16:02:35 <jsmith> #startmeeting FESCO (2016-04-29)
16:02:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Apr 29 16:02:35 2016 UTC.  The chair is jsmith. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:02:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:02:35 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-04-29)'
16:02:44 <jsmith> #meetingname fesco
16:02:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:02:53 <jsmith> #chair maxamillion dgilmore number80 jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh
16:02:53 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik number80 paragan sgallagh
16:03:00 <jsmith> #topic init process
16:03:02 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh
16:03:03 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:03:04 <paragan> .hello pnemade
16:03:06 <jsmith> .hello jsmith
16:03:06 <zodbot> paragan: pnemade 'Parag Nemade' <pnemade@redhat.com>
16:03:09 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
16:03:11 <kalev> .hello kalev
16:03:12 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
16:03:17 <nirik> .hello kevin
16:03:18 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com>
16:04:04 <jwb> hello
16:04:08 <jsmith> We'll give the others just a second to join
16:04:53 <jwb> someone needs to update the fedocal entry
16:05:13 * nirik can do that.
16:05:54 <jsmith> OK, let's get started
16:06:12 <jsmith> First, follow-up items...
16:06:14 <jsmith> #topic #1555 Please clarify updates policy for security issues
16:06:21 <jsmith> .fesco 1555
16:06:24 <zodbot> jsmith: #1555 (Please clarify updates policy for security issues) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1555
16:06:34 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1555
16:07:09 <jsmith> I've updated the text on the ticket -- mind checking it out, and letting me know if you want anything else changed?
16:07:10 * nirik needs to re-read the new wording
16:07:39 <paragan> AI should be ABI ?
16:07:47 <jsmith> Doh!
16:08:07 <sgallagh> paragan: Perhaps he's just very forward-thinking? :)
16:08:12 <jwb> both.  we don't want our sentient computers changing personalities on us
16:08:13 <paragan> :)
16:08:45 <jwb> i think catanzaro's comments on exceptions likely apply
16:08:45 <sgallagh> I'm happy with the text as it is (minor typographical errors notwithstanding)
16:09:07 <nirik> I wonder if we should change 'particular' to 'compatible' but not sure how to word it...
16:09:08 <jwb> we have exceptions already for e.g. the kernel.  maybe just add a line at the bottom that says "exceptions to this process are listed below" or something
16:09:23 <jsmith> jwb: +1
16:09:28 <sgallagh> jwb: +1
16:09:41 <nirik> jwb: +1
16:10:00 <paragan> jwb, +1
16:10:11 <kalev> yeah, probably good to list existing exceptions there
16:10:52 <nirik> I guess I hope common sense will prevail and the wording changes I am thinking of won't be needed.
16:11:21 <jwb> such a false hope
16:11:21 <jsmith> OK, I'll go ahead and make the changes...
16:11:54 <dgilmore> hi all
16:12:18 <jsmith> Any objections before we move on to the next topic?
16:12:38 <nirik> we can always adjust more if things aren't clear enough.
16:12:43 <jsmith> dgilmore: Welcome.  Any thoughts/concerns about text in ticket 1555?
16:12:55 <jsmith> nirik: Sounds good to me.  It's not carved in stone.
16:14:01 <dgilmore> with the change of AI top ABI i think its fine
16:14:06 <kalev> no objections from me
16:14:10 <jsmith> OK, in the interest of time, let's move on.
16:14:16 <jsmith> #agreed jsmith to update the text
16:14:45 <jsmith> #topic #1444 updates deliverables
16:14:58 <jsmith> .fesco 1444
16:14:59 <zodbot> jsmith: #1444 (updates deliverables) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1444
16:15:01 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1444
16:15:41 <nirik> so, I made a page last week...
16:15:48 <nirik> and maxamillion was going to try and update it.
16:15:57 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/Updating_deliverables/Fedora24
16:16:03 <nirik> looks like it's not yet updated.
16:16:15 <nirik> So, how about I add that to the ticket and we move on and revisit next week?
16:16:23 <jwb> yes
16:16:26 <jsmith> WORKSFORME
16:16:51 <paragan> sure
16:17:00 <jsmith> #agreed Update ticket #1444 and revisit it next week
16:17:13 <jsmith> #topic #1566 Review of release blocking deliverables for F24 .fesco 1566 https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1566
16:17:19 <jsmith> Oops...
16:17:22 <jsmith> #undo
16:17:22 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x7f344aa87fd0>
16:17:22 * nirik meant to update the ticket last week, but I guess I failed.
16:17:34 <jsmith> #topic #1566 Review of release blocking deliverables for F24
16:17:36 <jsmith> .fesco 1566
16:17:38 <zodbot> jsmith: #1566 (Review of release blocking deliverables for F24) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1566
16:17:47 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1566
16:18:22 <jsmith> Any status update here?
16:18:27 <jsmith> Any concerns?
16:18:54 <jwb> i'm concerned only Workstation replied
16:19:05 <nirik> since there's not a base group anymore, who's responsible for the eveything netinstall?
16:19:16 <jsmith> nirik: That's a really good point...
16:19:16 <nirik> server discussed it and said the list looked fine for them.
16:19:19 <dgilmore> nirik: no one that I know of
16:19:35 <nirik> I guess fesco ?
16:19:54 <dgilmore> fesco or we need to ask someone to do it
16:19:58 <jwb> nirik, i don't see the server discussion or reply in the ticket or hyperkitty?
16:20:12 <sgallagh> nirik: Looks like no one remembered to send hte meeting notes
16:20:19 <nirik> jwb: I suck I guess. we discussed it at our meeting, but I never send a email to the list about it.
16:20:34 <jwb> nirik: ok.  i mean, i believe you, i was just curious if i missed it
16:20:45 <jwb> if nobody is looking after Everything then it shouldn't be shipped.
16:20:50 <nirik> sgallagh: yeah, I wasn't really prepped to run things, I just did. ;)
16:20:54 <nirik> I can send them...
16:21:27 <nirik> jwb: well, that would make things much easier, dropping 10,000 rpms. ;)
16:21:30 <jwb> as for the list Jan has in his wiki page, it all looks correct to me
16:21:40 <jwb> nirik: yep.
16:22:27 <sgallagh> I assume he meant "the generic netinstall shouldn't be shipped"...
16:23:12 <dgilmore> sgallagh: thats not how it works
16:23:22 <jwb> it never is.
16:23:41 <sgallagh> dgilmore: No, because we have more technical debt than the US has actual debt :-/
16:23:53 <dgilmore> sgallagh: possibly
16:24:58 <sgallagh> So if our technical situation requires that it be shipped, we're back to needing to assign someone to baby-sit it.
16:25:10 <sgallagh> Is that FESCo?
16:25:39 <nirik> I'd be fine with that... I dont think it really needs much maint...
16:25:45 <jwb> base was rolled into Modularity.  make them do it.
16:25:47 <jwb> ;)
16:26:10 <jsmith> jwb: I like the way you think :-p
16:26:16 <dgilmore> jwb: sure, not sure it fits into their goals
16:26:26 <sgallagh> Proposal: Until and unless another group emerges to maintain the Everything media, that responsibility falls on FESCo
16:26:29 <jwb> it doesn't.  which is why we shouldn't ship it, but sigh.
16:26:47 <jsmith> sgallagh: I'm fine with the proposal... +1
16:26:54 <dgilmore> jwb: maybe spins is where it fits
16:27:20 <dgilmore> since its the non standard Fedora installer
16:27:43 * jwb shrugs
16:27:52 <jwb> i don't see a need for it really.  we have 4 other netinstall isos
16:27:53 <kalev> I have already forgotten, why did we need separate netinstalls for workstation and server and also a generic one?
16:28:02 <kalev> aren't they all presenting the same group selection?
16:28:08 <jsmith> dgilmore: I think we just take it as FESCo for now, and we can always move it/drop it later
16:28:11 <sgallagh> kalev: We wanted the branding on the Editions
16:28:17 <kalev> ahh, right
16:28:23 <sgallagh> The generic one is kind of ambiguous.
16:28:23 <dgilmore> kalev: they have different install experiences
16:28:39 <sgallagh> Oh right, and the different Editions may have different defaults
16:28:44 <dgilmore> kalev: server gets you different partitioning for instance
16:28:45 <sgallagh> Like Server defaults to XFS
16:29:06 <kalev> ahh, yes
16:29:06 <dgilmore> the generic is anaconda defaults with nothing else
16:29:52 <kalev> not sure we actually need a generic one in addition to those two though
16:30:07 <sgallagh> "two"?
16:30:08 <kalev> Xfce et al are all nicely installable through the workstation netinstall, right?
16:30:10 <dgilmore> kalev: it was requested from day 1 or products being a thing
16:30:25 <jwb> that doesn't mean it still has value
16:30:56 <sgallagh> The Spins essentially wanted an install medium that didn't look like it was installing something else.
16:31:16 <jwb> then they should maintain it.  given they haven't responded to jan either, i don't see that being likely
16:31:16 <sgallagh> The Generic was meant to cover all of them
16:31:24 <dgilmore> it may not offer value to you jwb but I do think it offers value
16:31:34 * nirik isn't sure what "the spins" is practically. ;)
16:31:57 <jsmith> nirik: I totally agree -- hence the reason I think FESCo should babysit it for now
16:31:59 <sgallagh> nirik: Mostly KDE and Cinnamon, I think :-/
16:32:16 <nirik> well, mostly a mess. ;)
16:32:23 <jwb> the point of my argument is that if people think it is valuable, they should feel responsible for it.  i'm very tired of dragging stuff along just because it existed in the past when nobody is actually focused on it
16:32:28 <nirik> but perhaps moving spins-kickstarts will help.
16:32:30 <jwb> it leads to situations exactly like this
16:32:36 <sgallagh> nirik: no need to repeat me ;-)
16:33:18 <nirik> dgilmore: the ks for netinstall is... in fedora-pungi ?
16:33:22 <nirik> or spin-kickstarts?
16:33:50 <dgilmore> nirik: there is no kickstarts for installers anymore
16:34:00 <dgilmore> its in pungi-fedora
16:34:22 <nirik> ok.
16:35:10 <nirik> I'm fine with dumping it on spins I guess... and we can revisit if we want to ship it anymore in f25?
16:36:00 <dgilmore> adamw: do you have any input on the Everything installer?
16:36:21 <nirik> if spins is the thing that wanted it they should maintain it/test it/etc
16:36:24 <kalev> I think I would be fine with dropping the generic netinstall in F25 on the premise that all the spins are correctly installable through Workstation netinstall
16:36:28 <kalev> might be easier if we have one less deliverable
16:36:41 <jwb> need to step away for a minute.  back asap
16:36:54 <kalev> and if the situation changes in the future, as in the Product netinstalls for some reason become unsuitable for Spins, then we can maybe reinstate the generic one?
16:37:21 <dgilmore> afaik the generic installer is one of the main ones tested
16:38:07 <kalev> yeah, probably, and the workstation netinstall is probably not very well tested at all, which is a problem
16:38:16 <kalev> just too many deliverables that too roughly the same thing
16:38:17 <nirik> kalev: possible... but we don't need to decide right now.
16:38:21 * kalev nods.
16:38:40 <sgallagh> I thought I remembered that QA was using the Server netinstall for most test.
16:38:56 <dgilmore> sgallagh: they use the server DVD for some testing
16:38:56 <nirik> proposal: move everything netinstalls under spins sig for now and approve f24 list?
16:39:02 <sgallagh> But they *do* at least do a smoketest install for all of them (including generic), IIRC
16:39:03 <dgilmore> and the everything netinst
16:39:05 <dgilmore> afaik
16:39:21 <dgilmore> nirik: +1
16:39:28 <nirik> sgallagh: I could see the server one being a bit confusing for desktops since we changed partitioning.. but perhaps most people use kickstarts with netsintalls... dunno
16:39:49 <jsmith> nirik: +1
16:40:12 <kalev> nirik: +1
16:40:23 <paragan> nirik, +1
16:40:35 <sgallagh> nirik: 0
16:41:08 <sgallagh> (Maybe it fits there, but it seems kind of arbitrary to assign it to a group that isn't represented here today)
16:41:38 * jsmith will wait for one more minute for jwb to return, otherwise we'll move on
16:41:42 <nirik> FWIW, my plan after beta is out is to move comps and spin-kickstarts to pagure and find an actuall assignee(s) for every kickstart/image so we can actually contact people involved.
16:42:05 <nirik> sgallagh: well, I have maintained the Xfce spin for years and am in the spins sig... if it existed anymore.
16:42:30 <dgilmore> sgallagh: I have been looking after a lot of the spins issues for years
16:42:55 <sgallagh> fine, if you guys are *accepting* responsibility for it, that's good enough for me.
16:42:56 <sgallagh> +1
16:43:21 <nirik> thats 5?
16:43:26 <adamw> i'd like to keep the everything netinst, fwiw. when we told people 'oh just use an edition one' it was super confusing.
16:44:31 <nirik> I guess I'd say we should stop calling anything a spins sig, and move to a model of having specific maintainers for each image produced.
16:44:36 <jsmith> #agreed We'll move the "everything netinst" under the spins SIG for now and approve the f24 list (+1:6, +0:0, -1:0)
16:45:06 <jsmith> #topic #1571 need guideance of what exactly needs to be built from source for Fedora Media Writer
16:45:17 <sgallagh> adamw: I think it was most confusing when we only had the Server netinstall available
16:45:22 <jsmith> .fesco 1571
16:45:23 <zodbot> jsmith: #1571 (need guideance of what exactly needs to be built from source for Fedora Media Writer) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1571
16:45:25 <sgallagh> People didn't like installing Workstation from Server media
16:45:31 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1571
16:46:40 <nirik> should we keep discussing this one?
16:46:46 <kalev> we had an extensive discussion about this last week, anything else to do here?
16:46:53 <nirik> or punt it down the road, since there's throughts of re-writing?
16:47:05 <jwb> sorry, back now
16:47:13 <jsmith> That was going to be my question -- is everyone OK with what came out of last week's meeting (plus the notes from FPL and spot on the trac ticket)?
16:47:23 <jsmith> Or do we need further discussion?
16:47:30 * jsmith is fine with kicking the can down the road on this one
16:47:57 <nirik> we may well have to discuss it later for f25, but I think that should come after it's been re-written or alternatives more figured out.
16:47:59 <dgilmore> not sure we need further discussion
16:48:08 <paragan> I think we are okay with last week discussion
16:48:58 <jsmith> OK, then... moving on.
16:49:13 <jsmith> New tickets...
16:49:14 <jsmith> #topic #1570 F24 Changes not in ON_QA status (<100% completed)
16:49:18 <jsmith> .fesco 1570
16:49:19 <zodbot> jsmith: #1570 (F24 Changes not in ON_QA status (<100% completed)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1570
16:49:25 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1570
16:50:42 <nirik> I guess we are just looking for final validation on those that they are done.
16:50:44 <sgallagh> Sounds like the only thing missing here is the paper-trail, not the actual functionality
16:50:51 <jsmith> Yeah, that was my thought...
16:51:01 * kalev agrees.
16:51:20 <jsmith> [FWIW, I have to run to a ${DAYJOB} meeting in ten minutes]
16:51:51 <jwb> yeah
16:52:18 <dgilmore> seems the outstanding ones should be in ON_QA status
16:52:27 <jsmith> OK, if there's nothing further to discuss on this item, let's move on to the last outstanding one for today
16:52:29 <kalev> I don't think we have any pressing things on the agenda that can't wait until next week
16:52:48 <paragan> right
16:53:01 <jsmith> #topic #1574 F25 System Wide Change: Removing Perl from Build Root
16:53:05 <jsmith> .fesco 1574
16:53:06 <zodbot> jsmith: #1574 (F25 System Wide Change: Removing Perl from Build Root) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1574
16:53:17 <jsmith> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1574
16:53:30 <nirik> +1 fine with me
16:53:39 <jsmith> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Build_Root_Without_Perl
16:54:08 <sgallagh> Any step towards ridding Perl from Fedora is fine with me ;-) (I kid, of course. But +1 to this)
16:54:10 <kalev> +1, I think it's a good change
16:54:17 <paragan> +1
16:54:21 <dgilmore> I do not have any issues with it, but i wonder if there will be any actual savings
16:54:45 <jsmith> Sounds like a lot of work to me, but as long as someone is willing to do the work, I don't have any objection
16:55:41 <jwb> +1
16:55:42 <jsmith> So I'll formally add a +1
16:55:48 <jsmith> dgilmore: Was that a +1?  +0?
16:55:48 <dgilmore> +1 also
16:56:22 <sgallagh> I've always kind of wondered why the default buildroot has anything at all besides rpm macro stuff.
16:56:25 <paragan> I think this was discussed in FPC meeting also for https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/620
16:56:37 <jsmith> #agreed Change is approved (+1:7,+0:0,-1:0)
16:56:49 <jsmith> #topic Next week's chair
16:56:50 <dgilmore> sgallagh: chroot setup
16:57:18 <kalev> I am likely to be away next Friday
16:57:32 <jsmith> kalev: Thanks for the heads up :-)
16:57:33 <dgilmore> I am on PTO next friday
16:57:34 <sgallagh> dgilmore: Well, macros and chroot setup, sure. But I don't know why any compiler or language interpreter is there if not to support that chroot itself.
16:57:55 <sgallagh> As far as I know, I'm around so I'll take it.
16:57:57 <sgallagh> It's been a while
16:58:08 <jsmith> #agreed sgallagh to chair next week's meeting
16:58:20 <jsmith> #topic Open Floor
16:58:33 <jsmith> Any other topics you'd like to discuss?
16:58:50 <jwb> a small offer of apology for missing so many meetings as of late.  hopefully my schedule is cleared up now
16:59:21 <jsmith> jwb: I could make the same apology -- hopefully thing will be better now that I'm settling into my new job, etc.
16:59:49 <jsmith> One question -- does anybody know if there's going to be a FESCo panel at Flock this summer?
16:59:50 <sgallagh> While we're apologizing: sorry about the whiplash on Node.js versions in F24 :-/
17:00:05 <jsmith> sgallagh: No worries -- thanks for doing that work.  I know it wasn't fun, but it was needed.
17:00:15 <sgallagh> jsmith: None of the talks have been announced yet
17:00:16 <jwb> jsmith: i can look
17:00:29 <jsmith> jwb: Thanks.... I was just curious
17:00:35 <jwb> i don't believe anyone submitted one
17:00:47 <sgallagh> We discussed it in here IIRC
17:01:00 <jwb> yes, but one is not submitted
17:01:04 <sgallagh> That the standard Q&A wasn't necessarily very interesting to participants
17:01:20 <sgallagh> jwb: I know, I'm explaining why I didn't submit it :)
17:01:25 <jwb> oh, right
17:01:32 <jwb> so the answer, as it stands today, is no
17:05:28 <kalev> I guess jsmith already left for the next meeting?
17:06:01 <kalev> #endmeeting