FESco meeting summary for 20090605

[Kevin Fenzi]

Here also is the full txt file of the meeting: 

17:00:15 <nirik> #startmeeting
17:00:28 <nirik> #meetingtopic FESCo Meeting - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
17:00:38 <jds2001> nirik: you drive this meeting, I'm not sure how to operate this new-fangled thing :D
17:00:57 <nirik> happy to. I was going to make that the first topic. ;)
17:01:10 * nirik thought jds2001 wasn't going to be around today. Moving done?
17:01:36 <jds2001> that was yesterday.
17:01:41 <jwb> wait, what thing?
17:01:46 <jds2001> I still have boxes all around :(
17:01:51 <jds2001> jwb: fedbot
17:01:57 <jwb> so we're not doing gobby?
17:02:00 * dgilmore is here
17:02:17 <jds2001> we could try each I guess.
17:02:21 <nirik> well, lets go ahead and discuss which we want to do...
17:02:25 <nirik> #topic ticket 158: Create new meeting summary procedure
17:02:28 <jwb> fedbot
17:02:33 <jwb> because i don't have gobby setup :)
17:02:49 <nirik> so, this is a plugin to supybot, created by the fine debian folks.
17:03:10 <nirik> it runs the meeting and produces a log and summary and such.
17:03:29 <notting> examples of the summaries?
17:03:30 <dgilmore> nirik: i like the idea its something everyone can use and we can post all meetings logs to a  common location
17:03:43 * nirik is digging up a example.
17:03:58 <nirik> http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-04-16.33.html
17:04:06 <nirik> this was the IRC Support sig meeting yesterday.
17:04:13 <nirik> dgilmore: yeah, I would like that too.
17:04:27 <jwb> we could still use both
17:04:29 <nirik> currently it's running on my machine here, but we could easily add it to zodbot and get it on a fedora location.
17:04:43 <notting> so, it's all keyword based?
17:04:44 <jwb> nirik, could have febot log to gobby
17:04:54 <nirik> notting: yeah.
17:04:57 <nirik> #commands
17:05:10 <jwb> we need a #gobby
17:05:11 <jwb> :)
17:05:18 <jds2001> nirik: is it packaged?
17:05:23 <notting> hm. it might be simpler, i'm not sure if it will end up more legible on the list/wiki
17:05:29 <nirik> this does more than log, it does summary and such.
17:05:41 <nirik> jds2001: not yet. I can do so.
17:05:49 <jwb> notting, at this point i think we should just focus on getting something there consistently
17:05:54 <jwb> notting, cleanup can happen later
17:06:04 <notting> jwb: right, but that can be done by just assigning someone :)
17:06:13 <nirik> I would like all meetings to use the same format and go the same place and be searchable. ;)
17:06:13 <jds2001> notting: i could setup something like http://fp.o/meetings/<whatever>
17:06:22 <jds2001> to point to the right spot on noc1.
17:06:32 <dgilmore> nirik: yep
17:06:42 <jwb> notting, true.  but robots are soo much cooler
17:06:48 <nirik> we have a bunch in the wiki as well.
17:06:49 <jds2001> so that we dont have to put it on the wiki.
17:06:52 <nirik> Meeting: space
17:07:10 <notting> jds2001: well, we'd still want them all (both before and after we change) in the same place
17:07:12 <nirik> but the wiki search is... suboptimal
17:07:51 <jds2001> nirik: i google site:fedoraproject.org <whatever I'm looking for> :(
17:08:13 <nirik> so, I guess I think this is usable, but if we just want to assign a minutes taker, or try gobby, or whatever I am open to it if people feel its better.
17:08:43 * abadger1999 notes that we should make sure the logs get backed up.
17:08:46 <nirik> perhaps ask for feedback from people who read logs after this meeting?
17:08:59 <notting> nirik: works for me
17:09:12 <jds2001> abadger1999: noc1 gets backed up, right?
17:09:14 * nirik nods. I backup the machine they are on here. ;) But yes, if they go to noc1 they should get backed up
17:09:20 <jds2001> if we add this plugin to zodbot?
17:09:43 <abadger1999> jds2001: I don't know, thus: make sure ;-)
17:09:52 <notting> nirik: maybe take the log from this and post it on the wiki, get comments, and we can move everything together later?
17:10:29 <nirik> well, not sure it would post right to the wiki. It expects to be it's own html/txt file.
17:10:37 <nirik> but yes, I can ask for feedback from it.
17:10:51 <nirik> it does allow logs to be posted right when the meeting is done, which is nice.
17:11:06 <nirik> also links to the items in the logs, etc.
17:11:50 * nirik waits for any other votes/opinions.
17:12:05 <jwb> i'm good with either
17:12:32 <sharkcz> the bot looks good
17:12:38 <jds2001> i like the bot.
17:12:49 * j-rod happy w/the bot, knows nothing of gobby at all though
17:13:19 <nirik> #action nirik will post the summary/logs from the meeting plugin for comment/feedback on fedora-devel.
17:13:24 <nirik> ok, shall we move on?
17:14:07 <nirik> #topic ticket 159: FPC report - 2009-06-02
17:14:11 <nirik> .fesco 159
17:14:14 <zodbot> nirik: #159 (FPC report - 2009-06-02) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/159
17:14:30 <jwb> +1
17:14:45 <sharkcz> +1
17:14:58 <notting> +1
17:14:59 <j-rod> +1
17:14:59 <nirik> seems reasonable to reduce the number of duplicate things in spec files... +1 here.
17:15:24 <jds2001> n+1
17:16:11 <nirik> #agreed Approval for ticket 159 (phase out BuildRoot tag) from FPC.
17:16:32 <nirik> #topic ticket 134: Approval needed - zsync needs to ship internal zlib for rsync compatibility
17:16:36 <nirik> .fesco 134
17:16:42 <zodbot> nirik: #134 (Approval needed - zsync needs to ship internal zlib for rsync compatibility) - FESCo - Trac - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/134
17:17:01 <notting> -1, if at all technically possible
17:17:17 <dgilmore> -1
17:17:23 <jds2001> -1
17:17:27 <nirik> yeah, I don't want to allow an exception here if at all possible... I am wondering what rsync said upstream?
17:17:40 <dgilmore> i think we should do everything we can to use the system zlib
17:18:13 <sharkcz> -1
17:18:43 <nirik> yeah. -1 here. Either someone needs to get it using system, the patches upstream, or just not package it.
17:18:56 <j-rod> hrm. so rsync is already in violation?
17:19:19 <nirik> is it? I thought it used the system one?
17:19:38 <j-rod> I'm not sure...
17:19:51 <j-rod> If not, I don't understand the argument
17:20:11 <j-rod> it makes sense if rsync uses an internal and modified version that zsync needs to match
17:20:19 <notting> rsync does not link against system zlib
17:20:26 <j-rod> but if rsync uses the system zlib, I don't see why zsync can't do the same
17:20:31 <abadger1999> j-rod: Yes, rsync is already in violation
17:20:34 <j-rod> aha
17:20:53 <jds2001> so why cant rsync use hte system zlib?
17:21:16 <abadger1999> rsc was going to query upstream rsync about maintaining the forked zlib as a separate package but I don't know what happened to that.
17:21:21 * notting asks
17:21:46 <nirik> hum, yeah, rsync should not use an internal zlib. ;( I thought that was fixed.
17:21:53 <abadger1999> jds2001: Historicaly, rsync added some features to zlib to make it more efficient for what they do.
17:21:54 <j-rod> -1 for making another exception, and rsync needs fixage
17:22:16 <jds2001> or they can make rzlib or whatever.
17:22:21 <nirik> bug 495310
17:22:23 <buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=495310 medium, low, ---, ssorce, NEW, rsync contains forked copy of zlib
17:22:28 <abadger1999> jds2001: Unfortunately, they didn't push those upstream (might have tried and were rejected) and it changes the rsync on-wire format
17:22:34 <jds2001> such that both zsync and rsync may link to the same library.
17:22:56 <jds2001> abadger1999: yeah, i was talking about rsync yanking their port and shipping it separately.
17:23:04 <abadger1999> <nod>
17:23:16 <jds2001> so the on-wire format is preserved, and zsync
17:23:17 <abadger1999> that's what I'm wishing for at the moment.
17:23:24 <nirik> abadger1999: is the rsync forked one and the zsync forked one the same patches? or different?
17:23:34 <j-rod> we can just pull rsync from the distro, right? its not like anybody uses it...
17:23:39 <jds2001> :)
17:23:44 <notting> simo says it *could* use system, but upstream doesn't care enough to fix it
17:23:47 <abadger1999> nirik: AFAIK, yes.
17:23:54 <nirik> well, thats something at least.
17:24:04 <abadger1999> If not, it's probably the usual desyncing that occurs when bundling libraries occurs, not something intentional.
17:24:38 <abadger1999> notting: Hmm... If that's the case, we might need to just fix it.
17:25:14 <abadger1999> I talked to spot and tibbs earlier this week and the three of us are in agreement that this particular Guideline should be a locker on any review.
17:25:26 <abadger1999> Something that we'd fork from upstream over.
17:25:37 * nirik nods.
17:25:51 <nirik> private copies of libraries are bad.
17:26:05 <abadger1999> s/locaker/blocker/
17:26:16 <nirik> abadger1999: is there any way to identify this sort of thing over the collection? so we can see if there are others?
17:27:00 <nirik> I guess for zlib a grep over the exploded source tree might show any more.
17:27:18 <abadger1999> nirik: Not atm.  dmalcolm had some code that could make it possible in his rpmgrok project.
17:27:34 <abadger1999> Well yeah, grep over the source works.
17:27:53 <nirik> in any case: -1 to exception, rsync (and anything else that does this) needs to be fixed.
17:28:03 <notting> so, we already have -5 to the exception for zsync
17:28:28 <nirik> #agreed No exception for zsync.
17:28:44 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:28:53 <nirik> thats all we had for tickets. Anything for open floor?
17:29:12 <notting> did we agree that rsync should be fixed and that FPC should draft a guideline?
17:29:34 <abadger1999> notting: Guideline is in place.... rsync just slipped through review with no one catching it.
17:29:45 <dgilmore> notting: i think we agreed that rsync needs fixing
17:29:52 <notting> ok
17:30:04 <abadger1999> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries
17:30:11 <notting> #agreed rsync should be fixed in the same manner
17:30:14 <nirik> odd. I don't see a merge review for it.
17:31:28 <nirik> ah, there it is.
17:31:39 <nirik> bug 226380
17:31:40 <buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226380 medium, medium, ---, redhat-bugzilla, CLOSED RAWHIDE, Merge Review: rsync
17:31:41 <jds2001> has it been done?
17:32:20 <nirik> yeah, just got missed there. :(
17:32:50 <nirik> anyhow, anything else? or shall we close up early?
17:34:29 <notting> were we getting a follow-up report on the flags stuff this week or next week?
17:35:00 <nirik> not sure. ixs ? any news? can we assist any with info gathering?
17:36:23 <nirik> would someone like to followup with ixs on that and see if there is anything we can do to assist?
17:37:56 * nirik listens to the crickets.
17:39:20 <notting> i can
17:39:26 <nirik> cool. Thanks.
17:39:50 <nirik> #action notting will contact ixs and check to see if we can assist/get status on Flags information gathering.
17:39:59 <nirik> anything else?
17:41:17 <nirik> possibly more rel-eng, but what has the f11 slip done to our f12 schedule?
17:42:51 <jwb> nothing so far
17:43:30 <nirik> ok, I'm sure it will be discussed. ;)
17:43:53 <notting> correct, F12 is currently on schedule, full speed ahead
17:44:00 <notting> no icebergs spotted yet.
17:44:04 <nirik> ok, I guess I will close the meeting in 60 seconds if no new items come up.
17:44:24 <dgilmore> i have nothing
17:45:05 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090605/876ce6a2/attachment.sig>