[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Summary from yesterdays FESCo-Meeting

Full log:

=== Summary ===

Present from Fesco: thl, jpo, skvidal, Sopwith, jeremy, mschwendt, scop,
thomasvs, f13


 * Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager

 Sopwith and skvidal will make sure that the following will be be added
to the buildsystems:
Vendor:	Fedora Extras
Packager: Fedora Extras <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> 
 * Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5

 A separate mail will follow. This is the rough version: Can probably
start on Sunday (February 12). Method: All packagers will take care of
their to rebuild their own packages. Means: Increase release, put a
comment like "Rebuild for FC5" in the changelog and request build. We're
ignoring dep-order this way, but that works fine in core, too. It's to
late for a better solution, but if anybody has problem with that please
prepare a proposal how to do mass builds in the future. Orphaned
packages will be removed before the rebuild starts. Rebuilds only for
FE5 of course -- rebuilding packages in FE4 also just to keep the spec
files in all branches in sync is stupid because it would mean unneeded
updates/downloads for Extras users. Please only rebuild the packages you
own! Branching for FE6 will probably happen at the same time as in

 Still unsure (Comments please!): 
  * what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request
builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can
step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove
them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the
maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two
  * Packages not rebuild before the 12th of February will be removed
before FC5 is shipped to start with a clean tree with old cruft

 * Encourage Extras reviews

 Some SIG's were created and already started to work -- see

 The whole thing is a bit unorganized ATM. We don't need to many rules
to organize a SIG, but we probably need *some*. Some parts of the
19:27 <         jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
19:28 <   mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
19:31 <   mschwendt> | There's some content.
19:31 <   mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work.
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff
19:32 <         thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html
19:32 <       nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages. 
19:32 <   mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page
19:33 <   mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points
19:33 <       nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;) 
19:33 <         thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-|
19:34 <   mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general
19:35 <         thl> | anyone interested in that job?
19:35 <   mschwendt> | not necessarily
19:35 <   mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already
19:35 <   mschwendt> | it just needs more time
19:35 <   mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps
19:35 <         thl> | mschwendt, agreed
19:36 <         thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho

 nirik suggested 'package review days'. We'll try this out and see how it works:
19:30 <       nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)?
19:30 <       nirik> | perhaps sometime next week?
19:32 <       nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling. 

 * EOL Policy for FE

 Still under discussion. See the full log for all details. Highlights:
19:40 <   mschwendt> | we cannot offer an old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially
19:43 <         jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5?
19:43 <   mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE
19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about.  do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes?
19:44 <   mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on
19:44 <   mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5
19:47 <         thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list
19:52 <    dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras
19:52 <         jwb> | the entire thing?
19:53 <    dgilmore> | jwb: yes  i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux
19:53 <   mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team.
19:53 <         thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list?
19:54 <    dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do

 * Broken deps report

 Waiting for further discussion on the list.

 * Weekly sponsorship nomination

 Andreas Bierfert (awjb) was nominated and accepted.

 BTW, It seems some people hesitate to nominate people in a public IRC
channel. Therefore I'll modify the process slightly: FESCo-Members will
discuss nominations directly on the FESCo-mailinglist in the future. If
other sponsors or Extras packagers want to nominate someone just drop me
a mail and I'll forward it. Okay for everybody?

 * Kernel module standardization

 What remains to be done? buildsys :( thl will try to get this moving


P.S.: Is this slightly new format okay for everybody? I think some
people won't like the long lines, but without them the parts from the
IRC-Log are totally unreadable. And most lines are not that long.
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]