16:01:19 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
16:01:19 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu May  3 16:01:19 2018 UTC.
16:01:19 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:01:19 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:19 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:19 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:01:19 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
16:01:19 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
16:01:19 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
16:01:29 <tibbs> Howdy.
16:01:30 <mhroncok> hi there
16:01:33 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
16:01:33 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs
16:01:33 <decathorpe> hi there
16:01:36 <geppetto> #chair mhroncok
16:01:36 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mhroncok tibbs
16:01:41 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe
16:01:41 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto mhroncok tibbs
16:02:33 <geppetto> redi said he might be a few minutes late
16:06:26 <ignatenkobrain> hello2
16:06:28 <ignatenkobrain> .hello2
16:06:29 <zodbot> ignatenkobrain: ignatenkobrain 'Igor Gnatenko' <ignatenko@redhat.com>
16:06:35 <geppetto> hey!
16:06:38 <ignatenkobrain> how goes?
16:06:39 <geppetto> #chair ignatenkobrain
16:06:39 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto ignatenkobrain mhroncok tibbs
16:06:51 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
16:07:11 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RESPZUIX76BHKC6DCATCSRHEQ7ZFPKHN/
16:08:19 <redi> sorry I'm late
16:08:24 <geppetto> #chair redi
16:08:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto ignatenkobrain mhroncok redi tibbs
16:08:30 <geppetto> No problem, close enough
16:08:46 <geppetto> No new tickets this week
16:08:48 <geppetto> #topic #691 noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies
16:08:51 <geppetto> .fpc 691
16:08:56 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #691: guidelines change: noarch *sub*packages with arch-specific dependencies - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/691
16:09:03 <geppetto> So, just a minor wtf can we do update from tibbs here
16:09:11 <geppetto> And … I'm not sure.
16:09:39 * limburgher here
16:09:45 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
16:09:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto ignatenkobrain limburgher mhroncok redi tibbs
16:10:06 <geppetto> This is mostly old because it needed someone to write drafts, probably after talking to rel-eng people and maybe doing tests
16:10:37 <decathorpe> I guess nobody volunteered to do test build in koji? ;)
16:11:03 <tibbs> It's one of the things that people expect us to do, but which we aren't necessarily going to do.
16:11:29 <geppetto> Well, it's doing a bunch of different tests builds and seeing what the results are for each … esp. as some of the problems only happen sporadically
16:11:37 <tibbs> I don't know if anyone really knows what will happen, or even knows what is supposed to happen.
16:11:57 <tibbs> But you can't just do test builds if you want to test the whole process.
16:12:34 <tibbs> Imagine if we wrote something into the guidelines which, if followed, broke the rawhide compose.
16:13:08 <decathorpe> so we'd have to create enough real "test" packages to fill the test matrix for exclusivearch noarch subpackages, and run each of the tests multiple times?
16:13:21 <decathorpe> sounds like fun (not)
16:13:44 <mhroncok> this still sounds more like a releng issue
16:13:48 <tibbs> That's pretty much it if we want to do the whole job.
16:14:20 <tibbs> And yes, it is fundamentally a releng issue.  But people look to the packaging guidelines to document the packaging end of this kind of thing.
16:14:43 <decathorpe> well, but the packaging stuff can't be documented if it's unclear what the tooling supports
16:15:08 <mhroncok> 11 months ago: ACTION: We need to ask someone in releng what policy should be and then write a draft (geppetto, 17:27:06)
16:15:17 <geppetto> indeed
16:15:18 <mhroncok> did we actually ask anybody?
16:16:01 <mhroncok> I mean, tibbs says "I haven't had much luck getting real answers", but is there a releng ticket or anyhting we can link and mark it as blocked?
16:16:03 <geppetto> I thought tibbs had spoken to someone, but they weren't 100% clear on the answer
16:16:18 <geppetto> I don't think we opened a rel eng ticket
16:16:32 <geppetto> tibbs: any better memories?
16:16:40 <tibbs> It's been a long time and some of this is bound up with the other changes related to just noarch packages (not subpackages).
16:17:44 <geppetto> Could we just open a ticket then and ask the questions that way?
16:17:56 <limburgher> We *can*...
16:18:01 <geppetto> Even if we get the answer … "Nobody knows" … at least that's something.
16:18:10 <limburgher> And we should probably at least start with that.
16:18:43 <geppetto> Any volunteers to open the ticket then?
16:19:18 <tibbs> I will file one with releng and see what happens.
16:19:33 <tibbs> But I'm not 100% sure what exactly needs to be asked.
16:19:52 <tibbs> Probably because I haven't gotten much sleep lately and have lost my reading comprehension.
16:20:07 <limburgher> That would be an impediment.
16:20:18 <geppetto> I don't want to dump everything on you then … mhroncok you think you could do it?
16:20:26 <mhroncok> geppetto: sure thing
16:20:31 <geppetto> Ok, cool.
16:20:42 <tibbs> Basically I think it's "please tell us what we should tell packagers who have noarch packages and subpackages which have dependencies (either build or runtime) not available on all architectures"
16:21:05 <geppetto> #action mhroncok Will open a releng ticket to see if they know the answer to the koji questions.
16:21:26 <geppetto> #topic #694 Packaging guidelines for application independence
16:21:29 <geppetto> .fpc 694
16:21:31 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #694: Packaging guidelines for application independence - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/694
16:21:33 <geppetto> New draft on this one.
16:21:45 <geppetto> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FIndependentApplications&type=revision&diff=517485&oldid=517484
16:22:44 <decathorpe> I think the first paragraph puts things the wrong way.
16:22:52 <ignatenkobrain> generally I like idea
16:23:21 <decathorpe> If a package contains both an application and a library, usually the "main" package contains the application and a "-libs" sub-package contains the libraries, not the other way round
16:23:35 <mhroncok> decathorpe: +1
16:23:49 <decathorpe> but yes, generally it's a good idea to clarify this
16:24:41 <ignatenkobrain> +1
16:25:02 <geppetto> decathorpe: I think they are talking more about Eg. client DB library vs. GUI application to manage it.
16:25:12 <mhroncok> Maybe we shoudl rephrase that instead to cover both cases
16:25:17 <geppetto> decathorpe: Where a bunch of things would think of the client DB library as the main package.
16:25:26 <decathorpe> sure: I was just saying that it's usually the other way around
16:25:35 <tibbs> geppetto: I think that's probably what they're trying to say, but that's not what it actually says.
16:25:42 <geppetto> Yeh, now's the time to tweak the wording :)
16:26:09 <tibbs> The problem is that "subpackage" can mean two things depending on context.
16:26:37 <decathorpe> I think the "Library or Application" paragraph tries to differentiate the two cases
16:26:38 <tibbs> But from the perspective of someone writing a specfile, it means you have a %package statement and you put the application in that.
16:26:46 <geppetto> "Many packages, regardless of their primary purpose, include both applications and libraries. In this case, one or both SHOULD be packaged in a subpackage …"
16:27:14 <decathorpe> yeah, sounds better
16:27:36 <tibbs> Yeah, though generally we do want the libraries to be the subpackage.  I'm not sure if we say that.
16:28:10 <mhroncok> do we?
16:28:23 <limburgher> libfoo providing libfoo-utils should be the exception.
16:28:27 <mhroncok> I mean, that clearly is different for each case
16:28:30 <geppetto> Ok, I changed the draft
16:28:52 <tibbs> I don't think we do, though the maing guidelines do mention "-libs subpackages".  I don't believe it's formalized anywhere.
16:29:02 <tibbs> In any case, that would be for a separate ticket.
16:29:38 <geppetto> yeh
16:31:12 <decathorpe> I'm ok with the wording now
16:31:12 <mhroncok> I like the current dfraft
16:31:16 <mhroncok> should we vote?
16:31:28 <geppetto> I believe this is the diff now: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%2FIndependentApplications&type=revision&diff=517590&oldid=495753
16:31:32 <limburgher> We can vote on whether. . .nahhh.
16:31:35 <geppetto> Yeh
16:31:37 <geppetto> +1
16:31:40 <mhroncok> +1
16:31:48 <limburgher> +1
16:31:53 <tibbs> +1
16:31:56 <decathorpe> +1
16:32:13 <geppetto> ignatenkobrain: vote?
16:32:20 <ignatenkobrain> +1
16:32:34 <geppetto> redi: vote?
16:35:02 <geppetto> #action Packaging guidelines for application/lib independence (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
16:35:34 <geppetto> #topic #719 Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects
16:35:38 <geppetto> .fpc 719
16:35:40 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #719: Simplify packaging of forge-hosted projects - packaging-committee - Pagure - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719
16:36:10 <decathorpe> I really don't think this is cooked through yet
16:36:18 <decathorpe> (see the comment I wrote today)
16:37:24 <geppetto> yeh, I agree with what you wrote
16:37:51 <geppetto> so we need them to tweak the draft to not use current date, I guess?
16:37:55 <decathorpe> the "Release" tag can't just depend on when koji gets around to build the package ...
16:38:08 <mhroncok> agreed
16:38:16 * ignatenkobrain reads
16:39:11 <decathorpe> yeah, I definitely don't want it to use the current date
16:39:14 <ignatenkobrain> I think we can fix it by getting date of package by checking timestamp of SOURCE0
16:39:20 <ignatenkobrain> then it should be reproducible
16:39:58 <decathorpe> that would probably be better, but it's still too opaque for me
16:39:58 <tibbs> That's assuming a lot about how SOURCE0 is put in place.
16:40:56 <decathorpe> AFAICT, the only sure thing would be to have the packager set %commitdate (or %revdate or whatever) manually.
16:41:01 <tibbs> Bottom line is that this stuff is really complicated and needs a lot of review.
16:41:10 <tibbs> decathorpe: I think I agree with you.
16:41:13 <ignatenkobrain> but isn't SOURCE0 url generated by %forge macro?
16:41:33 <tibbs> Sure, but why does it matter what generated it?
16:41:36 <decathorpe> its %forgeurl
16:42:03 <decathorpe> but that doesn't change the fact that the date (and Release tag) is recalculated every time the src.rpm is rebuilt (in koji too)
16:44:24 <mhroncok> move on? this being bad has been aid on the ticket
16:44:28 <mhroncok> *said
16:44:39 <geppetto> Well no other tickets have updated
16:45:03 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
16:45:11 <geppetto> Anything anyone else wants to talk about?
16:45:32 <tibbs> Well 723 did update, but I haven't had a chance to read it.
16:45:37 <ignatenkobrain> nope =(
16:45:50 <ignatenkobrain> still didn't have time to work on git-based guidelines
16:46:08 <tibbs> I did write up the ruby stuff but am not sure if I'm supposed to announce it or wait for some change to the related macro package.
16:46:21 <limburgher> Not here.
16:47:05 <tibbs> Ah, there was a reply on the ruby ticket.
16:47:22 <tibbs> I will take care of that, then.
16:47:24 <geppetto> tibbs: Ahh, that needs to move back into meeting
16:47:35 <geppetto> tibbs: 723, that is
16:47:47 <mhroncok> I haven't marked 723 with meeting
16:47:54 <mhroncok> becasue I supposed nobody had tiem to read that
16:47:56 <tibbs> I just did.
16:48:01 <mhroncok> so i was wating for after this one
16:49:34 <geppetto> ok
16:50:16 <geppetto> We seem good then, I'll close 10 minutes early, and give everyone a few minutes of their day back.
16:50:20 <tibbs> I have been trying to touch a couple of old tickets every so often.
16:50:49 <tibbs> At least soon we will get under 40.  There are probably a load of cruft that should just be closed at this point.
16:51:04 <limburgher> For sure.
16:51:36 <tibbs> But at least the ticket list fits on one page now.
16:51:50 <decathorpe> yay 😂
16:52:03 <mhroncok> \o/
16:52:58 <geppetto> #endmeeting