Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-25)

Miloslav Trmač mitr at
Mon Jun 25 18:01:24 UTC 2012

(prepared manually, MeetBot-generated version to hopefully follow later)

* ticket 830 define requirements for secondary arch promotion
  NOTE: sums up
the situation correctly.

* ticket #873 F18 Feature: 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 -
  AGREED: Feature OpenStack Folsom is approved (+9)

* ticket #875 F18 Feature: targetd -
  AGREED: Feature targetd is approved (+9)

* ticket #876 F18 Feature: libstoragemanagement -
  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 -
was proposed

Full meeting log is below.

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
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 -
Are there any objections to the summing up by Tomas ( ) ?
 - 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 -
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 -
.fesco 873
limburgher was +1 in the ticket
kevin was +1 in the ticket
 - Nastavit téma na: #873 F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - (Meeting
topic: FESCO (2012-06-25))
zodbot: mitr: #873 (F18 Feature: 256 Color Terminals - – FESCo -
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
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 -
.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
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 -
.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 -
.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
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 - 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.

More information about the devel mailing list