Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-10)

[Neal Gompa]

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.

To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto

or run:
  date -d '2023-01-10 17:00 UTC'


Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at: 
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda

= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =

Change: Use mdadm for BIOS RAID Support in Anaconda
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2922
APPROVED (+5, 0, -0)

Change: Pyramid 2.0
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2924
APPROVED (+6, 0, -0)

Change: Xfce 4.18
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2925
APPROVED (+6, 0, -0)

Change: Unified Kernel Support Phase 1
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2926
APPROVED (+5, 0, -0)

Change: X Server Prohibits Byte-swapped Clients
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2927
APPROVED (+6, 0, -0)

= Followups =

#2870 Change proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2870

= New business =

None at this time.

= Open Floor = 

For more complete details, please visit each individual
issue.  The report of the agenda items can be found at
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda

If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can
reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at
https://pagure.io/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.

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 11:48 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
>  FESCo meeting Tuesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
>  irc.libera.chat. 
This is, in fact, at 17:00 UTC. I missed updating this on my local
template. Sorry.



-- 
Neal Gompa (FAS: ngompa)

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-10)

[Miro Hrončok]

===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2023-01-10)
===================================


Meeting started by Eighth_Doctor at 17:00:24 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2023-01-10/fesco.2023-01...
.



Meeting summary
---------------
* init process  (Eighth_Doctor, 17:02:53)

* #2870 Change proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5  (Eighth_Doctor,
   17:04:26)
   * LINK:
     https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/discussions/210
     (mhroncok, 17:07:51)
   * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2870#comment-832295   (mhroncok,
     17:09:09)
   * ACTION: dcantrell will post to devel@ to trigger dnf/dnf5 discussion
     (Eighth_Doctor, 17:25:19)

* Limiting the frame pointers thing to x86_64  (mhroncok, 17:25:47)
   * LINK:
 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
     (mhroncok, 17:28:45)
   * LINK:
 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
     (mhroncok, 17:29:23)
   * LINK:
 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/231#com...
     is the reply from IBM s390x toolchain team  (sharkcz, 17:33:07)
   * LINK: https://gitlab.com/fedora/packager-tools/mass-prebuild should
     help to identify what breaks with a flag change  (sharkcz, 17:44:24)
   * AGREED: Let's exclude i686 and s390x completely from the fomit frame
     pointer thing for F38 (+7,0,-0)   (mhroncok, 17:57:16)
   * LINK:
 
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/40705-but-the-plans-were-on-display-on-d...
     (sgallagh, 18:21:10)
   * ACTION: bcotton to make a proposal on the mailing list to explicitly
     require full resubmission of rejected proposals (and then bring it
     to a FESCo ticket once discussion has happened)  (mhroncok,
     18:36:36)

* Next week's chair  (mhroncok, 18:42:23)
   * ACTION: zbyszek will chair next meeting  (mhroncok, 18:43:10)

Meeting ended at 18:43:17 UTC.




Action Items
------------
* dcantrell will post to devel@ to trigger dnf/dnf5 discussion
* bcotton to make a proposal on the mailing list to explicitly require
   full resubmission of rejected proposals (and then bring it to a FESCo
   ticket once discussion has happened)
* zbyszek will chair next meeting




Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* bcotton
   * bcotton to make a proposal on the mailing list to explicitly require
     full resubmission of rejected proposals (and then bring it to a
     FESCo ticket once discussion has happened)
* dcantrell
   * dcantrell will post to devel@ to trigger dnf/dnf5 discussion
* zbyszek
   * zbyszek will chair next meeting
* **UNASSIGNED**
   * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* mhroncok (103)
* nirik (39)
* zbyszek (30)
* sgallagh (30)
* gotmax (30)
* Eighth_Doctor (28)
* davide (28)
* dcantrell (23)
* zodbot (16)
* bcotton (16)
* decathorpe (12)
* music[m] (9)
* jmracek (9)
* DaanDeMeyer[m] (6)
* mhayden (4)
* sharkcz (4)
* dtometzki (1)
* music (0)
* Conan_Kudo (0)
* Pharaoh_Atem (0)
* Son_Goku (0)
* King_InuYasha (0)
* Sir_Gallantmon (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4

.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-10)

[Kevin Kofler]

Miro Hrončok wrote:
>  * ACTION: bcotton to make a proposal on the mailing list to
> explicitly
>  require full resubmission of rejected proposals (and then bring it
>  to a FESCo ticket once discussion has happened)  (mhroncok,
>  18:36:36) 
So FESCo is willing to prevent this from happening again in the future, but 
NOT to remedy the existing wrongdoing?

The only issue that was addressed was excluding architectures almost nobody 
uses anyway (i686, which has been multilibs-only for years, and s390x, which 
is for hardware no normal user has at home). x86_64 users will be hit by the 
performance hit of this change due to the irregularly reached decision, and 
nothing is being done to repair this before the damage is done.

        Kevin Kofler

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2023-01-10)

[Miro Hrončok]

On 10. 01. 23 20:41, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>  So FESCo is willing to prevent this from happening again in the
> future, but
>  NOT to remedy the existing wrongdoing? 
Would you prefer if we ignored this altogether?

-- 
Miro Hrončok
-- 
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok