17:00:52 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
17:00:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Feb 14 17:00:52 2019 UTC.
17:00:52 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
17:00:52 <zodbot> The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:52 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
17:00:52 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:00:52 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
17:00:57 <redi> yo
17:01:01 <geppetto> #chair redi
17:01:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto redi
17:01:04 <tibbs> Hey, folks.
17:01:09 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
17:01:09 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto redi tibbs
17:01:11 <decathorpe> o/ hello
17:01:14 <geppetto> #chair decathorpe
17:01:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto redi tibbs
17:01:52 * limburgher here
17:02:02 <mhroncok> hey
17:02:17 <geppetto> #chair limburgher
17:02:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher redi tibbs
17:02:19 <geppetto> #chair mhroncok
17:02:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: decathorpe geppetto limburgher mhroncok redi tibbs
17:04:52 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
17:04:55 <geppetto> #link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IAO6B2SKPGYUVYO2FWPGTJY2YJJ3DKLB/
17:05:31 <geppetto> #topic #848 Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies
17:05:33 <geppetto> .fpc 848
17:05:34 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #848: Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/848
17:05:57 <tibbs> I haven't had time to even look over tickets this week.
17:06:02 <geppetto> IIRC this is kind of an ongoing thing we don't really need to discuss but keeping on the meeting list so we are all aware of it?
17:06:25 <tibbs> Well, something in the guidelines does need to change.
17:06:28 <geppetto> tibbs: Nothing new AFAIK
17:06:40 <geppetto> Ok, is there anything we can discuss today?
17:06:43 <tibbs> And there's a PR submitted.
17:06:47 * geppetto nods
17:07:55 <decathorpe> my RPMMacros page update PR is also still open
17:08:02 <decathorpe> should I just merge it?
17:08:03 <geppetto> I'm mostly happy with the proposal and solution
17:08:11 <geppetto> decathorpe: link?
17:08:14 <tibbs> I guess the wording has been tweaked but not since the last rebase a month ago, and there was discussion after that.
17:08:25 <decathorpe> a bit OT, sorry: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/846
17:08:44 <tibbs> Yeah, let's do that one after this one.
17:10:01 <decathorpe> the patch looks OK to me
17:10:36 <tibbs> It's a little over wordy, frankly.
17:10:53 <mhroncok> it an improvement
17:11:28 <mhroncok> perfect is the enemy of good
17:11:35 <tibbs> "You MUST not use macros for paths such as %_bindir when specifying BuildRequires:, as these may be changed when building certain types of packages."
17:11:40 <mhroncok> let's have it merged and we can work on it later, but we don't have to
17:12:02 <mhroncok> (we are dicsussing 2 things at once, right?)
17:12:15 <limburgher> Sometimes it's best to put up something imperfect; that draws corrections from the audience. :)
17:12:29 <tibbs> We are discussing ticket 848 and the associated pull request 847.
17:12:33 <tibbs> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/847#request_diff
17:12:58 <decathorpe> (sorry for the confusion 🙉)
17:13:04 <limburgher> I like it.
17:14:07 <geppetto> otaylor: hey, we are talking about 848
17:14:08 <tibbs> Personally I like having one clear sentence rather than specifically a random set of potential problem domains and solutions.
17:14:52 <otaylor> geppetto: Hmm, which is that?
17:16:14 <decathorpe> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/848
17:16:46 <otaylor> Ah, OK
17:17:24 <redi> I'm fine with the wording in the PR
17:17:32 * geppetto nods
17:17:32 <decathorpe> me too
17:17:50 <geppetto> tibbs: You want to try to tweak it now?
17:18:22 <tibbs> No, if people are happy with it then lets merge it.  I can capitalize MUST later.
17:18:28 <redi> the only thing that I can think to improve it is to add an example of badness, e.g. BuildRequires:  %{_bindir}/sed
17:19:28 <redi> last time we discussed it, we seemed to get in a muddle whether this was only talking about paths in BuildRequires, or for actually running executables in the spec
17:19:33 <redi> an example would avoid that confusion
17:19:33 <tibbs> You MUST not use macros for paths such as %{_bindi}r when specifying BuildRequires:, as in `+BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/sed+`.  These macros may be redefined when building certain types of packages."
17:19:38 <redi> but it's not essential
17:19:47 <redi> yeah I like that
17:20:00 <geppetto> Sure, +1 to that too
17:20:07 * mhroncok uses that all over the place, but +1
17:20:31 <mhroncok> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/blob/master/f/redhat-rpm-config.spec#_106
17:20:44 <tibbs> Yes, it's used pretty often.
17:20:59 <decathorpe> I've never used it 😅
17:21:02 <tibbs> Though personally I've never agreed with the practice.
17:21:30 <mhroncok> $ rg 'Requires:\s+%\{_bindir\}' -l | wc -l
17:21:30 <tibbs> We could try to narrow the scope of places where it can't be done, but I think madness lies down that road.
17:21:31 <mhroncok> 322
17:22:04 <tibbs> Yes, I had given a count when we discussed this a while ago.
17:22:15 <tibbs> Point is, it actually breaks things and is in no way necessary.
17:22:18 <otaylor> I think it's always wrong, but often doesn't matter much. :-) ... I don't think we'll even in the long term be rebuilding more than 10% of the distro for Flatpak inclusion
17:22:54 <tibbs> So then the question arises: If it doesn't matter often, why are we adding a prohibition to the guidelines?
17:23:04 <redi> hmm
17:23:11 <tibbs> Or why are we being asked to add one.
17:23:41 <otaylor> tibbs: I'm asking to add it, to make it clear if we request a change from a module maintainer, what is correct
17:23:57 <tibbs> My personal opinion is that this makes sense regardless of flatpaks or SCLs or whatever else might redefine %_bindir, but I can understand that others might disagree.
17:24:10 <tibbs> A number of these things entered the distro when we moved /bin to /usr/bin.
17:24:19 <otaylor> Also, the more people that people do it right, the more things just work
17:24:25 <tibbs> It allowed single specs across the usermove transition.
17:24:35 <tibbs> But now I see no valid reason for it.
17:24:46 <tibbs> (Inertia is not a valid reason....[)
17:24:49 <otaylor> tibbs: how? %{_bindir} was always /usr/bin
17:25:11 <tibbs> Not entirely sure of the history, but that was my recollection.
17:25:25 <tibbs> I could certainly be wrong; usrmove was a while ago.
17:25:39 <tibbs> Some maintainers might even have added it as a placebo.
17:25:58 <tibbs> People randomly add things thinking that they make sense, and often that gets copied randomly all over the place.
17:26:08 <mhroncok> that is very true
17:26:15 <otaylor> I think it's mostly there because people fall into the habit of reflexively using the path  macros instead of hardcoded paths without thinking about it a lot.
17:26:17 <tibbs> So bottom line is that I'll vote for a prohibition on it simply because I agree with it.
17:26:38 <tibbs> Personally I never use the path macros unless it actually makes things clearer or saves typing.
17:27:44 <mhroncok> should we scoll back and count the votes, or revote?
17:28:15 <decathorpe> let's make it explicit
17:28:43 <geppetto> +1
17:28:49 <decathorpe> +1
17:28:57 <mhroncok> +1
17:28:57 <tibbs> Hold on, what are we +1'ing?
17:29:13 <mhroncok> the issue with it's PR
17:29:16 <tibbs> The concept, the PR or the sentence I posted?
17:29:26 <mhroncok> hah :)
17:29:37 <geppetto> tibbs: the PR and your sentence
17:29:53 <mhroncok> I assumed the same
17:30:13 <tibbs> I'm +1 to the concept; I prefer to be concise so prefer what I pasted but I can +1 the language in the PR as well.
17:31:09 <geppetto> redi: limburgher: vote?
17:31:24 <mhroncok> let's vote for the concept, and iff it is approved, we can bikeshad about the wording?
17:31:32 <redi> +1 to the current PR, I like tibbs's concise statement too
17:31:56 <geppetto> mhroncok: Well we are already +5 on the wording, so meh
17:32:03 <mhroncok> either way
17:32:10 <geppetto> mhroncok: if anyone wants to tweak it more they can do another PRs
17:32:19 <mhroncok> works for me
17:33:59 <limburgher> =1
17:33:59 <geppetto> #action Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:34:00 <limburgher> +1
17:34:06 <limburgher> Sorry, was called away.
17:34:06 <geppetto> #undo
17:34:06 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: ACTION by geppetto at 17:33:59 : Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0)
17:34:14 <geppetto> #action Clarify the use of path macros with respect to build dependencies PR and tibbs wording (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0)
17:34:16 <geppetto> no problem
17:34:33 <geppetto> #topic #845 Wiki deprecation status
17:34:38 <geppetto> .fpc 845
17:34:39 <zodbot> geppetto: Issue #845: Wiki deprecation status - packaging-committee - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/845
17:35:23 <geppetto> Is there anything to do here?
17:35:30 <mhroncok> help :)
17:35:31 <tibbs> This is just an ongoing thing, but if anyone has ten minutes to pick a page and check it over to make sure the formatting came out OK, that would be great.
17:35:39 <tibbs> Otherwise I will mark off pages as I find them.
17:35:40 <decathorpe> I wanted to work on the SourceURL page a bit so we could officially move that one too
17:36:08 <decathorpe> and I guess we can drop the RPMMacros wiki page as well after my PR is merged
17:36:53 * geppetto nods
17:36:58 <redi> yeah, your PR is much better
17:37:13 <tibbs> And we did agree that we should just redirect.
17:37:37 <mhroncok> yes
17:37:47 <tibbs> So, for example, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets
17:38:00 <tibbs> Hit it and you don't get to see the wiki at all.
17:38:12 <decathorpe> nice
17:38:35 <mhroncok> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:Scriptlets&action=history
17:38:37 <tibbs> If we need to see the history, hit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?action=history
17:38:45 <redi> ah that's what I was going to ask
17:38:47 <redi> thanks
17:38:57 <decathorpe> history is in git too
17:38:59 <tibbs> But keep in mind that you can't even diff to the current page or it will redirect you.
17:39:09 <tibbs> Sadly history being in git isn't actually useful.
17:39:13 <mhroncok> tibbs: the compare selected revisions redirects as well :D
17:39:18 <redi> feel free to assign me a few pages to check for formatting, can do it tomorrow. I have to leave now though
17:39:20 <mhroncok> so I'm unable to see the change
17:39:33 <tibbs> Because what's in git is post-mangling.
17:39:35 <mhroncok> ah, you've just said that
17:39:45 <redi> if we vote on 846 I'm +1
17:39:47 <tibbs> You can diff to any revision but the new one.
17:40:18 <tibbs> And you can of course click a date to see the page at that point in time, so it's still useful.
17:40:42 <mhroncok> tibbs: do you keept he categoreies?
17:40:52 <mhroncok> source shows that you don't
17:40:52 <tibbs> I wasn't planning on doing that.
17:41:14 <mhroncok> shall we give it a thought?
17:41:21 <tibbs> Not sure if it's useful, really; I thought we wanted the stuff to basically drop out of the wiki entirely.
17:41:44 <mhroncok> tibbs: ok
17:41:47 <geppetto> #topic  #846 guidelines/RPMMacros: update for the 21st century
17:41:52 <mhroncok> and when i redirecta  page
17:41:54 <geppetto> We want to vote on this?
17:42:20 <mhroncok> shall i put my name and date somewhere in the asciidoc source, or have we not yet figured that part out?
17:42:45 <decathorpe> I think we haven't formalized this yet
17:43:41 <tibbs> I'm using the last-reviewed: 2019-01-01
17:43:54 <tibbs> I don't see a need to put the person who did the review since git blame will show it.
17:44:25 <mhroncok> sure
17:44:41 <mhroncok> see JavaScript or AppData
17:44:44 <mhroncok> for an example
17:45:00 <decathorpe> so should I add :last-reviewed: YYYY-MM-DD to my PR too?
17:45:11 <tibbs> So the only reason to include it in the document is if we want to actually substitute it into the document "last reviewed on (date) by (person)".  But I don't see much point in that.
17:45:27 <tibbs> decathorpe: You can, or just merge the PR and commit a last-reviewed bit.
17:45:34 <decathorpe> right
17:45:55 <tibbs> If you want to see how to do the redirect in the wiki, look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?action=edit
17:45:57 <decathorpe> still, I think it's useful to have a tag that shows that someone has looked at the *whole* page, not only at the changes they made
17:46:15 <tibbs> Yes, that's what the tag would be intended to say.
17:46:36 <tibbs> Obviously you looked at the changes you are making.
17:46:46 <tibbs> (OK, we hope that you checked the formatting)
17:47:06 <tibbs> I find that Asciidoctor.js Live Preview browser extension to be super useful.
17:47:12 <decathorpe> yeah, I did render it locally when I made the changes
17:48:21 <tibbs> I reworked the AppData page quite a bit to use some asciidoc features and I think it looks really nice now.
17:48:37 <decathorpe> it does!
17:48:49 <tibbs> Too bad there's no highlighting engine for specfiles.  Anyone know javascript and have an evening to spare?
17:50:36 <tibbs> And I've not had luck getting anyone to comment on adding some CSS to make the ToC look... like something.
17:50:43 <mhroncok> I like the examplesdir
17:51:29 <tibbs> Yes, it makes the actual source document much more readable.
17:51:50 <tibbs> It's nice you you can just click the "Edit this Page" link to get to the source.
17:53:17 <mhroncok> move on?
17:53:46 <decathorpe> I added the last-reviewed tag to the PR
17:54:03 <geppetto> wasn't sure if we had anything to vote on here?
17:54:34 <decathorpe> no idea, I just want to know if I can merge the PR :)
17:55:40 <mhroncok> it doesn't add new policies, so i don't think we need to vote
17:55:45 <geppetto> ok
17:55:46 <mhroncok> and geenrally people are happy about it
17:55:54 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
17:56:04 <geppetto> Ok, we have 5 minutes … anything anyone wants to talk about?
17:56:15 <mhroncok> interesting fesco issue: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2089
17:56:28 <mhroncok> it is about retired packages and re-reviews
17:56:31 <tibbs> Yes, please merge that PR.  I thought we accepted the document already.
17:56:40 <decathorpe> done
17:56:48 <mhroncok> does FPC want to be part of the decision?
17:57:26 <geppetto> seems fine … 2 weeks was a bit agressive
17:57:37 <limburgher> Nothing from me.
17:57:42 * decathorpe shrugs
17:57:45 <tibbs> Hmm, I think re-review is still important and wouldn't want to skip it because there's still a week before the last release that contained an unmaintained package goes EOL.
17:57:47 <geppetto> even 3 months seems kind of short
17:58:13 <tibbs> I guess I just don't see a re-review as that much of a burden.
17:58:25 <tibbs> If the package was in good shape then it should be easy.
17:58:39 <tibbs> If the package wasn't in good shape then.... a review is a good idea.
17:58:43 <mhroncok> I just guess the when you accidentally retire a package that is needed
17:58:46 <tibbs> But I agree that two weeks is super short.
17:58:50 <mhroncok> being able to put it back ASAP is good
17:59:02 <tibbs> If you accidentally retire a package then even the 2 week rule should have been fine.
17:59:05 <mhroncok> and sometimes it takes almost 2 weekes to get a new compose and realize the problem
18:00:03 <mhroncok> anyway, this was more of a pointer - we can discuss more in the ticket
18:00:20 * geppetto nods
18:00:34 <geppetto> Ok, going to close … see you next week
18:00:37 <geppetto> #endmeeting