Hi,
Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- extending mandate (permanent?) for EPEL - nirik
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Misc -- Automatic pushing of package updates after 14 days? - nirik
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- Review of new features status http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList- poelcat, jwb
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13, |DrJef|
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- Compat policy? - jeremy
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- FESCo proposal template - f13
/topic FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to this mail and I'll add it to the schedule (I can't promise we will get to it tomorrow, but we'll most likely will if we don't run out of time). You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
If your name/nick is on above list please update the status on the Extras schedule pages in the wiki ahead of the meeting. That way all the other FESCo members and interested contributors know what up ahead of the meeting. And we will avoid long delays in the meeting -- those often arise if someone describes the recent happenings on a topic directly in the meeting while all the others have to wait for his slow typing...
Thanks, /B
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi,
Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:
What about adding to the BuildRequires Exceptions:
cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp util-linux which
-- Pat
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 22:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
What about adding to the BuildRequires Exceptions:
cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp util-linux which
I'll go ahead and add this to the schedule.
Thanks, /B
Brian Pepple wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 22:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
What about adding to the BuildRequires Exceptions:
cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp util-linux which
I'll go ahead and add this to the schedule.
And 'getopt' (the program). Apparently it was in util-linux and is now in util-linux-ng.
Rich.
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:10:00PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 02:18:58PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi,
Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:
What about adding to the BuildRequires Exceptions:
cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp util-linux which
Add info to that.
-- Pat
On 29.08.2007 20:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13, |DrJef|
Wow, lot's of words -- seems we are really on our way to "Bureaucratic 2.0".
Well, as I'm one of those that was a major driver for kmod's in Fedora Extras: +1 for the proposal. If anyone wonders why it gets my support: it was something different when we had Core and Extras (that's the short explanation, but I think it should make the biggest reason obvious).
Nevertheless some comments:
- if we are doing "Bureaucratic 2.0" then let's please do the easy steps as well and discuss a proposal like this on the list properly for some days(¹) and don't try it in nearly hiding mode by just mention it in a "Plan for tomorrows FESCO meeting" where it easily missed.
E.g. cut'n'paste the whole text into a mail, give it a subject with "RFC", put some introducing words on the top and send it to fedora-devel for comments. Earlier the 24 hours before the FESCo meeting it might be ratified in please, to give people a chance to comment on proposals, even if they are 24 afk
- (partly a question for the Packaging committee as well) The current Kernel Module standard was not only meant for Fedora, but for RHEL also and a suggested one for 3rd party Fedora-repos as well. Are those still a goal? If not: will the stuff simply be removed from the Guidelines, to make them easier to read?
CU knurd
(¹) -- Or did I miss such a RFC? If yes: sorry.
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 07:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 29.08.2007 20:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13, |DrJef|
Wow, lot's of words -- seems we are really on our way to "Bureaucratic 2.0".
Ouch, that hurts :)
Well, as I'm one of those that was a major driver for kmod's in Fedora Extras: +1 for the proposal. If anyone wonders why it gets my support: it was something different when we had Core and Extras (that's the short explanation, but I think it should make the biggest reason obvious).
Nevertheless some comments:
- if we are doing "Bureaucratic 2.0" then let's please do the easy steps
as well and discuss a proposal like this on the list properly for some days(¹) and don't try it in nearly hiding mode by just mention it in a "Plan for tomorrows FESCO meeting" where it easily missed.
We started off that way; the only reason it's on the wiki was because I was asked to put it there after the email discussion. See, for example, https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-kernel-list/2007-July/msg00087.html which was also on fedora-devel-list. Also a later thread on fedora-devel-list with the subject 'Kernel Modules in Fedora'.
- (partly a question for the Packaging committee as well) The current
Kernel Module standard was not only meant for Fedora, but for RHEL also and a suggested one for 3rd party Fedora-repos as well. Are those still a goal? If not: will the stuff simply be removed from the Guidelines, to make them easier to read?
I think we could probably drop it completely, at least from the official guidelines. That doesn't mean the text has to be completely obliterated from the world, of course. If other people want to collaborate on a method for doing that kind of thing, I have no particular objection to letting them use the Fedora wiki for it. As long as we don't actually _ship_ any such abominations :)
On 30.08.2007 10:43, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 07:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 29.08.2007 20:18, Brian Pepple wrote:
/topic FESCO-Meeting -- Follow-up -- obsoleting kmod proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DavidWoodhouse/KmodProposal - dwmw2, f13, |DrJef|
Wow, lot's of words -- seems we are really on our way to "Bureaucratic 2.0".
Ouch, that hurts :)
Well, it's not your fault. In fact it's likely even in parts more my fault, because some of this and similar bureaucracy evolved when I was FESCo's chair.
Well, as I'm one of those that was a major driver for kmod's in Fedora Extras: +1 for the proposal. If anyone wonders why it gets my support: it was something different when we had Core and Extras (that's the short explanation, but I think it should make the biggest reason obvious). Nevertheless some comments:
- if we are doing "Bureaucratic 2.0" then let's please do the easy steps
as well and discuss a proposal like this on the list properly for some days(¹) and don't try it in nearly hiding mode by just mention it in a "Plan for tomorrows FESCO meeting" where it easily missed.
We started off that way; the only reason it's on the wiki was because I was asked to put it there after the email discussion. See, for example, https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-kernel-list/2007-July/msg00087.html which was also on fedora-devel-list. Also a later thread on fedora-devel-list with the subject 'Kernel Modules in Fedora'.
Well, for me it boils down to this: this and similar documents is what FESCo members which didn't participate in the earlier discussion will read to come to a decision. Thus what is written in them and how it gets written by the author (which of course has a opinion which again influences how he writes the stuff) is really important, thus a public review (just one or two days or time) for such kind of document is IMHO strictly needed to give people with other opinions a chance to comment.
Don't take it as a offense or disagreement with the proposal -- remember, I gave my +1 to it ;-)
- (partly a question for the Packaging committee as well) The current
Kernel Module standard was not only meant for Fedora, but for RHEL also and a suggested one for 3rd party Fedora-repos as well. Are those still a goal? If not: will the stuff simply be removed from the Guidelines, to make them easier to read?
I think we could probably drop it completely, at least from the official guidelines. That doesn't mean the text has to be completely obliterated from the world, of course. If other people want to collaborate on a method for doing that kind of thing, I have no particular objection to letting them use the Fedora wiki for it. As long as we don't actually _ship_ any such abominations :)
Well, without shipping such abominations I'd say we have no real testbed for testing improvements and changes to the standard. So maybe (I'm not completely sure myself) it's really better kicked completely, and we don't care about RHEL (or I work together with jcm on it and we search for an testbed (or create one)).
CU knurd
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:18 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi,
You want something to be discussed?
Restrict the fedora-extras-commits@redhat.com list to fedora package cvs commits, only.
This list is increasingly being abused for all kind of administration emails, rendering all attempts to perform post-commit QA non-feasible. In particular, the flood the pkgdb notices have been triggered, renders reading this list impossible.
IMO, Fedora should keep CVS commits and administration emails strictly separated. The current practice is wasting a valuable resource of QA.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:18 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi,
You want something to be discussed?
Restrict the fedora-extras-commits@redhat.com list to fedora package cvs commits, only.
This list is increasingly being abused for all kind of administration emails, rendering all attempts to perform post-commit QA non-feasible. In particular, the flood the pkgdb notices have been triggered, renders reading this list impossible.
IMO, Fedora should keep CVS commits and administration emails strictly separated. The current practice is wasting a valuable resource of QA.
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:18 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
Hi,
You want something to be discussed?
Restrict the fedora-extras-commits@redhat.com list to fedora package cvs commits, only.
This list is increasingly being abused for all kind of administration emails, rendering all attempts to perform post-commit QA non-feasible. In particular, the flood the pkgdb notices have been triggered, renders reading this list impossible.
IMO, Fedora should keep CVS commits and administration emails strictly separated. The current practice is wasting a valuable resource of QA.
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
I don't know if something has been done. I have been flooded by the pkgdb ever since this stuff had been activated.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
I don't know if something has been done. I have been flooded by the pkgdb ever since this stuff had been activated.
Maybe you missed out
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00562.html
Rahul
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 12:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
I don't know if something has been done. I have been flooded by the pkgdb ever since this stuff had been activated.
Maybe you missed out
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00562.html
Yes, this (IMO, not necessarily good solution) was cleverly hidden.
I'd really prefer if this list was converted back to what it once had been: A pure cvs commits list.
Ralf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 12:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
I don't know if something has been done. I have been flooded by the pkgdb ever since this stuff had been activated.
Maybe you missed out
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00562.html
Yes, this (IMO, not necessarily good solution) was cleverly hidden.
I'd really prefer if this list was converted back to what it once had been: A pure cvs commits list.
If you can't be bothered to keep reading the thread discussing solutions to your problem then I suppose you can consider this hidden. Otherwise, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Staying on the topic of the pkgdb mail, I have absolutely no attachment to sending messages to the cvs commits list. Sending it there was a feature request which I took, sounded reasonable (as the changes to acls and owners via pkg.acl and owners.list files was sent there), and implemented. If FESCo wants the feature reverted I can easily do that instead of spending time implementing mailman topics or other things that people suggest as a solution but apparently no one actually wants to use.
- -Toshio
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 01:52 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 12:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 11:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Weren't they both separated in the mailing list via topics in mailman?
I don't know if something has been done. I have been flooded by the pkgdb ever since this stuff had been activated.
Maybe you missed out
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-August/msg00562.html
Yes, this (IMO, not necessarily good solution) was cleverly hidden.
I'd really prefer if this list was converted back to what it once had been: A pure cvs commits list.
If you can't be bothered to keep reading the thread discussing solutions to your problem then I suppose you can consider this hidden. Otherwise, I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Toshio, wake up: I do expect such things to appear on an announcement list - As usual, this had not happened!
-- Don't cage Fedora - Just say no to Fedora acls
-
Brian Pepple -
David Woodhouse -
Patrice Dumas -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Toshio Kuratomi