<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:00:26
!startmeeting FESCO (2026-07-14)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:28
Meeting started at 2026-07-14 17:00:26 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:28
The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2026-07-14)'
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:00:34
!meetingname fesco
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:00:35
The Meeting Name is now fesco
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:00:40
!group members fesco
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:00:43
Members of fesco: Fabio Valentini, Máirín Duffy, gotmax23 (@gotmax:matrix.org, @gotmax23:fedora.im), Jef Spaleta, Kevin Fenzi, ngompa (@conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @pharaoh_atem:opensuse.org, @ngompa:kde.org, @ngompa:almalinux.im), Michel Lind, Timothée Ravier, Simon de Vlieger, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:00:47
!topic Init Process
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:00:52
Hi :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:00:56
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:00:57
gotmax23: Maxwell G (gotmax23) - he / him / his or they / them / theirs
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:01:00
morning
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:02
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:05
Fabio Valentini 🌈: Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) - he / him / his
<@mfocko:fedora.im>
17:01:06
hi
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:01:13
Hey Matej.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:01:17
Welcome
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:01:31
jednorozec Cristian Le FESCo meeting starting
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:01:34
Let's give it a few minutes for people to show up.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:01:39
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:01:41
zbyszek: Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:02:27
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:28
jednorozec: Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:02:34
I think we're at 5 for now but we can wait a minute or two :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:03:03
I know Michel is on vacation
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:03:10
Timothee is as well.
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:03:31
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:32
Máirín Duffy: Máirín Duffy (duffy) - she / her / hers
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:04:34
Good, we have enough people here. Let's get started on the first topic. I think we have some of the forge migration people here but do we want to discuss that subject last or first?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:04:59
I think it's first on the agenda
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:05:19
It is, but if people still need to come along I can move it down, otherwise we can start with it :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:05:22
And then the people here can go if they don't want to discuss the other topics, so probably better to start with it anyway
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:05:33
Ok, let's do that.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:05:40
!topic #3623 Planning for Forgejo distgit migration
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:05:47
!forge issue fesco tickets 3623
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
● **Opened:** a month ago by gotmax23
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
**fesco/tickets #3623** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3623):**Planning for the Forgejo distgit migration**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:47
● **Last Updated:** 18 minutes ago
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:06:12
jednorozec sent a link to https://fedora-arc.readthedocs.io/en/latest/dist-git-move/index.html
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:06:31
I also put together a list of things in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3623#issuecomment-878538
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:06:37
Yeah that is work that was done by the team about 2-3 years ago?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:06:45
Ah I only just saw that link but haven't referenced it between what's in the ticket and on that list.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:08:06
There is also magazine article in making with roadmap, I want to get it out next week.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:08:19
Whats the scope of what we want to discuss in meeting today on this? The lists/plans are good...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:08:23
So I think it would be good to agree on a list of requirements/priorities for the migration in the ticket. In the meeting, maybe we can have a higher level conversation about current planning deadlines, communication going forward, any individual issues we want to discuss, etc?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:21
yeah, timelines would be good to discuss. I guess if we are planning this later this year, we should do it _after_ f45 is out the door, right?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:09:23
People expressed that it'd be good to have some ongoing communication between FESCo and the Forge team so we could provide more granular feedback on things as we go instead of having one massive Change Proposal to review
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:09:58
yes, and maybe even later before the 46 mass rebuild
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:10:19
Currently the biggest hurdle I can see are the missing upstream features
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:10:36
The hurdle there is the holidays...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:10:44
People expressed that it'd be good to have some ongoing communication between FESCo and the Forge team so we could provide more granular feedback on things as we go instead of having one massive Change Proposal to review (well, not instead of a formal Change, but in addition to)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:10:45
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:10:47
Conan Kudo 😌: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:11:10
F46 mass rebuild is scheduled for 2027-01-20
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:11:18
Hey Conan Kudo 😌 we're discussing the dist-git forge at the moment.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:11:27
I mean in general, we are missing some importatn features like + in the repo name
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:11:42
My big concerns currently are the `Enforcing push rules` and `Handling permissions` parts in the list I posted
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:11:43
the AlmaLinux folks contributed a patch for that, I think?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:11:51
It's unclear to me how some of those things translate to Forgejo
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:11:59
They did but I didnt chek the state of
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:12:03
And then just making sure the existing integrations don't break
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:12:30
yeah, a clearer mapping of packager/groups/provenpackager/etc to the forgejo permission model would be good to document and confirm it's ok
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:12:47
I'm pretty sure that as it currently stands, it's not okay
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:13:06
that's going to be a big sticking point to figure out
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:13:13
it's hard to say without clear mapping of how it's going to be done...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:13:29
Oh, I guess the third concern is the UI features currently implemented by pagure-dist-git
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:13:30
This is the first shot at handling ACl's https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org/Rainbows-and-Unicorns/issue_creation_test/issues/122
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:14:12
looks like limbo: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12205
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:14:22
the roadmap will land in the production forge trackers this week so I can link to the features in the magazine article
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:14:50
Andrew is waiting on testing feedback from you, it looks like
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:14:59
yeah, you mean like release monitoring/default ticket assignees/etc ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:15:20
well and things like the package table
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:15:23
Yes, and the orphaning/take orphan workflow
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:16:13
I think most of these things are mentioned in the FESco ticket, so if jednorozec and friends are tracking that issue then I'll assume they end up on the roadmap in some form or another?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:16:16
I recognize the package table and links to Bodhi and Koschei and Koji as UI features that are missing, but I'm not sure they're as crucial as the ones we need to actually change settings like BZ assignees
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:16:18
Also 5 minute 'warning' for this topic.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:16:19
that's why I didn't list them
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:16:36
but not having them would be a downgrade, yes
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:16:49
Yes they will, the ticket was created as I left for PTO so I didnt really get to it...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:16:56
gotmax23: they exist because we don't have anything else to present this since pkgdb is gone
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:05
not sure about that. the updates table is more often wrong than right :D
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:17:47
So trying to work towards something, do we have any action items that we want to come out of this? Shall we review the roadmap and potentially rediscuss after that is made public?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:57
that sounds good to me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:18:15
sounds as good as anything else right now
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:18:34
So I think we are on the same page as there are 2 kind of features. UI/ cosmetic ones like the package table and crucial process ones like orphan process.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:18:52
For those crucial things, is there currently a plan for that?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:18:57
It's easier as soon as there's a concrete thing of 'this is our plan' to then discuss that specific plan. Right now we don't really have a starting list except two disparate things in the FESco ticket and that arc list.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:20:05
So, I see action Item for me here. Get the roadmap into prod trackers and publish article. Once that is done we will have more to talk about.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:20:43
Note that the arc thing is a few years old... just an investigation done at that time
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:20:44
Do I need to do a !proposed + !action or such? (First time leading this).
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:20:49
Sounds good. We can then decide if/when we want to have another meeting if appropriate.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:20:54
I think that's fine. Can you post it in the FESCo ticket when it's done and we can provide further feedback and vote?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:21:02
THe ARC investigation should be covering that and there are tickets in the test roadmap that cover that.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:21:17
"!action would be good"
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:21:23
And what do we think about ongoing feedback/communication?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:21:28
I mean "!action" would be good.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:21:37
Is there a plan for regular update posts or something like with the pagure.io effort?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:22:09
Ack then: !proposed We'll keep the ticket open. jednorozec has an action item for a roadmap will be published on Fedora Magazine and public trackers next week. After that FESco has something concrete to look at and we can continue the discussion.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:22:15
My main problem with those update posts is they were more "this is what we're doing" and less "what is the community feedback about this".
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:22:56
The larger problem is the decisions and policies being made that affect us without community consultation.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:23:14
The thing is that when the team lead was posting updates to discussions there was not much feedback or interest in them...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:23:28
yes, I'd like to do better with that this time around
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:23:44
that wasn't my experience
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:24:14
We're out of time for discussing this subject, perhaps we go with the action itme that jednorozec will publish roadmaps and FESco will evaluate them?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:24:46
if there's agreement to extend the discussion over 15 minutes, we can
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:25:03
it sounds like we have a plan for going over the requirements, but I was asking about the second ongoing communication/feedback now
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:25:07
Ah I wasn't aware, that's fine then let's let it go to :30; the other subjects aren't very large.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:25:09
I'm fine waiting for a roadmap and doing an additional checkin after that
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:25:12
it sounds like we have a plan for going over the requirements, but I was asking about the second ongoing communication/feedback part now
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:26:03
Well what do you have in mind? Forge team has a matrix chanell and we are trying to publish updates.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:27:00
All the work is tracked in public trackers in the forge. So what is your expectation on this? Should we ask for feedback in discussions?
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:27:00
could be helpful to have data of where comms went wrong to try to figure out the right place / time for what types of decisions / plans / feedback loops
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:28:22
there were various discussions about CI and organization in Fedora Forge spread out throughout multiple discourse posts, but it didn't feel like the Forge team actually considered them
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:28:41
so it's fully connecting the feedback loop
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:28:48
is the main issue
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:29:00
A decision was made about organizations and a decision was eventually communicated about Actions runners but it didn't really feel like a community process
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:21
we definitely didn't get consulted or have a say about that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:26
as a community
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:29:31
that just kind of happened
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:30:13
Well what exactly? I remember we had public discussion in discussions about the org structure
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:30:13
and the Actions decision was ultimately agreeable, but it just kind of happened
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:31:02
well, it didn't feel like the Discussions were fully factored into the decision processes
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:31:04
would it make sense to have a retro about it
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:31:17
get both sides at the table and build a timeline and agree on the communication gaps?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:31:38
in FESCo, tickets and votes being tied to a specific community discussion thread is very explicit
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:32:20
we don't have to discuss or decide this all here and now, but I was just pointing out what I saw as shortcomings that we can hopefully improve on
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:33:03
and if you want FESCo to vote on specific things so there is some community process, that would be welcome I think
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:33:39
I just felt the happenings in the pagure.io migration were very opaque to me
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:33:42
I think perhaps with a roadmap/more of a plan we could identify those areas that we would want more community input on...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:34:08
Yep.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:34:29
I think we've voiced the concerns. Let's wait for the roadmap, and then discuss again.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:34:32
Yea, I feel the only concrete action item so far is for jednorozec to publish the roadmaps in tracker(s) and on Fedora Magazine and then we discuss and identify things in that and work on them together :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:34:35
ack
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:35:03
!proposed !action jednorozec to publish the roadmap to dist-git migration in tracker(s) and on Fedora Manazine. FESco to evaluate and discuss after.
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:35:17
Well it is published its just not in the prod yet https://forge.stg.fedoraproject.org/Rainbows-and-Unicorns/issue_creation_test/projects/44
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:35:39
All the better. Just one click away.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:35:45
Ack for the proposed action
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:36:19
Yes, we could evaluate that. But it's a bit difficult to go through 124 different issues in a tracker
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:36:32
ack
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:37:03
gotmax23: there is a project board with features epics and tickets, just click through it
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:37:37
Anyone against the proposed action, I'd like to move on to the next subject and I don't know if I have to wait for everyone to ack it :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:37:57
ack and I think move on. ;)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:38:12
!action jednorozec to publish the roadmap to dist-git migration in tracker(s) and on Fedora Manazine. FESco to evaluate and discuss after.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:38:13
yeah, it's not a formal proposal, so I think post and move on
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:38:22
!topic #3628 Change: libxml215
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:38:27
thanks everyone who came to the meeting to discuss!
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:38:28
!forge issue fesco tickets 3628
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:38:29
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:38:29
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:38:29
**fesco/tickets #3628** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3628):**Change: libxml215**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:38:29
● **Last Updated:** 11 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:38:29
● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by amoloney
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:38:34
Yes thank you jednorozec :)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:39:09
I don't think Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⛱️ is present today, do we know if anyone responded or do we want to hold another week?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:40
it looks like the impact check is still progressing so I'd rather wait
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:39:51
yeah, waiting sounds good.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:39:53
That's fine
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:40:18
worksforme
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:40:40
ACk.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:41:08
!info impact check result reported on the mailing list is "15 failures related to libxml2 and 45 probably-unrelated failures (mostly seem related to other packages being updated, such as gtk4)."
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:41:23
Next topic.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:41:25
!topic #3634 Adjust election policy re. seats filled after a member steps down mid-term?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:41:30
!forge issue fesco tickets 3634
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:31
● **Opened:** a week ago by gotmax23
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:31
**fesco/tickets #3634** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3634):**Adjust election policy re. seats filled after a member steps down mid-term?**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:31
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:31
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:41:31
● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:41:46
I don't think this needs a meeting discussion. There is a newly opened PR to review.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:41:55
yup
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:42:07
Ok, easy.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:42:14
yeah, saw the pr but haven't looked in detail yet
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:42:21
!info A new PR was opened to review for this, FESco to take a look.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:42:36
Then we get to the last topic.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:42:38
!topic Next week's chair
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:43:33
I haven't done this in a while, can do.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:43:50
!action zbyszek to chair next week's meeting.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:43:54
Thanks zbyszek :)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:44:17
I had a open floor item...
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:44:17
Let's move on to open floor then.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:44:19
!topic Open Floor
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:44:30
nirik: Perfect, that's exactly where we are now :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:44:50
so it looks like two Changes that impact the mass rebuild were filed rather late (gnu toolchain /shadow stack)? they're up for vote now but the mass rebuild is scheduled for tomorrow
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:05
So, https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3641 (gnu tools) update was just filed for voting, but mass rebuild is tomorrow morning. ;(
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:11
yeah, thats what I was gonna bring up. ;)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:45:22
ah. sorry. didn't want to preempt you :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:45:27
I think we're basically forced to vote on those today
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:28
no worries.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:45:42
we're not doing two mass rebuilds for this
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:45:42
technically, the tools one is very late. It's system wide and that deadline is past.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:46:05
Also, I'll note that the fontconfig Change already happened before it was voted on
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:14
technically that change probably didn't need to be filed either, since there are no ABI breakages for this cycle
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:26
I was confused why it was filed since we're already on GCC 16
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:46:27
It wasn't a groundbreaking Change, but it would be nice if people followed the policies
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:45
there is essentially no compiler uplift so it doesn't matter that much
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:47:28
I don't care that much, people can do as much Change-based marketing as they like
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:48:02
Was the vote on gnu tools created late or was the entire change proposal submitted late?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:48:02
I suppose it's all already landed then?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:48:03
Is shadow stack scheduled for F45?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:48:09
It sounds like we should vote to defer that
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:48:14
yes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:48:20
that one I think we need to bounce it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:48:27
the toolchain one, meh, it's fine
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:48:30
technically just the vote I think
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:49:00
the shadowstack change has pretty deep and scary implications
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:49:21
Proposal: FastTrack the glibc change proposal and immediately reassign the shadowstack to F46.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:49:25
I'm not a fan of the idea that Fedora is just automatically broken by default for plugins
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:49:29
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:49:37
+1 to zbyszek proposal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:49:39
yeah, it was submitted the day before the system wide change deadline
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:49:56
+1 to zbyszek's proposal
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:50:03
Or, hmm, we could actually just immediately vote on the GNU proposal.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:50:09
+1 to zbyszek
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:50:16
Sorry, I think that's better.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:50:17
technically they shouldn't
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:50:27
Yeah, let's do separate votes
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:50:33
toolchain updates are required to land one week before
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:50:48
so... hum.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:02
gcc-16.1.1-4.fc45
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:51:08
Proposal: Approve GNU Toolchain Change for F44
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:51:16
+1
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:51:41
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:46
NOTE: this will likely mean a deal in mass rebuild
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:51:54
NOTE: this will likely mean a delay in mass rebuild
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:51:57
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:52:31
16.2 is not significant over 16.1, I don't know why it wouldn't get shipped to F44 too
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:52:34
+1 I guess.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:52:50
well, the change says 16.2... we don't have 16.2. Is the change wrong?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:53:00
to clarify, the change proposal says GCC 16.2, and we currently have 16.1, so we'd wait with the mass rebuild for that to land? or not?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:09
yes.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:53:37
any idea when that might happen? 😄
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:53:54
¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I have no idea. We would need to talk with tools folks...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:54:07
I'm actually confused why gcc is even listed for this change
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:54:28
they file a toolchain CP every 6 months even if they're no major bumps.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:54:31
We're currently at +5 for accepting the GNU Toolchain change.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:54:40
(in this meeting)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:54:44
I'm ok with +1ing this, and then have releng and tools folks work out what needs to happen for mass rebuild or adjusting the change.
<@duffy:fedora.im>
17:54:51
im +1 to accept GNU Toolchain
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:54:54
I'm 0
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:55:17
Can we do anything to improve this in the future?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:55:25
How do I mark a 0 on the thing?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:55:33
Agreed with what nirik said about letting releng and tools teams figure out the details.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:55:34
I know release cycles are tight, etc., but this is problematic for everyone else
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:55:37
the schedule change was supposed to improve things ... but eh
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:55:37
we can probably remind them that their deadline is earlier than the standard one
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:55:40
I think it probibly got delayed in processing due to flock?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:55:51
yeah, I think that and PTO was part of it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:55:57
I'm willing to cut them a little slack since this is the first year with the new one
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:56:03
the number in the middle of (+1, 0, -1) indicates the number of 0 votes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:56:13
we added the new deadlines with F44 and F45
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:56:21
Fabio Valentini 🌈: Thanks.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:24
yeah, reminder about that too indeed.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:56:50
oh, there is a redhat-rpm-config pr also mentioned in the change: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/364#
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:56:53
!agree Approve GNU Toolchain Change for F44 (+6, 1, 0)
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:57:11
!agreed Approve GNU Toolchain Change for F44 (+6, 1, 0)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:57:11
'd
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:12
> Change Checkpoint: Major Toolchain Updates/Changes have landed in Rawhide deadline on Mon 2026-07-13
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:12
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:12
I see
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:57:16
Yea I noticed that.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:57:21
That's not not week in advance
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
17:57:29
What about the ShadowStack one, does it need an agreed here or can we defer it in-ticket?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:57:45
ah. two days then. not a week. but eh
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:08
technically with -1 votes it's scheduled for meeting discussion
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:58:18
Proposal: The ShadowStack proposal is reassigned to F46
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:33
nack
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:58:34
!action gotmax to create ticket to make Major Toolchain Updates/Changes schedule item a week before the mass rebuild
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
17:58:40
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:50
that's not our decision though
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:59:10
well, as it is stands, we might want to just reject it instead
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:59:27
the results of the discussion doesn't exactly have "good feels"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:59:38
the result of the discussion doesn't exactly have "good feels"
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:00:05
so... we could just leave this for the regular process?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:00:07
We reassign proposals all the time. I think the proposal needs more discussion, and it's too late for F45. By reassigning it to F46 we send a signal that it's still up for discussion.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:00:28
I think we should first answer if it still _is_ up for discussion
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:00:30
no, we punt things that are already approved but just don't get implemented in time
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:00:46
But rejecting it for F45 and then starting over for F46 is fine too. If people prefer that, I'm OK.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:00:50
that's different than telling people to target their changes at a different release in the first place.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:00:57
needs more 'baking' time
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:01:08
so do you want us to formally reject it instead?
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:01:27
postponing seems like the most reasonable course of action to me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:01:57
if we defer discussion of the ticket, we need to punt it to f46, but I think it'd be unfair to do that only to wind up rejecting it the next week
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:02:35
okay, I guess we can just defer discussion and not make any statement about release targets
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:02:38
yet
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:02:44
does that sound more reasonable?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:02:51
I don't know 🤷♂️
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:03:08
it won't change my -1 vote
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:08
it depends on how the rest of fesco feels about the proposal right now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:15
I know there's at least two -1 votes
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:03:25
3 now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:30
ah
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:05
I'm wanting to hear if they address all the concerns before deciding my vote... but yes, that means they will have to retarget f46 probibly...
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:04:13
The ticket was filed yesterday so I don't want to just reject it without giving them a chance to respond
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:04:30
I think we should postpone to next meeting and leave it at that for now
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:04:39
Fine with me.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:04:58
Sure, though the end result will be the same. In that case we have no action item to come out of this right?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:05:07
Well, likely be the same due to the mass rebuilds.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:05:23
unless they have some way to patially enable it, but yeah...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:05:39
with both GNOME and KDE being forced to opt out, as well as the software management stack, I don't know if it's actually a useful feature for F45 or F46
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:05:57
I thought fixing rust was part of the Change
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:06:00
Right but that all needs discussion and concern addressing :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:06:08
Or was it just mentioned as something that'd need an opt-out?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:20
FWIW there was also no responses on the discussion thread
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:06:20
I read the latter
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:39
"For Rust, binary packages need to be rebuilt once the Rust dependency is in place. "
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:55
it is listed as a dependency but it would need to be implemented in the next few hours to make a difference
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:06:57
> we are collaborating with the Rust team and have already tested a rustc change that enables emitting compatible binaries by default
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:02
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3641
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:05
oop[s
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:16
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2196282 I meant
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:06
anyhow, lets punt.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:08:12
agreed
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:08:15
note: last comment on 2024-07-09
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:08:42
Can we conclude this topic with we'll let it run its course in the ticket vote? :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:02
well, if there's any -1s in the ticket, it must be discussed in a meeting
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:21
but I don't think we should decide on it in this meeting, since there hasn't been sufficient time for the owners to respond
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:09:31
Right, but that'd be the next meeting as several people are holding votes to see if concerns are going to be addressed :)
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:33
hence, my proposal that we postpone to next week
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:09:40
yes
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:09:58
!proposed !action Discuss ShadowStack proposal at next weeks meeting.
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:10:23
It should be !Info not !action, but otherwise yes
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:10:36
eh, fine ...
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:10:37
(I'll change it to !info)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:10:38
ack
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:10:55
I'm ack myself as well so with 4 I'll make it so.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:11:05
!info Discuss ShadowStack proposal at next weeks meeting.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:11:11
Anything else for open floor?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:12:02
(I'll wait a minute or so before closing the meeting, some people haven't caught upt yet)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:12:24
∅
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:13:02
∅
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:13:06
Ok, thanks everyone for being here and watching me bumble through the process.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:13:12
!endmeeting
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:13:17
Simon de Vlieger:++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:13:18
gotmax23 gave a cookie to supakeen. They now have 15 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:13:20
Simon de Vlieger: thanks for chairing!
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:13:27
Thanks everyone!
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:13:39
ngompa gave a cookie to supakeen. They now have 16 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 44 release cycle
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:13:46
Did zodbot not work?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:13:49
Seems not.
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:13:53
!endmeeting
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:13:58
Or maybe it's calculating.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:14:06
eh ... endmeeting didn't fire?
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:14:13
No, I tried it twice. Panic.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:14:29
😅😅
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:14:47
!endmeeting
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:14:56
We're stuck here :<
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:02
Simon de Vlieger++
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:15:04
Sorry, could not get info from FASJSON (code 500)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:15:05
Nooooo :(
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:08
!endmeeting
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:15:17
ah it's network doom
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:18
okay, the bot is choking
<@gotmax23:fedora.im>
18:15:21
Whoever gets it to end has to chair next week
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:15:26
!heynicebotendthemeetingprettyplease
<@supakeen:fedora.im>
18:15:33
!endmeeting