17:02:29 <kalev> #startmeeting FESCO (2016-01-22)
17:02:29 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jan 22 17:02:29 2016 UTC.  The chair is kalev. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:02:29 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:02:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-01-22)'
17:02:29 <kalev> #meetingname fesco
17:02:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
17:02:35 <jwb> here
17:02:38 <kalev> #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh
17:02:38 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh
17:02:43 <kalev> #topic init process
17:02:45 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
17:02:46 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
17:02:53 <paragan> .hello pnemade
17:02:54 <zodbot> paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' <pnemade@redhat.com>
17:03:08 <sgallagh> /me looks at the agenda, reconsiders presence.
17:03:19 <kalev> so, we have quite a lot of stuff on the agenda today
17:03:54 <kalev> I think the most pressing might be the schedule discussion
17:04:19 <sgallagh> Yes, definitely
17:04:29 <jwb> that should be easy to resolve.  most people thus far seem to prefer option 2
17:04:36 <dgilmore> hey
17:04:42 <kalev> hey
17:04:49 <sgallagh> And after that, the upgrade question from QA
17:04:50 <kalev> ok, looks like we have enough people, let's do the schedule thing first
17:04:52 <kalev> mattdm: around?
17:04:56 <kalev> #topic #1519 reevaluate Fedora 24 schedule
17:04:56 <kalev> .fesco 1519
17:04:57 <nirik> .hello kevin
17:04:58 <zodbot> kalev: #1519 (reevaluate Fedora 24 schedule) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519
17:04:58 <dgilmore> option 2 for f25
17:05:01 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
17:05:29 <sgallagh> Just as a quick aside, as you probably saw in the ticket, I've been keeping a close eye on the GCC folks.
17:05:44 <sgallagh> As of right now, they have a high confidence on being ready for the Feb 2 rebuild
17:06:05 <kalev> good good
17:06:08 <mattdm> kalev: on a call this hour
17:06:31 <mattdm> pretty much what I think is what I said in the ticket :)
17:06:32 <sgallagh> But I want to mention that if they (or anyone else) causes another schedule slip, that may significantly impact the F25 plan
17:06:35 <kalev> I think mattdm preferred the shortest schedule version so I think I'd go for option 2 as well
17:06:47 <nirik> option 2 seems the best to me
17:06:48 <mattdm> I prefer a shorter one than that, but I'll concede to reality if necessary :)
17:06:59 <kalev> yeah, we should probably be try to be very strict at this point to try and not push F24 any further out
17:07:08 <paragan> option 2 is better
17:07:11 <dgilmore> there is a little more dev time than in the ticket
17:07:36 <dgilmore> as the schedule in the ticket has 3 weeks for mass rebuild, that we said was not going to happen in f25
17:08:06 <kalev> also, I personally like option 2 a lot because it gets us back to 6/6 month schedule, as opposed to mattdm favourite 5/7 months :)
17:08:20 * kalev likes to have same amount of time available each cycle.
17:08:53 <kalev> let's do a vote -- who's for option 2 as stated in the ticket?
17:08:54 <kalev> I am +1
17:08:56 <sgallagh> +1
17:08:58 <nirik> +1
17:08:59 <dgilmore> +1
17:09:07 <paragan> +1
17:09:24 <kalev> um, I don't know how to write votes down
17:09:27 * kalev checks last meeting log.
17:09:31 <jwb> +1
17:10:51 <kalev> I guess #accepted We're going for option 2 as stated in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519 , with final F25 release on 2016-11-08 (6,0,0)
17:10:53 <sgallagh> kalev: #agreed "restate proposal" (+N, 0, -N)
17:10:54 <kalev> like this ?
17:11:23 <kalev> #accepted We're going for option 2 as stated in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519 , with final F25 release on 2016-11-08 (6,0,0)
17:11:33 <kalev> ahh, agreed!
17:11:34 <sgallagh> kalev: #agreed, not #accepted
17:11:37 <kalev> #agreed We're going for option 2 as stated in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519 , with final F25 release on 2016-11-08 (6,0,0)
17:11:56 <sgallagh> kalev: Also, we generally indicate + and - to be very clear in the count
17:11:57 * kalev looks at the meeting bot.
17:12:29 <kalev> I wonder if I typed something wrong that it didn't confirm the #agreed
17:12:34 <kalev> or if it's just slow ...
17:12:37 <sgallagh> kalev: It doesn't confirm agreed
17:12:40 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion
17:12:41 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
17:12:42 <kalev> ahh!
17:12:44 <maxamillion> appologize for being late
17:12:49 <kalev> I'll then do undo and add the +
17:12:50 <nirik> it just adds it to the logs.
17:12:54 <kalev> #undo
17:12:54 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by kalev at 17:11:37 : We're going for option 2 as stated in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519 , with final F25 release on 2016-11-08 (6,0,0)
17:13:16 <kalev> maxamillion: want to +1 it as well?
17:13:37 <maxamillion> +1
17:13:38 <kalev> #agreed We're going for option 2 as stated in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1519 , with final F25 release on 2016-11-08 (+7,0,0)
17:13:47 <kalev> okay, that should conclude this ticket
17:13:57 <kalev> upgrade ticket next!
17:14:06 <kalev> #topic #1534 Approve skip-release upgrading as an officially supported upgrade method
17:14:09 <kalev> .fesco 1534
17:14:11 <zodbot> kalev: #1534 (Approve skip-release upgrading as an officially supported upgrade method) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1534
17:14:21 * nirik is +1 to this
17:14:37 <kalev> I am +1 as well, both as a fesco member and as a gnome-software hacker
17:14:42 <paragan> +1
17:14:42 <dgilmore> +1
17:14:44 <sgallagh> Historically, the primary reason we haven't done this is because of the increased load on QA
17:14:57 <dgilmore> its something I thought was always the case
17:14:57 <sgallagh> Since this is coming *from* QA, I'm +1
17:14:58 <kalev> however, this time the proposal is coming from QA
17:15:00 * kalev nods.
17:15:01 <maxamillion> sgallagh: +1
17:15:03 <maxamillion> +1
17:15:54 <kalev> #agreed Approve skip-release upgrading as an officially supported upgrade method (+6,0,0)
17:15:57 <jwb> er
17:16:01 <sgallagh> kalev: Make sure to count Haikel's vote in the ticket too
17:16:04 * jsmith apologizes for being late
17:16:06 <jwb> +0
17:16:11 <kalev> #undo
17:16:11 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by kalev at 17:15:54 : Approve skip-release upgrading as an officially supported upgrade method (+6,0,0)
17:16:23 <paragan> kalev, you can also count number80 vote given in ticket
17:16:43 <kalev> sure, was just checking the ticket
17:17:06 <kalev> jsmith: we were just talking about https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1534 , N -> N+2 release upgrading
17:17:20 <jsmith> Great -- count me as a +1 for it
17:17:27 <sgallagh> jwb: Do you want to elaborate on your abstention?
17:18:21 <jwb> it's not so much an abstention as it is ambivalence.  we cannot stop people from doing N->N+2 and never have.  if QA thinks they can staff testing it, great.  but i'm not sure we can go back to tell maintainers they have to fix everything that turns up
17:18:44 <jwb> for example, are we going to extend upgrade path checks to cover this?
17:18:47 <jwb> (or do they already?
17:18:49 <jwb> )
17:18:55 <kalev> it's also a question of policy, as in should we offer it in the graphical upgrade method at all
17:19:14 <kalev> I think adamw said he's adding the autoqa upgrade path checks for this as well
17:19:25 * nirik imagines extending the checks is something qa would like to do, yes...
17:19:29 <jwb> great.  so that's why i'm +0
17:19:42 <kalev> fair enough
17:19:46 <kalev> #agreed Approve skip-release upgrading as an officially supported upgrade method (+1:8,0:1,-1:0)
17:20:09 <kalev> ok, and now a can of worms
17:20:16 <kalev> #topic #1518 Software packaged in Fedora should not be allowed to implement DRM schemes that cannot be disabled
17:20:19 <kalev> .fesco 1518
17:20:22 <zodbot> kalev: #1518 (Software packaged in Fedora should not be allowed to implement DRM schemes that cannot be disabled) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1518
17:20:47 <jwb> i believe nobody was against reaching out to Mozilla
17:20:48 <sgallagh> I believe my thoughts on the matter are well-documented, so I'll be quiet for a bit.
17:20:50 <kalev> this is the firefox ticket that Kevin Kofler about firefox requiring extension signing
17:21:31 <kalev> I think this is my position as well; we should reach out to Mozilla and ask if they'd be willing to change this for system wide installed extensions
17:21:32 <nirik> yes, I think we should talk to mozilla.
17:21:44 <nirik> hopefully we can reach some agreement
17:22:07 <jwb> the remainder of the ticket has to do with the update and what happens if the discussion does not produce a result we can agree to
17:22:09 <dgilmore> kalev: that seems reasonable
17:22:14 <maxamillion> agreed this should be escalated to Mozilla
17:22:28 <jwb> so before we go voting on that, we should probably clarify exactly what we're voting on explicitly
17:22:33 <dgilmore> sgallagh: how is the firefox plugin for ipa kerberos installed?
17:22:36 <kalev> but I think the letter should be in a friendly tone, not like you know try to hit them with a clueball, but ask nicely
17:22:43 <jsmith> jwb: Yes, I agree...
17:22:44 <dgilmore> sgallagh: because I know that got disabled here
17:22:54 <maxamillion> kalev: agreed
17:22:57 <mark_otaris> hguemar was +1 to blocking Firefox 44
17:23:21 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Did it? I missed that somehow.
17:23:31 <dgilmore> sgallagh: at least here it did
17:23:33 <sgallagh> That should be unrelated; that's not an extension or a plugin
17:23:40 <jwb> mark_otaris: yes, noted in the ticket.  we aren't voting on anything yet though, so please hold commentary to a minimum while we sort it out
17:23:41 <maxamillion> what security implications are we going to impose on the users by blocking Firefox 44?
17:23:45 <sgallagh> It's part of Firefox's internals
17:23:52 <dgilmore> sgallagh: it got disabled
17:23:54 <kalev> ok, sgallagh did you want to come up with a letter? want to draft something for next week's meeting?
17:24:24 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Let's take that outside the meeting. That's news to me.
17:24:45 <sgallagh> kalev: I'll happily draft a letter. How do we want to deliver it, exactly?
17:24:54 <nirik> maxamillion: currently there's no public security advisories for 44
17:24:59 <sgallagh> Open letter on Fedora Magazine, or more privately?
17:25:16 * nirik would suggest more privately. Not sure who to contact tho.
17:25:18 <dgilmore> sgallagh: sure
17:25:19 <jwb> sgallagh: if we expect discussion, an open letter doesn't facilitate that
17:25:30 <kalev> I would prefer more privately, open letters tend to put people in a defensive positions
17:25:44 <sgallagh> OK, that's fine with me.
17:26:00 <kalev> I don't know who to contact, but stransky probably does
17:26:02 <maxamillion> nirik: you mean 43?
17:26:19 <nirik> maxamillion: I mean there's no security reason I can see that we would need to update people from 43 to 44.
17:26:24 <nirik> (currently)
17:26:30 <maxamillion> nirik: +1 - thanks
17:26:45 <nirik> there are security issues with 43, but 43.0.2 should handle them
17:26:53 <maxamillion> rgr
17:27:42 <kalev> I would hold off any update blocking or anything drastic before we've had a change to actually have a discussion with Mozilla
17:27:48 <kalev> *chance
17:28:13 <sgallagh> #action sgallagh to draft a polite, private email to Mozilla expressing our concerns and several potential mitigation approaches. This will be done before the next FESCo meeting.
17:28:27 <kalev> thanks sgallagh!
17:28:32 <jsmith> Thanks sgallagh
17:28:35 <nirik> thanks sgallagh.
17:28:48 <kalev> ok, let's move on, I think we have a bunch of features to approve as well.
17:28:56 <kalev> #topic #1478 F24 Self Contained Changes
17:28:56 <kalev> .fesco 1478
17:28:57 <jwb> wait
17:28:58 <zodbot> kalev: #1478 (F24 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478
17:29:01 <kalev> #undo
17:29:02 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x4e6be10>
17:29:03 * kalev waits.
17:29:10 <jwb> when is 44 actually expected to be released?
17:29:32 <sgallagh> jwb: Apparently it hit Rawhide in the latest mash
17:29:42 <mark_otaris> jwb: January 26
17:29:43 <jwb> then i do not think it is wise to wait
17:29:47 <mark_otaris> jwb: according to https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Upcoming_Releases
17:29:52 <mark_otaris> Which means before the next meeting
17:30:07 <jwb> because the issues will show up in Fedora before the discussion comes to any sort of conclusion
17:30:12 <nirik> its already in rawhide I think
17:30:30 <nirik> so, we might also wish to ask maintainers to not push it to any sable releases for now.
17:30:37 <kalev> already built for stable branches as well, but not submitted as an update
17:30:37 <jsmith> nirik: +1
17:30:38 <sgallagh> jwb: It's already enabled by default in Firefox 43
17:31:09 <jwb> then we've already decided what we're going to do.
17:31:14 <sgallagh> The difference between 43 and 44 is that in 44, the enforcement can no longer be shut off
17:31:24 <jwb> ah, ok.  that's what i thought
17:31:34 <jwb> so there's a rub, but my previous comment still stands
17:31:50 <jwb> if we do nothing proactively before 44 lands in a stable release, then we've already decided what to do
17:32:08 <jwb> discussion with mozilla is a parallel effort, not serial.
17:32:19 <nirik> proposal: ask firefox maintainers to avoid pushing 44 to stable releases for now while we talk with mozilla.
17:32:32 <jwb> nirik: for how long?
17:32:47 <nirik> until the next meeting ?
17:32:55 <jwb> that's not going to be productive
17:33:00 <nirik> but of course a security issue could come up
17:33:01 <kalev> I am -1 to that, I don't want to block something as security critical as a web browser
17:33:32 <jwb> does anyone actually think we are going to start a discussion with Mozilla on this and have it resolved amicably or otherwise in a week?
17:33:37 <kalev> no
17:33:40 <sgallagh> no
17:33:45 <nirik> yeah, likely not
17:33:50 <jsmith> Are there not security updates going to come out for the 43.x branch?
17:33:52 <sgallagh> Especially not if my draft isn't approved before next week
17:33:54 <jwb> i don't.   i figure we won't even get the email to them until monday at the earliest, so i don't think we can say "wait a week and see"
17:34:20 <sgallagh> (Though I'll try to finish it today so we can hopefully just get it edited and out before the next meeting)
17:34:20 <kalev> jsmith: as much as I understand firefox release process, they only update 43.x release until 44 is out, and then expect everyone to switch to 44
17:34:25 <maxamillion> jsmith: I would like to think so, but there's also a common trend of "just upgrade to latest" being the way of security patching
17:34:31 * jsmith is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt
17:34:49 <sgallagh> OK, so I just got new information from dgilmore out of band.
17:34:56 <kalev> I would like a course of action where we keep on using latest firefox, and in parallel talk to mozilla to relax this
17:35:04 <sgallagh> Seems that the enforcement disable in FF 43 doesn't actually... disable the enforcement.
17:35:11 <sgallagh> So we're pretty much already in this state.
17:35:18 <mark_otaris> sgallagh: It does
17:35:35 <sgallagh> mark_otaris: We have a clear example of a case where it does not
17:35:38 <mark_otaris> sgallagh: I have two unverified extensions at the moment, one I modified to remove some CSS rules and the other which is mozilla-https-everywhere
17:35:44 <sgallagh> .bug 1301140
17:35:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: Bug 1301140 firefox no longer allows kerberos extention to be installed - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1301140
17:35:55 <mark_otaris> Ah
17:36:11 <jwb> does it work if you already have the extension installed?
17:36:19 <mark_otaris> jwb: It works in both cases.
17:36:26 <sgallagh> I'll point out that this is a situation of significant importance to the Server Edition.
17:36:36 <dgilmore> jwb: it disabled it. I did not see an option to enable it, so i went to reinstall
17:36:40 <mark_otaris> jwb: mozilla-https-everywhere was reenabled when I changed the setting in about:config, and I was able to install the other extension (after modifying the .xpi manually)
17:36:46 <maxamillion> kalev: I like that idea because it's not going to impose security concerns on the users .... I imagine the "what would we do if Mozilla doesn't respond positively to our request" would be a whole different problem to solve and outside the scope of this discussion
17:36:55 <kalev> also, FYI, red hat management's position (Christian's reply) on this:
17:36:57 <kalev> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/6IZ6KTMXSYKX3BHJDDQ7RM4XDW72IGAS/
17:37:19 <jwb> maxamillion: it's not.  the ticket expressly asks us to solve that by blocking the update to being with or replace it with icecat
17:37:50 <jwb> maxamillion: having someone open another ticket to resolve it is just process hurdles
17:38:16 <maxamillion> jwb: right, but I think the problem statement and the proposed solution shouldn't necessarily be in the same ticket, they are loosely coupled issues ... but I won't split hairs over it
17:38:35 <kalev> ok, so I guess everybody is on the same page to go on with the letter to mozilla and leave firefox in fedora as is for now?
17:38:48 <jwb> mark_otaris: your experience conflicts with dgilmore's.  joy.
17:39:01 <dgilmore> kalev: for now yes
17:39:10 <jwb> kalev: clarify that
17:39:11 * nirik supposes so. I don't see another solution I like better anyhow.
17:39:21 <kalev> yup, for now.
17:39:26 <jwb> "leave firefox in fedora as is" means what?
17:39:40 <jwb> because as is could mean "stuck on 43" or "updating as it has historically"
17:39:43 <jwb> we need to be clear
17:39:51 <kalev> let maintainers handle it as they deem best fit for now
17:39:51 <maxamillion> yeah, I think "live with it for sake of security until we can get a firm resolution" is about as good as it's going to get without a hard commitment to drop Firefox entirely
17:40:00 <sgallagh> Proposal: For the time being, we continue to permit Fedora to update to the latest upstream release of Firefox while we negotiate with their upstream.
17:40:18 <kalev> +1 to sgallagh's proposal
17:40:49 <dgilmore> +1
17:40:55 <paragan> +1
17:40:55 <mark_otaris> jwb: The mandatory signing toggle works for me in all cases at least
17:41:10 <jwb> mark_otaris: noted.  it doesn't for dgilmore, which is also noted.
17:41:29 <jwb> sgallagh: +1 i suppose.
17:41:45 <jsmith> +1 to sgallagh's proposal (not super happy about it, but willing to wait and see)
17:41:46 <nirik> +1 to sgallagh. I wonder though if we shouldn't send a announce post or blog posting about the issue so users could switch to icecat if they wished, etc?
17:41:58 <kalev> I guess sgallagh's +1 to his own too :)
17:42:02 <jwb> nirik: +0.
17:42:03 <jsmith> nirik: I think that's a good idea -- communication is important :-)
17:42:18 <sgallagh> kalev: +1, but as above only because the other options are worse
17:42:24 <maxamillion> +1 to sgallagh's proposal (also not super happy, but I think it's the least bad option)
17:42:26 <nirik> it tells them I guess why the extension didn't load...
17:42:29 <kalev> #agreed For the time being, we continue to permit Fedora to update to the latest upstream release of Firefox while we negotiate with their upstream. (+1:8, 0:1, -1:0)
17:42:41 <mark_otaris> Firefox 44 in stable releases would be a breaking change though
17:42:44 <mark_otaris> Is that not against the updates policy?
17:42:55 <jwb> nirik: telling them why their extension doesn't load (and how to load it from MOA) is different form "SWITCH BROWSERS"
17:42:57 <sgallagh> nirik: Sounds like it's not obvious though. dgilmore was saying it just reports that the extension is corrupt
17:42:58 <mark_otaris> (I don't personally mind, I can switch to Seamonkey or IceCat)
17:43:19 <jwb> kalev: who was the +0 to sgallagh ?
17:43:36 <kalev> ohh, I miscounted I think, I think I counted you jwb
17:43:39 <nirik> jwb: well, I meant information on the issue, not "OMG, SWITCH BROWSERS NOW" but the issue, and what options were available.
17:43:41 <kalev> #undo
17:43:41 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by kalev at 17:42:29 : For the time being, we continue to permit Fedora to update to the latest upstream release of Firefox while we negotiate with their upstream. (+1:8, 0:1, -1:0)
17:44:02 <kalev> #agreed For the time being, we continue to permit Fedora to update to the latest upstream release of Firefox while we negotiate with their upstream. (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0)
17:44:10 <kalev> ok, moving on!
17:44:14 <jwb> nirik: that was unclear in your wording, but sure
17:44:23 <kalev> #topic #1478 F24 Self Contained Changes
17:44:23 <kalev> .fesco 1478
17:44:25 <zodbot> kalev: #1478 (F24 Self Contained Changes) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478
17:44:55 <paragan> +1 to all
17:45:04 <nirik> +1 to all I guess. I still dont know that the astronomy spin is that useful, but sure.
17:45:15 <jwb> +1
17:45:24 <kalev> dgilmore: any comments on the astronomy spin? can we produce that?
17:46:13 <dgilmore> kalev: We can
17:46:15 <kalev> mattdm: and same question to you, would you want an additional astronomy spin?
17:46:20 <dgilmore> so long as the kickstart works
17:46:47 * mattdm reads back
17:46:48 <jsmith> +1 to all from me
17:46:53 <maxamillion> +1 to all from me as well
17:46:55 <sgallagh> I'm -1 on the Astronomy spin, honestly. I still haven't heard any reason whatsoever how this isn't solved by a comps group.
17:47:28 <mattdm> Oh, I remember. https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/35
17:47:30 <mattdm> I'm for it
17:47:35 <jwb> i'm not willing to deny a spin that has an enthusiastic maintainer unless we're getting rid of spins entirely.
17:47:44 <kalev> ok, if mattdm is for it, then I'm for it as well
17:47:48 <mattdm> I agree with sgallagh's point in general for _most_ of the Labs, but that needs a bigger solution
17:47:55 <kalev> +1 for all from me as well then
17:47:55 <mattdm> what jwb says
17:48:45 <sgallagh> By all means, approve it. My opinion is recorded.
17:48:52 <kalev> for what it's worth, I am not convinced that it was a fair choice to base the astronomy spin on another spin, as opposed to taking Fedora Workstation as the base
17:49:01 <kalev> but I'm not putting my time in it, so ... not my call to make :)
17:49:23 <maxamillion> jwb: +1
17:49:33 <dgilmore> I am +1 while there other ways to achieve the install. I will not turn away someone wanting to scratch thier itch
17:49:52 <dgilmore> kalev: lots of spins are based on other spins
17:49:56 * kalev nods.
17:50:22 <dgilmore> some are Xfvce based, some are KDE based, nothing says it has to be beased on
17:50:30 <dgilmore> some are Xfvce based, some are KDE based, nothing says it has to be based on Workstation
17:50:34 <dgilmore> gahh
17:50:46 <kalev> gahh, voting is too hard, so many numbers to add
17:51:13 <maxamillion> :(
17:51:42 <mattdm> (someone needs to teach meetbot to do the adding.)
17:51:43 <kalev> #agreed All proposed F24 Self Contained Changes in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 are accepted (+1:8,0:0,-1:0)
17:51:44 <maxamillion> I wonder if we could teach the bot to count for us, have a macro that everyone uses to vote with
17:51:47 <maxamillion> mattdm: +1
17:51:51 <mattdm> maxamillion++
17:51:54 <kalev> may have gotten one +1 vote wrong, but it doesn't really matter in the end ...
17:52:03 <kalev> err, got a -1 wrong as well
17:52:03 <sgallagh> kalev: I'm certain that you got the -1 votes wrong
17:52:04 <kalev> #undo
17:52:04 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by kalev at 17:51:43 : All proposed F24 Self Contained Changes in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 are accepted (+1:8,0:0,-1:0)
17:52:18 <kalev> #agreed All proposed F24 Self Contained Changes in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 are accepted (+1:7,0:0,-1:1)
17:52:35 <kalev> #topic #1525 F24 System Wide Change: Suds Jurko Fork
17:52:36 <kalev> .fesco 1525
17:52:37 <zodbot> kalev: #1525 (F24 System Wide Change: Suds Jurko Fork) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1525
17:52:37 <sgallagh> #undo
17:52:37 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x391eb6d0>
17:52:39 <sgallagh> #undo
17:52:40 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by kalev at 17:52:18 : All proposed F24 Self Contained Changes in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 are accepted (+1:7,0:0,-1:1)
17:53:12 <sgallagh> #agreed All proposed F24 Self Contained Changes except Astronomy Spin in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 are accepted (+1:8,0:0,-1:0)
17:53:25 <kalev> thanks sgallagh
17:53:30 <sgallagh> #agreed Astronomy Spin in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1478#comment:11 is accepted (+1:8,0:0,-1:-1)
17:53:46 <sgallagh> Sorry, please continue
17:53:52 <kalev> #topic #1525 F24 System Wide Change: Suds Jurko Fork
17:53:52 <kalev> .fesco 1525
17:53:54 <zodbot> kalev: #1525 (F24 System Wide Change: Suds Jurko Fork) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1525
17:54:28 <kalev> I have no idea even what this is -- anyone got any concerns?
17:54:33 * jsmith has no concerns
17:54:37 <maxamillion> from the sound of this, it seems like a logical step and I like that upstream is on board
17:54:41 <maxamillion> +1
17:54:41 <nirik> this is just switching upstreams.
17:54:42 <sgallagh> I would prefer that the upstream maintainer just handed over the original project to the fork creator
17:54:46 <dgilmore> why does this need a change?
17:54:46 <nirik> so, sure, +1
17:54:56 <paragan> +1
17:55:02 <sgallagh> But sure, +1
17:55:02 <jsmith> +1 from me
17:55:06 <maxamillion> dgilmore: I think it's somewhat similar in nature to mysql -> mariadb type change
17:55:08 <jwb> sgallagh: i'd prefer it too but we can't dictate that
17:55:10 <jwb> +1
17:55:14 <sgallagh> dgilmore: For the same reason that python-pillow needed a change, I expect
17:55:28 <kalev> +1, I just trust the maintainer here to do the right thing as I don't understand this area at all
17:55:37 <dgilmore> not opposed, just dont see the need for the change
17:55:38 <nirik> a number of packages may need tweaking to work with it.
17:55:41 <dgilmore> but +1
17:55:45 <nirik> and advertising I guess.
17:56:25 <kalev> #agreed F24 System Wide Change: Suds Jurko Fork accepted (+1:8, 0:0, -1:0)
17:56:39 <kalev> #topic #1532 F24 System Wide Change: NewRpmDBFormat
17:56:40 <kalev> .fesco 1532
17:56:41 <zodbot> kalev: #1532 (F24 System Wide Change: NewRpmDBFormat) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1532
17:56:52 <dgilmore> +1
17:57:13 <nirik> I'm kinda worried about things that use the db not being ready yet
17:57:32 <jsmith> nirik: As am I
17:57:35 <dgilmore> nirik: yeah. there is that chance
17:57:39 <jwb> yeah.  number80 asked for some clarification on the upgrade path
17:57:41 <paragan> right its not ready yet
17:57:42 <maxamillion> I also have reservations on timing and that the upgrade path is still more or less unknown
17:57:46 <jsmith> I'd actually prefre to push this back a release
17:57:48 <nirik> but yeah, thats part of the change, so I guess +1
17:57:49 <jwb> it's probably good to get more info
17:58:05 <kalev> yeah, maybe it would be prudent to have the code to support the new DB in F24, but not enable it by default
17:58:08 <sgallagh> If we have to vote on this today, I'm -1 and would rather see this in F25.
17:58:34 <jsmith> kalev: I like that idea... if it's possible.
17:58:39 <maxamillion> I'm with jwb and sgallagh on suggesting pushing this out a release
17:58:42 <mark_otaris> Is it?
17:58:54 <maxamillion> sounds like it needs more time under development
17:59:17 <kalev> let's maybe punt this for a week and see if we get more information in the ticket?
17:59:28 * paragan too -1 if we need to vote today
17:59:31 <nirik> if we punt could people with concerns post them to devel list?
18:00:03 <jsmith> nirik: Sure.
18:00:07 <maxamillion> nirik: absolutely
18:00:11 <paragan> I think Florian will reply on devel list
18:00:15 <jwb> nirik: well, most of them have been expressed and unanswered.  maybe we could summarize open questions
18:00:18 <maxamillion> nirik: mailing list and ticket or just devel list?
18:01:13 <kalev> I think mailing list is better as more people read this
18:01:19 <nirik> sure.
18:01:28 <maxamillion> rgr that
18:01:31 <nirik> I would prefer mailing list, yes.
18:01:33 <kalev> and just ignore that one troll who always feels they need to reply to all messages
18:01:51 <sgallagh> kalev: Sorry, I'll behave ;-)
18:01:58 <kalev> :)
18:02:04 <jsmith> sgallagh: I thought he was talking about me :-p
18:02:12 <kalev> ok, let's move on then!
18:02:20 <nirik> so is someone summarizing?
18:02:22 <nirik> or ?
18:03:03 <kalev> Proposal: #agreed Punt the NewRpmDBFormat for a week as several folks had unanswered questions
18:03:04 <jsmith> Proposal: Push a vote to next week's meeting, and gather more information on the mailing list.
18:03:28 <maxamillion> +1 to jsmith's proposal
18:03:33 <dgilmore> jsmith: +1
18:03:35 <kalev> +1 to jsmith
18:03:36 <jwb> +1 to either version of it
18:03:55 <paragan> +1 to either version
18:04:01 <sgallagh> +1
18:04:15 <kalev> #agreed Push a vote to next week's meeting, and gather more information on the mailing list.
18:04:31 <kalev> #topic #1533 F24 System Wide Change: Golang 1.6
18:04:31 <kalev> .fesco 1533
18:04:32 <zodbot> kalev: #1533 (F24 System Wide Change: Golang 1.6) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1533
18:04:51 <nirik> +1
18:04:54 <paragan> +1
18:04:55 <jsmith> +1 from me
18:04:56 <sgallagh> +1 rubber stamp
18:04:59 <kalev> +1
18:05:01 <jwb> +1
18:05:02 <maxamillion> +1
18:05:39 <dgilmore> 1
18:05:41 <dgilmore> +1
18:05:45 <kalev> #agreed F24 System Wide Change: Golang 1.6 accepted (+1:9, 0:0, -1:0)
18:05:50 <kalev> some folks voted in the ticket as well
18:06:01 <kalev> #topic #1536 initscript exception for initscripts package
18:06:01 <kalev> .fesco 1536
18:06:03 <zodbot> kalev: #1536 (initscript exception for initscripts package) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1536
18:06:21 <kalev> it's a request coming from a systemd maintainer
18:06:32 <dgilmore> +1 but it seems silly
18:06:34 <kalev> and I trust them to know what they are doing here, so +1
18:06:41 <nirik> +1 to exception... as long as we have people willing to maintain it
18:07:02 <sgallagh> dgilmore: What seems silly about it?
18:07:17 <jsmith> What about having an exception for one or two releases, and then re-evaluating?
18:07:39 <sgallagh> I think we decided that any exception was only for a single release
18:07:50 <nirik> that seems silly.
18:07:58 <dgilmore> sgallagh: initscripts package having an exception
18:08:10 <lnykryn> we need to keep it, there are 3rd party legacy scripts which depends on it
18:08:11 <dgilmore> we never said we were going to remove the package
18:08:25 <sgallagh> dgilmore: What do you mean? Yes we did.
18:08:25 <lnykryn> (I am the initscripts upstream developer :D)
18:08:59 <dgilmore> sgallagh: when.
18:09:01 <sgallagh> That was the original decision by FESCo: set a deadline, drop any packages that haven't converted to systemd at that point (without an exception from FESCo)
18:09:02 <maxamillion> +1 to exception (in agreement with nirik that so long as it's maintained, which it seems as though it will be)
18:09:15 <dgilmore> sgallagh: I remeber saying we would get rid of packages shipping initscripts
18:09:16 <jwb> +1
18:09:24 <nirik> in this case there's lots of people using this and it makes no sense to convert it.
18:09:24 <paragan> +1
18:09:27 <dgilmore> but not that we would remove support entirely
18:09:32 <nirik> so it should just be excepted.
18:10:08 <dgilmore> what I remeber is that we would leave initscript support in for people that use it for their own use.
18:10:17 <sgallagh> dgilmore: This package doesn't provide the support, it provides a set of scripts
18:10:28 <dgilmore> but not ship any initscripts ourselves
18:10:57 <nirik> yes, we are leaving support.
18:11:07 <nirik> but this package has a initscript... 'network'
18:11:20 <sgallagh> Even if we dropped this package from the repo, that would not remove the support from systemd.
18:11:36 <tibbs|w> Initscripts contains some rather non-initscripty-stuff.
18:11:44 <sgallagh> Honestly, I'm 0 on this. We have *two* other network stacks in Fedora
18:12:15 <lnykryn> but the network-scripts are still highly used
18:12:18 <nirik> sure... but lots of people use this one and the maintainers are willing to keep maintaining it.
18:12:25 <sgallagh> So I'm not going to stand in the way of an exception, but I also think it's approaching time to soak up the pain of breaking that legacy compatibility.
18:12:29 <lnykryn> my plan is to migrate them to networkd, but it needs some time
18:12:37 * nirik nods.
18:12:50 * kalev nods too.
18:13:25 <nirik> retiring this when networkd is more featurefull and also when we can convert the ifcfg-* stuff seems much more sane than just dropping it. :)
18:13:32 <sgallagh> If we do approve an exception here, I want it to be only for F24
18:13:42 <sgallagh> lnykryn: I'd like to hear from you that we won't need it in F25 :)
18:13:46 <jsmith> +1
18:13:57 <jsmith> to sgallagh's comment
18:13:57 <lnykryn> I don't think it will be possible
18:14:05 <dgilmore> sgallagh: I would not agree to that
18:14:06 <lnykryn> we still need a lot of stuff done
18:14:16 * nirik also disagrees. whats the hurry?
18:15:00 <jsmith> I'm fine with one or two releases, but I don't think we should extend an indefinite exception
18:15:04 <sgallagh> nirik: Mostly it's just that, without a deadline, this will never happen
18:15:11 <sgallagh> And we'll be carrying legacy cruft for eternity
18:15:36 <dgilmore> sgallagh: multilib is legacy cruft, as is many other things
18:15:46 <sgallagh> dgilmore: I have opinions on that as well ;-)
18:15:46 <maxamillion> sgallagh: don't 'dnf search perl' or you'll be sad ;)
18:16:14 <dgilmore> maxamillion: indeed ;)
18:16:33 <tibbs|w> The package should at least have the classic networking stuff split out, and have the completely unrelated stuff moved somewhere more appropriate.
18:16:37 <sgallagh> Anyway, I'm opposed to giving an indefinite extension
18:16:39 <nirik> sgallagh: well, there are plans to make it gracefull... I don't think we can give a deadline because there's lots of parts... what systemd does, what initscripts can get done, etc
18:16:41 <maxamillion> sgallagh: all snarky remarks aside, I do agree that we should be making positive moves towards getting rid of legacy things
18:16:42 <jsmith> tibbs|w: I think that's a good compromise
18:16:56 <tibbs|w> /etc/profile.d/256term.csh? /var/lib/stateless?
18:17:16 <kalev> anyway, let's stamp the exception here and let the systemd maintainers figure out how to deal with this for F25 and F26, don't need to decide everything right away
18:17:19 <nirik> well, how about we just give it an exception now and revisit next cycle
18:17:23 <kalev> yup
18:17:23 <maxamillion> kalev: +1
18:17:24 <tibbs|w> And /usr/bin/usleep is just a bizarre thing to have there.
18:17:28 <maxamillion> nirik: +1
18:17:28 <sgallagh> nirik: That's fine.
18:17:43 <kalev> #agreed initscript exception for initscripts package approved (+1:7, 0:1, -1:0)
18:17:53 <dgilmore> nirik: I would rather in 12 months we relook at it
18:18:22 <kalev> so this leaves a bunch of non responsive maintainer issues
18:18:30 <maxamillion> womp womp
18:18:33 <kalev> we already had quite a long meeting, maybe punt those to next meeting?
18:18:39 <jsmith> kalev: +1
18:18:49 <jsmith> kalev: Or vote in tickets, discuss offline, etc.
18:18:55 * kalev nods.
18:18:56 <paragan> I think good to give votes in tickets
18:19:01 <nirik> kalev: also, there was a sponsor ticket I wanted to bring up... I guess the process doesn't say go to fesco like it does for provenpackagers tho
18:19:05 <paragan> and resolve in ticket only
18:19:34 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/251
18:19:48 <kalev> maybe leave that for next week as well, so we can ask the affected person to come here?
18:19:51 <nirik> sure, we can try and vote in tickets... but we have a less than great record doing that
18:20:12 <kalev> otherwise we'll be deciding things behind their back, which isn't nice
18:20:19 * dgilmore has to leave in 10
18:20:24 <kalev> yeah, let's wrap this up.
18:20:24 <nirik> sure. wfm
18:20:25 <kalev> #topic Next week's chair
18:20:31 <kalev> who wants it next week?
18:20:39 <jsmith> I'll take it if nobody else volunteers
18:20:42 <nirik> I've not done it for a while...
18:20:48 <nirik> but happy to let jsmith have it. ;)
18:20:52 <kalev> jsmith was first!
18:20:53 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
18:20:59 <kalev> #agreed jsmith to chair next week
18:21:04 <kalev> #topic Open Floor
18:21:27 * jsmith has nothing to add
18:21:36 * kalev neither.
18:21:37 <nirik> nothing here
18:21:45 <kalev> ok, see you all in a week then
18:21:48 <kalev> thanks for coming!
18:21:49 <kalev> #endmeeting