I understand the importance of this feature. +! from me
17:33:16 * nirik is +1 here, it seems something that was lacking before and would be nice to tout.
17:33:23 <notting> mclasen: hey now, that's a different flamewar
17:33:34 * notting is +1 to gnome-color-manager
17:33:39 <j-rod_> +1
17:33:40 <sharkcz> +1
17:33:50 <jds2001> +1
17:34:07 <jds2001> #agreed gnome-COLOR-manager feature is approved
17:34:08 <jds2001> :)
17:34:08 <Kevin_Kofler> +1 to this, nice new feature.
17:34:16 <Kevin_Kofler> Now we just need a KDE version. ;-)
17:34:29 <jds2001> convince someone to write one :)
17:34:35 <dgilmore> Kevin_Kofler: get coding
17:34:57 <jds2001> #topic Moblin 2.2
17:35:04 <jds2001> .fesco 293
17:35:05 <zodbot> jds2001: #293 (Moblin 2.2 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Moblin-2.2) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/293
17:35:14 <notting> auto-desktop-env-refresh +1
17:35:34 <jds2001> +1
17:35:49 <j-rod_> +1
17:35:55 <sharkcz> +1
17:35:55 <Kevin_Kofler> +1
17:35:58 <dgilmore> +1
17:36:01 <jds2001> #agreed Moblin 2.2 feature is accepted
17:36:09 <jds2001> #topic SSSD by default
17:36:12 * notting is mildly curious what 'moblin app install' does, but that's not a fesco issue
17:36:12 <jds2001> .fesco 294
17:36:15 <zodbot> jds2001: #294 (SSSD by default - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SSSDByDefault) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/294
17:36:27 * sgallagh is present to represent the SSSD team
17:36:34 <jds2001> notting: pbrobinson would be happy to answer, im sure :)
17:36:49 <notting> i'm in favor of fedora providing ssds to everyone by default. oh wait.
17:37:03 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: I guess app-install is yet another package manager GUI.
17:37:23 <sgallagh> notting: That would be nice, but unfortunately your dyslexia is showing :(
17:37:52 <jds2001> darn! I wanted a free ssd!
17:38:03 <jds2001> :)
17:38:22 <jds2001> at any rate, +1 to SSSD by default.
17:38:32 <dgilmore> +1 to sssd as long as it doesnt break other auth methods its long overdue
17:38:37 <notting> sgallagh: really dumb question. it allows for offline use, but only if that user has logged in over the network already?
17:38:45 <sgallagh> notting: Well, yes
17:39:01 <notting> sgallagh: (i.e., it caches credentials, not directory information)
17:39:01 * jds2001 doesnt see how it could work any other way :D
17:39:26 <nirik> so this is only really by default if you choose network login at firstboot time.
17:39:27 <dgilmore> sgallagh: so it wont suck down all users auths.  but will cache auth credentials of user who logged in while online
17:39:33 * notting is +1
17:39:34 <sgallagh> jds2001: Well, with the right ACLs, we could theoretically mirror the LDAP server locally, but that's ridiculous
17:39:45 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Exactly correct
17:39:46 <mclasen> nirik: 'default' refers to it being installed by default, I guess ?
17:40:08 <sgallagh> nirik: By default I really meant "Available on all installations"
17:40:28 * nirik is +1.
17:40:30 <notting> sgallagh: what does the service do, if anything, if you don't check that button in authoconfig?
17:40:33 <Kevin_Kofler> Are our live spins expected to ship this? How much space does it take?
17:40:34 <nirik> mclasen: yeah.
17:40:47 * nirik assumes it would be added to base/core/something?
17:40:56 <sgallagh> notting: It wastes about a megabyte of disk space, but nothing else
17:41:07 <Kevin_Kofler> I think we can spare 1 MB.
17:41:17 <sharkcz> +1
17:41:20 <Kevin_Kofler> +1 to this feature.
17:41:57 <dgilmore> sgallagh: quick question.  does this conflict with nscd?
17:42:10 * dgilmore breifly looked into it a few months back
17:42:14 <j-rod_> +1, nice new shiny
17:42:26 <sgallagh> dgilmore: It should not conflict, though with NSCD turned on, it may interfere with configured SSSD timeouts.
17:42:40 <sgallagh> So you may not get the exact set of cache updates you expect.
17:42:44 <dgilmore> sgallagh: thats what i thought
17:42:56 <jds2001> #agreed SSSD feature is accpeted
17:43:06 <dgilmore> sgallagh: but the config gui could disable nscd when sssd is enabled
17:43:50 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Well, better would be to leave nscd running and just reconfigure nscd not to function for users and groups
17:44:03 <sgallagh> That way it could remain running for other maps, if they are in use
17:44:07 <dgilmore> sgallagh: :) that would work also
17:44:14 <jds2001> #topic mono strong name key
17:44:19 <jds2001> .fesco 295
17:44:23 <zodbot> jds2001: #295 (Provide system mono strong name key) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/295
17:44:26 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I will open an RFE against authconfig
17:44:46 <jds2001> this just looks like another package to me that mono packages would need to BR
17:44:46 <nirik> so did debian just generate one randomly? do other distros use their own?
17:44:48 <dgilmore> sgallagh: thanks.  it was a thought that i just had
17:44:59 <sgallagh> dgilmore: It's a good one
17:45:47 <spot> fwiw, i just did this in rawhide about a week or so ago
17:45:55 <spot> its an obvious win, so i just did it.
17:46:06 <spot> mono-devel has the key file
17:46:14 <dgilmore> spot: works for me
17:46:17 <jds2001> WFM
17:46:22 <nirik> spot: cool. There was some question about us using a different one that other distros, but not sure how many people would try and copy binaries around anyhow.
17:46:27 <Kevin_Kofler> The strong name key is a public/private key pair. For some stupid reason, Mono upstream thinks strong cryptography is useful/needed there. :-/
17:46:34 <notting> wait, if spot just did this, why are we discussing it?
17:46:48 <dgilmore> notting: not removed from the schedule
17:46:51 <Kevin_Kofler> It's quite pointless, so Debian just ships the private key they're using, and I guess we're doing so now too.
17:46:53 <jds2001> a ticket was opened? :)
17:47:02 <dgilmore> approved/done closed/  move on nothing to see
17:47:04 <Kevin_Kofler> So IMHO we can close this ticket.
17:47:08 <jds2001> thee's really nothing for us to do here :)
17:47:09 <jds2001> yep
17:47:24 <Kevin_Kofler> I think it might be worth getting this added to the Mono packaging guidelines though (but that needs to go through FPC).
17:47:26 <kalev> it's more FPC stuff to fix Mono guidelines, I think
17:47:35 <jds2001> #agreed this has already been done in rawhide.
17:47:37 <Southern_Gentlem> notting forgiveness is easier to get afterfact
17:47:44 <nirik> right, but then the binarys won't run on the other distro with the different key? or am I misunderstanding that?
17:47:53 <jds2001> #agreed no action from fesco is required.
17:47:54 <nirik> I guess someone can just report a bug on that if it's a big deal. ;)
17:48:07 <jds2001> #topic open floor
17:48:16 <jds2001> #info go vote in the fesco elections :)
17:48:29 <brunowolff> I have a question about whether an enhamcement might be worthy of a feature page.
17:48:42 <dgilmore> jds2001: did you see the conversation in #fedora-devel earlier
17:48:43 <jds2001> sure, what is it?
17:48:51 <jds2001> dgilmore: no..
17:48:55 * jds2001 goes to look
17:49:10 <dgilmore> jds2001: mailing lists.  fixed date for moving them. Jan 9th and 10th
17:49:17 <brunowolff> Assuming Lougher's patches get accepted I want to get lzma support into squashfs and livecd-creator.
17:49:25 <brunowolff> It's not a lot of work.
17:49:34 <jds2001> dgilmore: awesome.
17:49:47 <jds2001> dgilmore: you want me to send out notifications?
17:49:48 <nirik> dgilmore: excellent. I am still willing to help out with that... let me know if I can do anything on it.
17:49:50 <dgilmore> so its just something we need to note
17:49:51 <Kevin_Kofler> brunowolff: Smaller live images = we can ship more stuff on a CD = great thing = IMHO deserves a feature page.
17:49:57 <brunowolff> I wasn't sure if the change to more compact live images would be considered a feature?
17:49:59 <dgilmore> jds2001: please do
17:50:08 <notting> brunowolff: hm.... is it something the user (or even the spin creator) would notice?
17:50:15 <dgilmore> nirik: we should do the renaming of the lists.fp.o ones now that need it
17:50:19 <Kevin_Kofler> notting: We can put more stuff onto the KDE spin. :-)
17:50:20 <dgilmore> nirik: will do
17:50:20 <jds2001> #info Fedora mailing lists will be moved to Fedora Infrastructure on 1/9 and 1/10
17:50:21 <nirik> dgilmore: sure.
17:50:26 <brunowolff> As the games spin maintainer, I'll notice.
17:51:00 <brunowolff> Supposedly they'll be a significant size reduction (maybe 20%), but I'll no more in  week or two.
17:51:23 <brunowolff> I didn't want to right up a feature page if there was no chance of it being announced as a feature.
17:51:37 <brunowolff> I am doing the work anyway, so that I can fit more games into the games spin.
17:51:39 <Kevin_Kofler> IMHO it's worth advertising as a feature.
17:51:47 * nirik isn't sure it's a full on feature... but it should surely be a release note.
17:51:49 <dgilmore> brunowolff: it would be a feature.  we can either ship smaller livecds or more packages on them
17:51:53 <notting> Kevin_Kofler: yeah, but that would be the feature people would notice (KDE: now with more KDE)
17:52:22 <brunowolff> It sounds like there is some chance that it would be accepted as a feature, so I'll do the feature page and you
17:52:24 <Kevin_Kofler> Summary: "Better compression technology (LZMA) allows us to ship more software on our live images."
17:52:32 <brunowolff> guys can vote on it later.
17:52:49 <notting> brunowolff: sure, get it in and propose it
17:53:04 <brunowolff> I will be doing some stuff now to get a jump on things. I'll probably know in a week if the key patches get accepted
17:53:13 <brunowolff> upstream. So far it seems likely though.
17:53:17 <jds2001> poelcat would be your guy on the process itself. But I'm sure you know that :)
17:53:28 <Kevin_Kofler> I think we should just ship the patches.
17:53:45 <Kevin_Kofler> It's sad to have to wait forever for upstream to accept useful enhancements. :-(
17:53:49 <jds2001> Kevin_Kofler: we try to avoid that.
17:53:55 <Kevin_Kofler> squashfs-lzma has been there for ages.
17:54:07 <jds2001> and i dont think we'll wait "forever"
17:54:17 <Kevin_Kofler> We've been missing out on it all this time, and were forced to remove useful apps from our live images (I know the GNOME one also lost some apps over time) to make room.
17:54:21 <jds2001> brunowolff seemed to think it was imminent.
17:54:25 <brunowolff> Squashfs-tools already has what's needed there. I have contacted Kyle about that and have permission to
17:54:41 <jds2001> anyhow
17:54:43 <brunowolff> start working on that in devel (with some scratch builds for review first).
17:55:35 <jds2001> cool, anything else?
17:55:40 <brunowolff> Lougher has posted patches for review on lkml and an updated set this week.
17:56:01 <brunowolff> No one seems to be objecting in general, though there wasn't lots of feedback.
17:56:17 <brunowolff> I got what I needed. Thanks.
17:57:25 * jds2001 ends the meeting in 30
17:57:58 <jds2001> #endmeeting