9:03 p.m.
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2013-06-26 18:00 UTC'
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20
.fesco 1128
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1128
= New business =
#topic #1129 F20 System Wide Change: Perl 5.18 -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.18
.fesco 1129
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1129
#topic #1130 F20 System Wide Change: python-setuptools update to 0.7.x -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_setuptools_0.7
.fesco 1130
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1130
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
report of the agenda items can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
9:17 p.m.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2013-06-26 18:00 UTC'
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20
.fesco 1128
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1128
= New business =
We had said that the new FESCo should attend if possible. I'm still
hoping the election results are announced in time, but we should
probably add an agenda item for this.
josh
7:22 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 22:17:12 -0400,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We had said that the new FESCo should attend if possible. I'm still
hoping the election results are announced in time, but we should
probably add an agenda item for this.
They were available for a short period right (an hour or two) after the
election closed. I don't remember who the top five were though.
7:29 a.m.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 22:17:12 -0400,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> We had said that the new FESCo should attend if possible. I'm still
> hoping the election results are announced in time, but we should
> probably add an agenda item for this.
They were available for a short period right (an hour or two) after the
election closed. I don't remember who the top five were though.
Yeah. I remember, but it would be better to just get them officially
released already.
josh
7:54 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Bruno Wolff III
<bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 22:17:12 -0400,
> Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We had said that the new FESCo should attend if possible. I'm still
>> hoping the election results are announced in time, but we should
>> probably add an agenda item for this.
>
>
> They were available for a short period right (an hour or two) after the
> election closed. I don't remember who the top five were though.
Yeah. I remember, but it would be better to just get them officially
released already.
We are waiting for Robyn, one possibility would be Ankur as Elections
Wrangler announces results and Robyn announces Board appointment later
when she will be available.
Otherwise - yes, results are already available. But not announced...
R.
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
2:10 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-06-26)
===================================
Meeting started by notting at 18:00:55 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-06-26/fesco.2013-06-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (notting, 18:01:03)
* #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20 (notting, 18:10:54)
* AGREED: Will switch from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20. Any reversion based on poor
benchmarks must be decided before any F20 gcc mass rebuild (+:6,
-:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:28:38)
* #1129 F20 System Wide Change: Perl 5.18 -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.18 (notting, 18:29:26)
* AGREED: F20 System Wide Change: Perl 5.18 is approved (+:5, -:0,
0:1) (notting, 18:36:11)
* #1130 F20 System Wide Change: python-setuptools update to 0.7.x
(notting, 18:36:24)
* AGREED: F20 System Wide Change: python-setuptools update to 0.7.x is
approved (+:5, -:0, 0:1) (notting, 18:39:29)
* Next week's chair (notting, 18:40:10)
* sgallagh will chair next week's meeting (notting, 18:41:06)
* next week's meeting should be the first meeting of the new FESCo
(notting, 18:41:28)
* Open Floor (notting, 18:41:47)
* AGREED: re: #1132 1) mass rebuild at this time rejected (will
rebuild f20 later), 2) defer to next week to allow proper analysis
(+:5, -:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:52:19)
* AGREED: (re: httpd-itk ticket) FESCo would like the 'bundling' of
httpd-itk reviewed by FPC (+:5, -:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:58:43)
* Thanks to all departing FESCo members! (notting, 19:04:18)
Meeting ended at 19:04:31 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* notting (66)
* nirik (27)
* sgallagh (26)
* abadger1999 (17)
* mitr (16)
* zodbot (10)
* jwb (6)
* besser82 (4)
* mjg59 (3)
* mmaslano (0)
* t8m (0)
* pjones (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
3:43 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
Am 26.06.2013 21:10, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
* #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20 (notting, 18:10:54)
* AGREED: Will switch from "-fstack-protector" to
"-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20. Any reversion based on poor
benchmarks must be decided before any F20 gcc mass rebuild (+:6,
-:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:28:38)
*thank you* for that
would it be possible to add the patch for supporting
"-fstack-protector-strong" for F18's GCC which would
give a larger testbase at least from users like me
building all serverpackages in the own infrastructure
currently with "-f-stackprotector-all"?
4:10 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 26.06.2013 21:10, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> * #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
> "-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20 (notting, 18:10:54)
> * AGREED: Will switch from "-fstack-protector" to
> "-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20. Any reversion based on poor
> benchmarks must be decided before any F20 gcc mass rebuild (+:6,
> -:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:28:38)
*thank you* for that
would it be possible to add the patch for supporting
"-fstack-protector-strong" for F18's GCC which would
give a larger testbase at least from users like me
building all serverpackages in the own infrastructure
currently with "-f-stackprotector-all"?
I would be doubtful the Fedora GCC maintainer would find that
acceptable to backport and push out in a stable Fedora release. We do
development like this in rawhide for a reason.
josh
4:31 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
Am 26.06.2013 23:10, schrieb Josh Boyer:
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 26.06.2013 21:10, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
>> * #1128 switching from "-fstack-protector" to
>> "-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20 (notting, 18:10:54)
>> * AGREED: Will switch from "-fstack-protector" to
>> "-fstack-protector-strong" in Fedora 20. Any reversion based on
poor
>> benchmarks must be decided before any F20 gcc mass rebuild (+:6,
>> -:0, 0:0) (notting, 18:28:38)
>
> *thank you* for that
>
> would it be possible to add the patch for supporting
> "-fstack-protector-strong" for F18's GCC which would
> give a larger testbase at least from users like me
> building all serverpackages in the own infrastructure
> currently with "-f-stackprotector-all"?
I would be doubtful the Fedora GCC maintainer would find that
acceptable to backport and push out in a stable Fedora release. We do
development like this in rawhide for a reason
"-fstack-protector-strong" would *not* be enabled anywhere with
what i requested - it would only be *possible* to use it within
Fedora 18 - IMHO a big difference
4:37 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:31:47 +0200
Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
"-fstack-protector-strong" would *not* be enabled anywhere
with
what i requested - it would only be *possible* to use it within
Fedora 18 - IMHO a big difference
Please file a RFE bug on gcc and see what the maintainer thinks?
I don't see this as needing any particular input from the devel list.
If the maintainer thinks this can/should safely be backported without
disrupting the stable release they could do so, if not, not.
kevin
4:45 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-06-26)
Am 26.06.2013 23:37, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:31:47 +0200
Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> "-fstack-protector-strong" would *not* be enabled anywhere with
> what i requested - it would only be *possible* to use it within
> Fedora 18 - IMHO a big difference
Please file a RFE bug on gcc and see what the maintainer thinks?
I don't see this as needing any particular input from the devel list.
If the maintainer thinks this can/should safely be backported without
disrupting the stable release they could do so, if not, not
thank you for your feedback, for anybody who is
interested to support this RFE:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978599
3964
days inactive
3964
days old
10 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Bruno Wolff III -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Josh Boyer -
Kevin Fenzi -
Reindl Harald