Hi,
Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org (NOTE: Please note that we've moved our start time an hour earlier):
/topic FESCo meeting -- Any objection to last week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg02133.ht...
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- Features - all
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - all
/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. You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
Later, /B
On 07.10.2008 18:12, Brian Pepple wrote:
/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. You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
Seems we are about to get proper suppose for comps.xml in PK sooner or later; for details see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00381.html
Which brings us back to the following mail from last month (which resulted in a long discussion that afaics indirectly was one of the reasons for the new PK enhancements we'll get...) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg01813.ht...
The main two questions, where I'd really like to see advice from FESCo (or whatever committee feels responsible for this kind of task) how to move on:
- Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not? (¹)
- How do we make packagers add all their packages to comps.xml?
(¹) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml reads right now: """ If you maintain an application which makes sense for a user to select during installation, check out the comps module and make sure that your package is listed in a reasonable group in the comps-fn.xml.in files. """ A exacter definition of "makes sense to select" afaics really is needed; one example: Do users want to select command line app? I'd say the answer is "yes", but others will disagree. Same for -devel packages.
Further: I think the "during installation" part needs to be removed again.
(²) According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus/CompsF10Missi... "We have 2866 packages in comps-f10 file." "We have 1711 packages missing"
I'm not sure those stats are correct, as we afaik have way more source and binary packages:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide -a | wc -l ; repoquery \ --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src -a | wc -l 14139 6300
CU knurd
P.S.: There is a old FESCo schedule task that dealt with the same topic, but was forgotten during the Core and Extras merge: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/UseCompsProperly http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/ExtrasCompsXml
There is also a comps.xml SIG https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Comps_SIG Is that SIG still active?
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
- How do we make packagers add all their packages to comps.xml?
Here's something to consider during this discussion. I haven't added all of my packages to comps.xml because there is no group which is really appropriate for several of them. I don't want to add them to some group that is only peripherally related to the function of the package, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to add new groups [1]. I suspect other package maintainers may have similar reasons for dragging their feet.
Footnotes: [1] Well, not really lazy, but I recognize that adding groups is a significant step, and so it needs to be well justified. I am very busy with Real Life right now, so time spent putting together such a justification means no time for other activities that I'm more eager to engage in [2]. [2] Like watching the value of my retirement account fall.
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:07:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
(²) According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus/CompsF10Missi... "We have 2866 packages in comps-f10 file." "We have 1711 packages missing"
I'm not sure those stats are correct, as we afaik have way more source and binary packages:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide -a | wc -l ; repoquery \ --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src -a | wc -l 14139 6300
The discrepancy can be (at least partly) explained by the fact that the script producing the missing stats has some heuristics about packages to ignore. Package names matching these regexps are not flagged as missing: next if $k =~ /plugin/i; next if $k =~ /^(lib|compat-|xfce4-|gtk-|kmod-|fonts?-)/i; next if $k =~ /(-devel|lib[s0-9]*|-python|-perl|-servers?|-clients?|-tools?)$/i; next if $k =~ /(-contribs?|-docs?|-x?emacs|-utils?|-fonts?)$/i; Package having a summary containing this regexp: next if $BZOWN->{$k}->{'summary'} =~ /(binding|library|module|utilit)/i; And there is a short blacklist: "autodownloader" => 1, "theora-exp" => 1, "freetype1" => 1, "paragui" => 1
HTH...
Cheers, Christian
On 07.10.2008 22:45, Christian Iseli wrote:
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:07:56 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
(²) According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus/CompsF10Missi... "We have 2866 packages in comps-f10 file." "We have 1711 packages missing"
I'm not sure those stats are correct, as we afaik have way more source and binary packages:
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide -a | wc -l ; repoquery \ --repoid=rawhide-source --arch=src -a | wc -l 14139 6300
The discrepancy can be (at least partly) explained by the fact that the script producing the missing stats has some heuristics about packages to ignore. Package names matching these regexps are not flagged as missing: next if $k =~ /plugin/i; next if $k =~ /^(lib|compat-|xfce4-|gtk-|kmod-|fonts?-)/i; next if $k =~ /(-devel|lib[s0-9]*|-python|-perl|-servers?|-clients?|-tools?)$/i; next if $k =~ /(-contribs?|-docs?|-x?emacs|-utils?|-fonts?)$/i; Package having a summary containing this regexp: next if $BZOWN->{$k}->{'summary'} =~ /(binding|library|module|utilit)/i; And there is a short blacklist: "autodownloader" => 1, "theora-exp" => 1, "freetype1" => 1, "paragui" => 1
HTH...
Yes, it does, as this seems to be quite relevant for the "Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not?" question.
CU knurd
On Tue, 2008-10-07 at 20:07 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 07.10.2008 18:12, Brian Pepple wrote:
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. You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
Seems we are about to get proper suppose for comps.xml in PK sooner or later; for details see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg00381.html
Which brings us back to the following mail from last month (which resulted in a long discussion that afaics indirectly was one of the reasons for the new PK enhancements we'll get...) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg01813.ht...
The main two questions, where I'd really like to see advice from FESCo (or whatever committee feels responsible for this kind of task) how to move on:
Which packages should be in comps.xml and which not? (¹)
How do we make packagers add all their packages to comps.xml?
Added to the schedule. Thanks.
Later, /B
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - all
We're still waiting on infrastructure to make a decision regarding this ticket:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/807
so unless something happens tomorrow, there's not much point talking about this at FESCo tomorrow night.
Technically speaking, things are coming along well though. The latest work is available here:
http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw/fedora-9/
Rich.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 12:12:27PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - all
We're still waiting on infrastructure to make a decision regarding this ticket:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/807
Note: dgilmore is the guy in charge of this. dgilmore, do you think you'll have an update on this for the meeting tomorrow?
-Toshio
On 10/07/2008 07:12 PM, 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, Wednesday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org (NOTE: Please note that we've moved our start time an hour earlier):
/topic FESCo meeting -- Any objection to last week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg02133.ht...
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- Features - all
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - all
/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. You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
Later, /B
could you guys also take a decision regarding the vendor_id for desktop files? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080603#t12:15 suggests one thing, but the Guidelines page still insists on enforcing it. I would like to have it cleared so that we can go on with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462381
Thanks manuel
Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
On 10/07/2008 07:12 PM, 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, Wednesday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org (NOTE: Please note that we've moved our start time an hour earlier):
/topic FESCo meeting -- Any objection to last week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-September/msg02133.ht...
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- Features - all
/topic FESCo-Meeting -- MinGW follow-up? - all
/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. You can also propose topics in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.
Later, /B
could you guys also take a decision regarding the vendor_id for desktop files? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080603#t12:15 suggests one thing, but the Guidelines page still insists on enforcing it. I would like to have it cleared so that we can go on with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462381
IIRC, this is waiting on Matthias to let us know that the menu tools can handle the switch.
If that's going to take a while, I'd like to see us drop the vendor recomendation for new packages (but we'll have to keep it for old packages until the tools can handle it.)
Note that this is an FPC item rather than a FESCo item.
-Toshio
-
Brian Pepple -
Christian Iseli -
Jerry James -
Manuel Wolfshant -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Toshio Kuratomi