(prepared manually, MeetBot-generated version to hopefully follow later)
* ticket 830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion NOTE: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830#comment:11 sums up the situation correctly.
* ticket #873 F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals AGREED: Feature 256 Color Terminals deferred pending discussion on devel@ (+7) ACTION: mjg59 to start discussion
* ticket #874 F18 Feature: OpenStack Folsom - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Folsom AGREED: Feature OpenStack Folsom is approved (+9)
* ticket #875 F18 Feature: targetd - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/targetd AGREED: Feature targetd is approved (+9)
* ticket #876 F18 Feature: libstoragemanagement - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/libstoragemgmt AGREED: Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, please merge it with targetd (+9)
* Next week's chair: NOTE: The meeting on July 2 is canceled for lack of quorum ACTION: t8m will chair the meeting on July 9th
* Open floor: NOTE: Heads up - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot was proposed
Full meeting log is below. Mirek
mitr: #startmeeting FESCO (2012-06-25) #meetingname fesco #chair notting nirik mjg59 mmaslano t8m pjones mitr limburgher jwb #topic init process zodbot: Meeting started Mon Jun 25 17:00:07 2012 UTC. The chair is mitr. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. zodbot: Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. - Nastavit téma na: (Meeting topic: FESCO (2012-06-25)) zodbot: The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' zodbot: Current chairs: jwb limburgher mitr mjg59 mmaslano nirik notting pjones t8m - Nastavit téma na: init process (Meeting topic: FESCO (2012-06-25)) * notting is here t8m: hello pjones: hi jwb: hi mitr: nirik told us last time that he won't be able to come, limburgher voted in tickets. mjg59: Hi mitr: mmaslano: here? mmaslano: yes, hi mitr: Thanks, let's start... mitr: #topic #830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion .fesco 830 Just a quick check: Robyn had some questions about the outcome of this ticket and the feature - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830#comment:9 Are there any objections to the summing up by Tomas ( https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830#comment:11 ) ? - Nastavit téma na: #830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion (Meeting topic: FESCO (2012-06-25)) zodbot: mitr: #830 (define requirements for secondary arch promotion) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/830 mjg59: Nope jwb: no pjones: sounds right notting: that ounds correct * mitr assumes that's good enough mitr: #topic #873 F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals .fesco 873 limburgher was +1 in the ticket kevin was +1 in the ticket - Nastavit téma na: #873 F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals (Meeting topic: FESCO (2012-06-25)) zodbot: mitr: #873 (F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/256_Color_Terminals) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/873 mitr: I like the idea in general, not sure about the specifics mitr: * Apparently there's no simple way to set TERM=something_old in ~/.ssh/config mjg59: Sure would be nice if this were something that could be negotiated between endpoints mitr: * Using /etc/profile.d/* sounds like too big a hammer, but perhaps not worth arguing about mjg59: But fixing that would be breaking decades of UNIX tradition, I'm sure pjones: yeah, not really solid on the implementation pjones: I like the idea * mjg59 remembers the bad old days of XTERM-DEBIAN notting: that profile.d looks ... wrong jwb: i'm entirely ambivalent notting: in that it automatically assumes anything you use that supports xterm also supports this pjones: yeah, that's not great. mjg59: Yeah. Seems like we should be changing the terminal emulators. mitr: Hm, that profile.d would trigger even when ssh-ing from a non-Linux system, wouldn't it? And in a way that makes it non-trivial to override. notting: mitr: yes. mjg59: How about we punt this back to devel@ for further discussion of the implementation? jwb: sounds good to me mmaslano: fine t8m: mjg59, +1 mitr: +1 It will probably generate some noise, but it should help with the right direction. notting: +1 mjg59: I can bring it up mmaslano: +1 mjg59: Might as well take responsibility for even more pointless argument jwb: you're very good at that mitr: #agreed Feature: 256 Color Terminals deferred pending discussion on devel@ mjg59: Life skills and all that mitr: #action mjg59 to start discussion mitr: #topic #874 F18 Feature: OpenStack Folsom - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenStack_Folsom .fesco 874 limburgher was +1 in the ticket kevin was +1 in the ticket * mitr is +1 jwb: this is basically a version bump of an existing stack in Fedora, right? mitr: jwb: seems so mjg59: +1 jwb: seems very buzz wordy these days, so +1 t8m: +1 with the feature process disclaimer t8m: mmaslano: +1 notting: +1 for folsom packaging blues pjones: mjg59: I'm +1 to that pjones: With at the very least a summary of things we've just listed that we'd like to see addressed pjones: +1 mitr: #agreed Feature OpenStack Folsom is approved (+9) mitr: #topic #875 F18 Feature: targetd - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/targetd .fesco 875 limburgher was +1 in the ticket kevin was +1 in the ticket * pjones +1 mmaslano: I don't like the name much and I wonder if they speak with other related projects... mmaslano: but none of this is blocker mitr: mmaslano: AFAICT this doesn't directly duplicate any other work in the storage space notting: seems fine, +1. this is only iscsi target, not fcoe target? * mitr was warned about running a web server as root, but is +1 to the idea pjones: notting: AIUI yeah pjones: but I may not UI jwb: there was suggestion of combining this and libstoragemgmt t8m: +1 to the idea with reservations about the current implementation, but that can be fixed mmaslano: +1 jwb: also... we're voting backwards pjones: jwb: well, they list libstoragemgmt as a dep jwb: right notting: so this is the userspace equivalent of lio? jwb: so we should have, you know, voted on that first jwb: but hey, whatever mjg59: +1 mitr: notting: Isn't it a complement to lio - lio providing the iscsi target, and this providing LUN mgmt? notting: mitr: that makes more sense now that i read it mitr: jwb? jwb: i guess +1 jwb: which means i'm +1 to the next one too apparently mitr: #agreed Feature targetd is approved (+9) mitr: #topic #876 F18 Feature: libstoragemanagement - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/libstoragemgmt .fesco 876 limburgher was +1 in the ticket kevin was +1 in the ticket Both suggested merging this with the targetd feature mitr: (I'm sorry about the ordering, I missed the dependency) notting: +1 to feature, +1 to merge jwb: +1 to feature, +1 to merge mitr: +1 to feature, and +1 to merge (given that this situation is exactly the same as hawkey/dnf last week) pjones: yeah, I can be +1 t8m: +1 to merge with previous feature (which we accepted) pjones: to merge as well mmaslano: +1 for merge mjg59: +1 mitr: "Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, suggested to merge with targetd", is that right? jwb: yep pjones: I dunno about "suggested"; we think they should do it. pjones: I think we're just telling them to do so. t8m: "Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, please merge it with targetd" - we can ask politely pjones: yes mitr: #agreed Feature libstoragemgmt is accepted, please merge it with targetd (+9) mitr: #topic Next week's chair * pjones won't be here next week * mmaslano probably won't be here * t8m won't be able to attend either * notting will not be here as well pjones: So, er, will we have quorum? jwb: i will not be here mjg59: I can be, but it doesn't sound useful pjones: aand that's a no pjones: I propose not meeting next week. mitr: And won't be here next wee either t8m: I can take the chair on 9th July mitr: #note The meeting on July 2 is canceled for lack of quorum mitr: #action t8m will chair the meeting on July 9th mitr: #topic Open Floor mitr: Anything? pjones: I've got one pjones: I don't need voting right now, but since it was put in state friday and I'd like attention on it earlier rather than later, I figured I'd make sure everybody here is aware of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot pjones: mjg59 and I intend to demo this at the UEFI Summer Summit the week of the 16th of July. pjones: Put in "FeatureReadyForWrangler" state even t8m: pjones, Scope seems to be "undefined" yet? jwb: "whole distro" ? jwb: big sky isn't undefined t8m: is it really? pjones: t8m: I really think the field is completely bogus t8m: shouldn't affect much of userspace pjones: But let's not argue about that since it's entirely tangential, okay? pjones: I mean, there's a giant table in "current status" that defines the scope pretty well notting: pjones: exciting. i look forward to the polite reserved discussion that this is likely to bring. t8m: then you can point at it t8m: Like see the table in Status pjones: t8m: sure, will do. mmaslano: I guess the biggest question is if we want to go this way mitr: pjones: From a first look, no mention of user-space drivers - nothing is affected? mjg59: Some bits of userspace stop working mjg59: Not a lot that can be done about that mitr: I'm not sure what the deciding factors will be, but knowing what will break might be relevant jwb: mitr, userspace drivers as in UIO? mjg59: dmidecode's going to break. Because using /dev/mem is a stupid thing to do. mitr: jwb: I was more thinking about display drivers and things like that, which access PCI registers directly pjones: mjg59: could be reworked as a kernel-level thing though mjg59: Should be, yes pjones: though that may be another feature mjg59: mitr: Only ones left are vesa and via, and vesa's obviously not a concern with UEFI jwb: mitr, do we have many of those left supported in Fedora? mitr: Do we want an explicit notification to devel@ ? notting: mjg59: surely someone could extend the dmi crud in sysfs notting: mitr: well, that will come in the meeting announcement mjg59: notting: Someone could! pjones: notting: yeah, that's what I meant above notting: mjg59: * Copyright 2007, Lennart Poettering. ok then! * mitr goes for mitr: #note Heads up - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SecureBoot was proposed pjones: Will have at some point already been proposed yes notting: mjg59: pjones: nm, we have /sys/firmware/dmi t8m: I have no problem with the implementation part, I have with the verisign signed but that is rather Fedora Board question to resolve mmaslano: yeah, it might be good to file a ticket for them mitr: t8m: Will you file a ticket with specific concerns, then? pjones: Anyway, it's not in the correct state to vote on it yet, and I think it does need to be on our announced agenda before we discuss it in earnest, but I did want to make sure everybody was aware that this was coming pretty soon. mitr: Anything else for open floor? * mitr will close the meeting in 2 minutes if not t8m: mitr, I think there are some people who discussed it on devel@ who would be able to better formulate the ticket pjones: t8m: well, if you don't want to, and they haven't... mmaslano: pjones: well, I thought feature owners will do it t8m: pjones, I'll probably ask them to file it and if they don't I'll do it pjones: mmaslano: the feature owners aren't the people asserting that the board needs to weigh in? mitr: mmaslano: It's not clear to me what the board question is exactly, isn't that better left to someone who wants to ask the board? mjg59: Well I guess someone probably needs to ask the board to cut a check for $99 mjg59: Since we don't have a budget of our own pjones: mjg59: I'd have guessed we'd ask FPL for that, but sure. mjg59: But we might as well deal with the feature first t8m: pjones, it might also be that the ticket was already filled - I can't know as the board tickets are not public nb: no need for board ticket, just get with robyn to pay the $99 nb: assuming they will take a credit card jwb: er... nb: (if all the board ticket is for is asking for money) notting: but 99% of eng. work is orthogonal to "do we get this bit signed with that" pjones: right. And we can implement scheme #2 without that part. * mitr guesses no other open floor items will be coming... mitr: #endmeeting mitr: Thanks all! mjg59: Did we pick someone to chair on the 9th? mjg59: Oh, sorry, yes mjg59: t8m: Sorry, missed you saying that t8m: hmm seems the meetbot got stuck? nb: bot died nb: and then came back mitr: Oh well nb: file a ticket on the infra ticket with an attachment of the log for this meeting nb: and we can re-process it so it will show up on the meetbot site mitr: nb: Thanks, will do.
meetingminutes@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Miloslav Trmač