Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Thursday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-2 on irc.libera.chat.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run: date -d '2023-11-09 17:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at: https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda
= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =
nonresponsive packager: kubo https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3081 APPROVED (+3, 0, -0)
Nonresponsive maintainer: Karsten Hopp @karsten https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3085 APPROVED (+2, 0, -0)
F40 Change: Update To Pydantic Version 2 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3090 APPROVED (+8, 0, -0)
= Followups =
#3089 retiring redhat-lsb in Fedora https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3089
= New business =
N/A
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual issue. The report of the agenda items can be found at https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at https://pagure.io/fesco, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.
===================================== #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2023-11-09) =====================================
Meeting started by Son_Goku at 17:06:12 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2023-11-09/fesco.2023-11-... .
Meeting summary --------------- * init process (Son_Goku, 17:07:11) * LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Canada#/media/File:Canada_time_zone_ma... (zbyszek, 17:12:49)
* #3089 retiring redhat-lsb in Fedora (Son_Goku, 17:20:10) * We have (+5, 0, -2) for in-ticket voting to retire redhat-lsb (Son_Goku, 17:21:33) * LINK: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-gen... (carlwgeorge, 17:44:15) * LINK: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/index.html (carlwgeorge, 17:46:11) * AGREED: lsb_release (all implementations) must not report compliance with LSB, because various components are missing from Fedora, so compliance is not possible. (+6, 0, 0) (Son_Goku, 17:49:08) * AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0) (Son_Goku, 17:59:18)
* Next week's chair (Son_Goku, 18:09:08) * ACTION: zbyszek will chair next meeting (Son_Goku, 18:10:05)
* Open Floor (Son_Goku, 18:10:10) * LINK: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-39/f-39-elections-tasks.html (mhroncok_web, 18:11:19) * LINK: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#fesco-members says 5 seats are up for election. (zbyszek, 18:13:57) * ACTION: sgallagh will reach out to amoloney to get the elections going (Son_Goku, 18:14:10)
Meeting ended at 18:19:29 UTC.
Action Items ------------ * zbyszek will chair next meeting * sgallagh will reach out to amoloney to get the elections going
Action Items, by person ----------------------- * sgallagh * sgallagh will reach out to amoloney to get the elections going * zbyszek * zbyszek will chair next meeting * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)
People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * Son_Goku (110) * zbyszek (24) * nirik (17) * sgallagh (17) * carlwgeorge (16) * zodbot (12) * mhroncok_web (12) * tstellar (8) * decathorpe (7) * smooge (2) * mhroncok (0) * dcantrell (0) * mhayden (0) * Conan_Kudo (0) * Pharaoh_Atem (0) * King_InuYasha (0) * Sir_Gallantmon (0) * Eighth_Doctor (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4
.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions
Neal Gompa wrote:
- AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0) (Son_Goku, 17:59:18)
So Fedora has completely discarded any notion of backwards compatibility. Sad.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 1:30 AM Kevin Kofler via devel devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
- AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0) (Son_Goku, 17:59:18)
So Fedora has completely discarded any notion of backwards compatibility. Sad.
There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it. Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving it (i.e. the status quo for many Fedora releases) is a lie that helps nobody.
Fabio
Fabio Valentini wrote:
There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it. Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving it (i.e. the status quo for many Fedora releases) is a lie that helps nobody.
True, but the issue is that FESCo sees the bug in the claim and not in the failure to achieve it, which is where the real issue lies.
Kevin Kofler
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:39:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Fabio Valentini wrote:
There's a difference between *claiming* LSB compliance (what you refer to as backwards compatibility ?) and actually *achieving* it. Claiming it (the thing we objected to) without achieving it (i.e. the status quo for many Fedora releases) is a lie that helps nobody.
True, but the issue is that FESCo sees the bug in the claim and not in the failure to achieve it, which is where the real issue lies.
Attaining LSB compliance requires some interested persons to step up and volunteer their time to make it happen. FESCo doesn't have the ability to force people to work on features they're not interested in. So in the absence of any volunteers, the FESCo decision is the only outcome that was reasonably possible at this point in time.
With regards, Daniel
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:28:31AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
- AGREED: Fedora explicitly declines to support the LSB 5.0 or
earlier. Packagers will remove any information that implies otherwise. No implementation of an LSB package may expressly state or offer compliance for any LSB module that Fedora does not or cannot comply with. (+6, 0, 0) (Son_Goku, 17:59:18)
So Fedora has completely discarded any notion of backwards compatibility. Sad.
This is called "shooting the messenger".
LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a nice listing. We are not going to bring back Python 2 or old PERL modules to satisfy LSB. The decision of FESCo is to not claim compatibility when we don't provide it.
[1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3089#comment-881313
Zbyszek
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This is called "shooting the messenger".
It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a nice listing. We are not going to bring back Python 2 or old PERL modules to satisfy LSB.
That is exactly the attitude I am complaining about!
It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec, without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and make both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. That should have been the Python 2 migration plan from the beginning, instead of the package mass retirement spree that was done instead. (And Python 3 should never have been installed as /usr/bin/python. Scripts with #!/usr/bin/python expect Python 2, silently replacing it with Python 3 breaks the scripts. Anything aware that a Python 3 exists uses, or at least SHOULD use, #!/usr/bin/python3.)
But Fedora just does not care about keeping working software working.
The decision of FESCo is to not claim compatibility when we don't provide it.
That makes sense, but the issue is the latter part, not the former.
Kevin Kofler
On 16. 11. 23 13:45, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec, without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and make both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. That should have been the Python 2 migration plan from the beginning, instead of the package mass retirement spree that was done instead. (And Python 3 should never have been installed as /usr/bin/python. Scripts with #!/usr/bin/python expect Python 2, silently replacing it with Python 3 breaks the scripts. Anything aware that a Python 3 exists uses, or at least SHOULD use, #!/usr/bin/python3.)
Thank you for your very constructive suggestion, Kevin!
Why don't you package Tauthon in Fedora, keep it secure by backporting CVE fixes from Python 3 (because upstream Tauthon does not) and propose that Fedora should go against Python PEPs and Python Software Foundation wishes because... scripts.
I would certainly oppose that proposal, but I realize I am biased.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This is called "shooting the messenger".
It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a nice listing. We are not going to bring back Python 2 or old PERL modules to satisfy LSB.
That is exactly the attitude I am complaining about!
It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec, without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and make both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. That
1. It is not clear that would actually be 'valid' for being LSB compliant. The LSB was written to be very specific in the 'actual' software used. Substitutes would need approval by the now defunct LSB committee. 2. The packages in Fedora are put in there by individuals who are interested in maintaining them. The only things I know of stopping you or a group of individuals from packing up tauthon or the other 'dead' software is just the sheer size of the work required. However, that is just the easy stuff. The perl changes also require similar locked older versions of perl and module trees so every perl script would also need to now be changed to refer to specific versions (one being the perl5 approved by LSB and the other not).
In the end, the real work needed is getting LSB 'going' again. The last version was over 10 years old and based on what the state of the 'OS' was in 2012 (it takes time to standardize so even with the last version being from 2015, it is going to aim at what is generally available in 2012). It needs a 'reboot' which either meets what is the state of things are in say 2019 or newer. Or interested people can make an OS which will stick to LSB-5.0 forever.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, 9:05 AM Stephen Smoogen ssmoogen@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 07:46, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
This is called "shooting the messenger".
It is not. See my reply to Fabio.
LSB requires various obsolete interfaces, in particular it requires Python 2 to be available as /usr/bin/python. Comment [1] contains a nice listing. We are not going to bring back Python 2 or old PERL modules to satisfy LSB.
That is exactly the attitude I am complaining about!
It would be very much possible to support the Python 2 parts of the spec, without even shipping unmaintained software: Package Tauthon 2.8.4, and make both /usr/bin/python and /usr/bin/python2 symlinks to /usr/bin/tauthon. That
- It is not clear that would actually be 'valid' for being LSB compliant.
The LSB was written to be very specific in the 'actual' software used. Substitutes would need approval by the now defunct LSB committee. 2. The packages in Fedora are put in there by individuals who are interested in maintaining them. The only things I know of stopping you or a group of individuals from packing up tauthon or the other 'dead' software is just the sheer size of the work required. However, that is just the easy stuff. The perl changes also require similar locked older versions of perl and module trees so every perl script would also need to now be changed to refer to specific versions (one being the perl5 approved by LSB and the other not).
In the end, the real work needed is getting LSB 'going' again. The last version was over 10 years old and based on what the state of the 'OS' was in 2012 (it takes time to standardize so even with the last version being from 2015, it is going to aim at what is generally available in 2012). It needs a 'reboot' which either meets what is the state of things are in say 2019 or newer. Or interested people can make an OS which will stick to LSB-5.0 forever.
I question whether any of that is actually needed. Evidence from the past decade seems to show we get by just fine without it. I think it's better to just let LSB fade gracefully into the night.
josh