Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-11-27)

Wed Nov 27 19:20:51 UTC 2013

===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-11-27)
===================================

Meeting started by mmaslano at 18:00:39 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-11-27/fesco.2013-11-27-18.00.log.html
.

Meeting summary
---------------
* init process  (mmaslano, 18:03:04)

* #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?  (mmaslano,
   18:03:40)
   * ACTION: mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page
     and release notes  (mmaslano, 18:09:08)

* #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default  (mmaslano,
   18:09:21)
   * AGREED: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0)  (mmaslano,
     18:14:48)
   * Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those already fixed  (mmaslano,
     18:15:27)

* #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug procedure  (mmaslano,
   18:15:36)
   * defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it again  (mmaslano,
     18:17:28)

* #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17
   (mmaslano, 18:18:10)
   * ACTION: mmaslano will close the old ticket  (mmaslano, 18:20:20)

* #1201 Enabling third party repositories  (mmaslano, 18:20:34)
   * ACTION: abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait
     for spot answer  (mmaslano, 18:28:44)
   * ACTION: abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal  (mmaslano,
     18:40:58)

* #1207 provenpackager request  (mmaslano, 18:41:06)
   * ACTION: mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
     (mmaslano, 18:44:30)

* #1208     Request Proven Packager  (mmaslano, 18:44:34)
   * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy
     (abadger1999, 18:48:13)
   * ACTION: nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add
     permission to those users  (mmaslano, 18:51:13)

* Next week's chair  (mmaslano, 18:51:34)
   * ACTION: mattdm wil be chairman next week  (mmaslano, 18:55:42)

* Open Floor  (mmaslano, 18:55:49)

Meeting ended at 18:59:50 UTC.

Action Items
------------
* mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and
   release notes
* mmaslano will close the old ticket
* abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for spot
   answer
* abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
* mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
* nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to
   those users
* mattdm wil be chairman next week

Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* abadger1999
   * abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for
     spot answer
   * abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
* mattdm
   * mattdm will contact the Change owner to update the wiki page and
     release notes
   * mattdm wil be chairman next week
* mmaslano
   * mmaslano will close the old ticket
   * mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto approval
* nirik
   * nirik will close both provenpackager tickets and add permission to
     those users
* sgallagh
   * abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question and we will wait for
     spot answer
* **UNASSIGNED**
   * (none)

People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mmaslano (77)
* sgallagh (38)
* nirik (37)
* abadger1999 (29)
* mattdm (27)
* zodbot (12)
* mitr (7)
* jreznik (1)
* t8m (0)
* pjones (0)
* notting (0)

18:00:39 <mmaslano> #startmeeting FESCO (2013-11-27)
18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Nov 27 18:00:39 2013 UTC.  The 
chair is mmaslano. Information about MeetBot at 
http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea 
#link #topic.
18:00:44 <mmaslano> #meetingname fesco
18:00:44 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
18:00:49 <mmaslano> #chair abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano notting 
nirik pjones t8m sgallagh
18:00:49 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 mattdm mitr mmaslano nirik 
notting pjones sgallagh t8m
18:01:17 * nirik is sort of here, but dealing with an outage
18:01:21 <mmaslano> t8m appologies from meeting
18:01:28 <mmaslano> how many people are here?
18:02:11 <mitr> Hello
18:02:15 <mattdm> i am
18:02:29 <mmaslano> sgallagh: ?
18:02:40 <sgallagh> .hellomynameis sgallagh
18:02:45 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 
<sgallagh at redhat.com>
18:02:49 <mmaslano> 5 people
18:02:56 <mmaslano> it's a meeting
18:03:04 <mmaslano> #topic init process
18:03:40 <mmaslano> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready 
for this?
18:03:44 <mmaslano> .fesco 1193
18:03:45 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1193 (reboots for all updates -- are we 
ready for this?) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
18:03:51 <mmaslano> not sure about status of this one
18:04:05 <mmaslano> imho nothing is happening
18:04:13 <sgallagh> I think we were waiting on someone to update the 
Change page with the actual implementation
18:04:21 <mattdm> we were looking for changes to the feature page and 
release notes.
18:04:30 <mattdm> also something in the release notes.
18:04:32 <sgallagh> Shall we ping Richard again?
18:04:58 <mmaslano> preferably not in the ticket
18:05:01 <mmaslano> he didn't reply there
18:05:11 * abadger1999 here
18:06:47 <mmaslano> who shall ping him?
18:07:26 <mattdm> I -think- jreznik was going to?
18:07:41 <mmaslano> jreznik: ?
18:08:05 <nirik> actually from last meeting:
18:08:09 * nirik mattdm to contact the Change owner to update the wiki 
page and release notes
18:08:11 <nirik> :)
18:08:38 <mattdm> oooohh.
18:08:40 * jreznik can re-check and there's follow up to be announced
18:08:42 <mattdm> okay sorry :)
18:08:47 <mattdm> I will do it.
18:09:08 <mmaslano> #action mattdm will contact the Change owner to 
update the wiki page and release notes
18:09:21 <mmaslano> #topic #1185 Enable "-Werror=format-security" by default
18:09:25 <mmaslano> .fesco 1185
18:09:27 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1185 (Enable "-Werror=format-security" by 
default) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1185
18:10:44 <nirik> so, not sure there's more to do here for us.... ?
18:11:11 <mmaslano> sgallagh had last comment there
18:11:36 <mmaslano> from last meeting:  wait a week for devel feedback 
(from people already interested); 2) if there are no show-stoppers 
identified, mass file bugs; 3) 3 weeks later, enable in rawhide 
configuration by default
18:11:43 <mmaslano> it's a week, so no action
18:11:59 <sgallagh> So I think we just need to vote: okay to mass-file 
at this point?
18:12:04 <sgallagh> Sorry...
18:12:12 <mitr> Yes, +1 to start filing bugs
18:12:13 <sgallagh> Proposal: Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs
18:12:17 <nirik> not much more feedback on devel list I don't think... 
so I think change owners can move forward on 2) and 3)
18:12:17 <sgallagh> +1
18:12:49 <mmaslano> +1 to mass file bugs
18:12:53 <nirik> sure, +1, but they should make sure not to file against 
the already fixed ones.
18:14:04 <mmaslano> abadger1999: ?
18:14:12 <sgallagh> nirik: Worst-case, they get closed immediately. I'm 
not too sure I want to force them to do another mass-rebuild just to 
limit the bug-filing
18:14:15 <abadger1999> +1
18:14:35 <nirik> well, it's not really mass... it's the 300... but whatever.
18:14:48 <mmaslano> #agreed Give the go-ahead to mass-file bugs (+5,-0,0)
18:15:06 <abadger1999> nirik: Agreed
18:15:27 <mmaslano> #info Change owner shouldn't file bugs for those 
already fixed
18:15:36 <mmaslano> #topic #1198 Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug 
procedure
18:15:40 <mmaslano> .fesco 1198
18:15:41 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1198 (Possible changes to Fedora EOL bug 
procedure) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1198
18:16:13 <mattdm> i need to retest this.
18:16:35 <mattdm> I haven't had a chance, though. Vote to defer until 
more testing is done.
18:16:42 <mattdm> Because _something_ definitely isn't right.
18:16:51 <nirik> fair enough
18:17:28 <mmaslano> #info defer for a next week, mattdm needs to test it 
again
18:17:43 <mattdm> at LISA I had someone show me bugs he couldn't reopen. 
saw with my own eyes.
18:18:03 <mmaslano> mattdm: ok, please continue
18:18:07 <mmaslano> in testing :)
18:18:10 <mmaslano> #topic #1140 F20 Self Contained Changes - week 
2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17
18:18:14 <mmaslano> .fesco 1140
18:18:15 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1140 (F20 Self Contained Changes - week 
2013-07-10 - 2013-07-17) – FESCo - 
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1140
18:18:38 <nirik> I think this can be closed after the agreed from last week
18:18:47 <nirik> unless there's new info?
18:19:10 <mmaslano> it's not clear from the last comment
18:19:45 <sgallagh> I left it open mainly for us to keep track of it
18:19:47 <mmaslano> should I close it and it's up to QA?
18:19:54 <sgallagh> mmaslano: That's probably fine
18:20:03 <mmaslano> sgallagh: you know what happens to open tickets like 
this
18:20:05 <nirik> +1 close.
18:20:15 <sgallagh> mmaslano: They waste time in this meeting? :)
18:20:20 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close the old ticket
18:20:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1201 Enabling third party repositories
18:20:37 <mmaslano> .fesco 1201
18:20:38 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1201 (Enabling third party repositories) – 
FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1201
18:21:55 <sgallagh> The only question that was asked received a prompt 
answer.
18:22:05 <mattdm> okay, so, that's: okay for coprs.
18:22:17 <mmaslano> spot answered in the ticket: I see no legal issue 
with a copr including a "repo" rpm that enables that copr on a user's 
system, assuming, of course, that the copr is in compliance with the 
legal rules binding coprs.
18:22:35 <mattdm> I'm pretty happy with agreeing to _that_ reduced 
subset: repo files for COPRs can be shipped in RPMs.
18:22:47 <mmaslano> I'll speak to Mirek tomorrow and close this ticket
18:22:55 <mmaslano> I guess there are no more issues to solve here
18:23:01 <sgallagh> mattdm: But only in RPMs served outside the main 
Fedora repos
18:23:12 <mmaslano> sure
18:23:19 <sgallagh> just to be clear
18:23:37 * nirik is still confused.
18:23:38 <mitr> I've generally assumed that the primary case here was 
things like Chrome, Flash and the like, not COPRs
18:24:06 <sgallagh> mitr: I take away from this that Fedora repos cannot 
ship repo files pointing outside of Fedora repos.
18:24:06 <abadger1999> nirik: I think what spot answered was "the way 
coprs currently operates is fine"
18:24:10 <nirik> those repo files for copr repos, are shipped in rpms in 
the copr right? or are you positing they are in fedora itself?
18:24:11 <mattdm> sgallagh Yes. Although I'm also okay in principle with 
the larger (still reduced) case of including COPRs-repo-rpms in main 
fedora repos.
18:24:11 <sgallagh> (Yo dawg...)
18:24:41 <mmaslano> mitr: yeah, but legal said no if I remeber
18:24:42 <sgallagh> nirik: The ruling is that they may not be shipped 
from Fedora[-updates] repos
18:24:42 <mattdm> COPRs is Fedora (Project) but not Fedora (Distribution).
18:24:48 <abadger1999> He was not asked about whether having the copr 
yum repos be shipped inside of the Fedora Main Repos would be okay.
18:24:55 <nirik> mattdm: that gets back to adding a burden on legal
18:25:02 <nirik> ok, fine.
18:25:05 <mmaslano> abadger1999: so this will be the next question :)
18:25:09 <sgallagh> abadger1999: That was the EXACT question I posed.
18:25:15 <sgallagh> Did I phrase it ambiguously?
18:25:19 <abadger1999> sgallagh: yes.
18:25:37 <abadger1999> Well -- let me verify... I know that spot 
answered a different question than that.
18:25:42 <sgallagh> "Specifically, does this mean: On a pristine 
installed system, I cannot do 'yum install 
package-providing-repo-for-a-copr'"
18:25:56 <nirik> It wasn't clear to me.
18:25:59 <mattdm> proposal: rephrase that question, wait until next week.
18:26:05 * sgallagh sighs
18:26:16 <nirik> yum install http://copr.whatever/foo-copr.rpm
18:26:18 <mattdm> on rereading it looks clear to me but obviously it 
isn't to everyone.
18:26:30 <mitr> mattdm: ... and ask jwb whether the answer is relevant 
to the Workstation WG
18:26:30 <mmaslano> sgallagh: only one question per comment, otherwise 
it's confusing ;-)
18:26:40 <abadger1999> sgallagh: ah here's where things got ambiguous:
18:26:49 <abadger1999> Right after that example you said: "Or does it 
also mean that COPR cannot provide an RPM for a particular repo. "
18:27:04 <abadger1999> sgallagh: That's the question that spot answered.
18:27:10 <nirik> I think it might be more clear to list out specific 
examples.
18:27:16 * sgallagh facepalms
18:27:36 <sgallagh> Ok, someone gooder with words than me should do that.
18:27:55 <mattdm> Okay go abadger1999 :)
18:28:03 <abadger1999> haha :-)
18:28:06 <mmaslano> sgallagh: not me, I understand I can install copr 
repo and it can be shipped :)
18:28:15 <abadger1999> Okay, I can rephrase sgallagh's question.
18:28:41 <sgallagh> Thank you
18:28:42 <abadger1999> If other people have questions, please add those 
to the ticket yourselves :-)
18:28:44 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will rephrase sgallagh question 
and we will wait for spot answer
18:29:07 <mattdm> On the rest of the question, do we ant to say 
something about a) the proprietary repos and/or b) non-COPRs 
free-software repos?
18:29:26 <mmaslano> I guess Workstation WG asked first
18:29:41 <sgallagh> mattdm: I interpreted this to mean that COPRs and 
non-COPRs free-software repos should be treated equivalently
18:30:18 <mattdm> As I understood it there is a difference because we 
already have some responsibility over COPRs repos
18:30:19 <mmaslano> if they obey Fedora licensing
18:31:05 <nirik> mattdm: but no one is reviewing that unless someone 
reports a problem.
18:31:17 <sgallagh> Well, if we assume the ruling is "Fedora 
distribution cannot ship repo files for COPRs and other external repos", 
then this is a moot point
18:31:21 <abadger1999> mattdm: My impression from talking with spot at 
FPC is that COPR is included in "other third party repos" in terms of 
Fedora Legal having to vette the packages within them in an on-going manner.
18:31:52 <mattdm> okay, so, let's wait until that is answered then.
18:32:06 <sgallagh> Or add your question as a corrolary on the bug
18:32:06 <abadger1999> mattdm: But -- repos with proprietary software 
are even more work for Fedora Legal to vette than other third party 
repositories.
18:32:30 <sgallagh> abadger1999: He said "free software"
18:32:46 <abadger1999> So... it may be easier for Fedora Legal to vette 
Copr repos than, say, the adobe flash repo but it would still be a lot 
of extra work.
18:33:25 * nirik isnt sure question 2 of the orig ticket was really answered
18:33:59 <nirik> "Can products make third party repositories 
discoverable via search terms in some fashion and easily enabled without 
actually shipping the .repo files"
18:34:09 <abadger1999> sgallagh: he == spot?  I was just replying to 
mattdm's "a) the proprietary repos".
18:34:34 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Ah sorry. Missed the a) portion there. 
Carry on.
18:35:59 <nirik> I guess the 'putting them in docdir' was answered... 
not sure how else the 'search terms' would work.
18:36:09 <abadger1999> nirik: yeah, I don't think that was directly 
addressed -- it seems like it's trying to define a boundary in a big 
grey zone, though, so it may need to be more specific (have an example).
18:36:30 <nirik> yeah, if so we should ask the workstation wg for 
examples. ;)
18:37:09 <mitr> nirik: GNOME software would be a likely place
18:37:42 <nirik> mitr: sure, but how?
18:38:08 <abadger1999> I think the limits of "discoverable" and "search 
terms" probably could get us into contirbutory infringement territory.
18:38:10 <mitr> nirik: ... who cares?  appdata, 
/usr/share/gnome-software/something, hardcoded in the binary, what does 
it matter?
18:38:36 <nirik> mitr: see above.
18:38:43 <nirik> if we point to specific things, legal has to vet them
18:38:55 <abadger1999> So someone probably needs to say "This is how it 
would operate" and then Legal could say "that is fine" or "that is not 
fine".
18:39:06 <nirik> right
18:40:29 <nirik> anyhow, lets move on? I or abadger1999 can ask them for 
more examples?
18:40:39 <sgallagh> Yes please (to both)
18:40:58 <mmaslano> #action abadger1999 will ask proper questions to legal
18:41:06 <mmaslano> #topic #1207 provenpackager request
18:41:13 <mmaslano> .fesco 1207
18:41:14 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1207 (provenpackager request) – FESCo - 
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1207
18:41:28 <abadger1999> mmaslano: uh...
18:41:45 <abadger1999> I don't think I can sign up for more than 
rephrasing sgallagh's question.
18:41:54 <mmaslano> abadger1999: fine by me
18:42:30 <mmaslano> abadger1999: I guess we can fight about questions 
later in the ticket
18:42:55 <mmaslano> Michal Srb, I guess we only approve, no -1 in the ticket
18:42:56 <abadger1999> This second part of the question I'm pretty sure 
Legal will want to know the specifics of what we want to do is and 
that's something I odn't know the answer to.
18:43:57 <nirik> mmaslano: yeah, auto approve on this one.
18:44:08 <sgallagh> +1 approve (as noted in the ticket)
18:44:30 <mmaslano> #action mmaslano will close this ticket, no -1, auto 
approval
18:44:34 <mmaslano> #topic #1208     Request Proven Packager
18:44:39 <mmaslano> .fesco 1208
18:44:40 <zodbot> mmaslano: #1208 (Request Proven Packager) – FESCo - 
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1208
18:45:14 <nirik> not enough +1's...
18:45:18 * nirik looks
18:45:29 <mmaslano> tstclair
18:45:50 <mmaslano> do we have some minimal +1's?
18:45:54 <mmaslano> I see only +2
18:46:07 * mattdm looks
18:46:26 <mattdm> +1
18:46:31 <sgallagh> other members of the SIG for which he wants 
provenpackager seem to support it.
18:46:35 <nirik> +1 from me... I've not talked to tstclair in a while, 
but I recall condor packaging is good.
18:46:35 <sgallagh> I'm +1 on those grounds.
18:47:27 <abadger1999> Has commit on 7 packages: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/tstclair?acls=owner&acls=approveacls&acls=commit
18:48:09 <abadger1999> mmaslano: You must get at least 3 positive votes 
with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be 
automatically approved.
18:48:13 <abadger1999> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy
18:48:40 <mmaslano> he wrote: I'm requesting proven packager status is 
to coordinate updates with maintainers of the dependency tree.
18:48:47 <mmaslano> how many packages is there?
18:49:03 <mmaslano> is it worth of provenpackager?
18:49:41 <abadger1999> there were no -1's in ticket so really.. we don't 
need fesco to vote in full, mattdm and nirik's +1 could count towards 
the "3 positive votes" if they want.
18:49:50 <nirik> right, true.
18:50:15 <mattdm> should i put my +1 in the ticket? does that help?
18:50:24 <nirik> sure.
18:50:36 <abadger1999> mattdm: yeah do that and then we'll just do 
automatic approval.
18:50:50 <nirik> mmaslano: I can close both those tickets and add the 
users...
18:50:55 <mmaslano> nirik: thanks
18:51:13 <mmaslano> #action nirik will close both provenpackager tickets 
and add permission to those users
18:51:34 <mmaslano> #topic Next week's chair
18:52:45 <sgallagh> Don't all volunteer at once...
18:53:27 <mitr> I'm not sure I'll be here next week
18:53:39 <mmaslano> we can volunteer someone who's not here...
18:54:05 * mattdm looks at calendar
18:54:19 <mattdm> okay I can do it :)
18:55:42 <mmaslano> #action mattdm wil be chairman next week
18:55:49 <mmaslano> #topic Open Floor
18:57:29 * nirik has nothing
18:57:32 <mmaslano> nothing?
18:57:38 <mmaslano> I will close the meeting in 3 minutes
18:57:39 <mattdm> *crickets chirp*
18:57:40 <sgallagh> I had something, but I can't bring it to mind.
18:57:49 <sgallagh> I'll post on the list if it turns out to have been 
important...
18:57:55 <mmaslano> crickets died in the snow...
18:58:02 <abadger1999> sgallagh: you were going to wish everyone a happy 
holiday season ;-)
18:58:12 <sgallagh> Well, that goes without saying! :)
18:59:32 <sgallagh> mmaslano: Close now and we'll have kept to an hour :)
18:59:44 <mmaslano> fine
18:59:50 <mmaslano> #endmeeting