Plan for tomorrows (20070830) FESCO meeting

[Brian Pepple]

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
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E

[Patrice Dumas]

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

[Brian Pepple]

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 <bpepple(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E

[Richard W.M. Jones]

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.

-- 
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom.  Registered in
England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903

[Patrice Dumas]

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

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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.

[David Woodhouse]

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 :)

-- 
dwmw2

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 14:18 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
>  Hi,
>   
>  You want something to be discussed? 
Restrict the
fedora-extras-commits(a)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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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(a)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

[Ralf Corsepius]

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(a)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

[Rahul Sundaram]

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

[Ralf Corsepius]

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

[Toshio Kuratomi]

-----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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG1oU6X6yAic2E7kgRAqUUAJ9l337pqCocRa7ug3PzMwIrCTRfVwCfZUcq
> p8apzH9JUnNc0fHk8HG+BBQ=
> =FZjz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ralf Corsepius]

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