12:25 p.m.
The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
Meeting time is at 17:00 UTC. FPC members, please try to be on-time, as
the Fedora Board meets at 18:00 UTC.
Items scheduled to be discussed:
Python virtual Provides: PackagingDrafts/Python
Haskell: PackagingDrafts/Haskell
Font bundles amendement to Fonts policy:
PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles
Lisp: PackagingDrafts/Lisp
As a reminder, the process for getting items onto the FPC's agenda is
documented here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure
Thanks,
~spot
10:20 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
In case it wasn't clear to everyone already, sometimes, I'm an idiot.
I'll be in route to OLS during the time I scheduled for this meeting.
You guys are welcomed to have it without me, but if not, we'll push out
to next Tuesday... or we could try for Monday. FPC members, please chime
in.
~spot
11:07 p.m.
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:20 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway
wrote:
> The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
> July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
> meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
In case it wasn't clear to everyone already, sometimes, I'm an idiot.
I'll be in route to OLS during the time I scheduled for this meeting.
You guys are welcomed to have it without me, but if not, we'll push out
to next Tuesday... or we could try for Monday. FPC members, please chime
in.
FYI: I am not sure, whether I'll be able to attend any meeting
throughout the next 4 weeks, because other higher commitments are likely
to interfere[1]. I.e. whether it'll be Monday or Tuesday doesn't really
matter much to me.
Though I'll try to join whenever meetings will be scheduled, it's
impossible for me to promise to be able to do so.
Ralf
[1] This already had happened this week. I had planned to attend, but
something "urgent" demanding "immediate action" had driven me AFK
shortly before the "scheduled meeting".
8:28 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
<snip>
Meeting time is at 17:00 UTC. FPC members, please try to be on-time,
as
the Fedora Board meets at 18:00 UTC.
Items scheduled to be discussed:
<snip>
Lisp: PackagingDrafts/Lisp
I'm going to be without internet connectivity today and tomorrow, but
I'll likely have it tonight. If anybody has questions or comments about
the Lisp packaging draft, today would be a really great day to send them
to me, so I can respond tonight before the meeting.
Thanks!
AG
9:54 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:25:09PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Items scheduled to be discussed:
[list not including MinGW]
As a reminder, the process for getting items onto the FPC's
agenda is
documented here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure
I edited this page a couple of week ago:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo
but the MinGW stuff doesn't appear in the list?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
10:39 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:05:34AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> [list not including MinGW]
MinGW is blocked at FESCo at the moment (I think).
Don't things go to FPC first? How do I find out its status at FESCo &
how to unblock it?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v
11:01 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 16:39 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:05:34AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > [list not including MinGW]
>
> MinGW is blocked at FESCo at the moment (I think).
Don't things go to FPC first? How do I find out its status at FESCo &
how to unblock it?
Well, in this case, I think the workflow is:
The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
specifics. (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
Once FESCo does this, the FPC will review the specific packaging bits
and approve the guidelines.
~spot
11:45 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits
was
a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
specifics. (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
fact ...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
11:54 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> > a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> > the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> > specifics. (see:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
>
> This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
> for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
> anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
> weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
> fact ...
The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
that meeting is public (IRC):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/
This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
members were invited.
And IRC logs of this meeting ...?
I notice people were at the meeting who aren't in FESCo. OK, maybe
technically they just happened to be there and weren't "invited", but
I think it's in the interests of everyone to find out who said what,
in the open.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora
11:58 a.m.
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> specifics. (see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
fact ...
The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
that meeting is public (IRC):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/
This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
members were invited.
~spot
12:22 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> > > a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> > > the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> > > specifics. (see:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
> >
> > This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
> > for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
> > anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
> > weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
> > fact ...
>
> The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
> that meeting is public (IRC):
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/
>
> This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
> members were invited.
And IRC logs of this meeting ...?
I notice people were at the meeting who aren't in FESCo. OK, maybe
technically they just happened to be there and weren't "invited", but
I think it's in the interests of everyone to find out who said what,
in the open.
The Fedora Board is different from FESCo. The Fedora Board holds its
meetings over the telephone (except for the one monthly open IRC
meeting).
Again, to reiterate, the Board simply said that it was in support of
MinGW in Fedora, but it should be separated, and that FESCo should
handle the technical specifics.
~spot
5:54 p.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Anthony Green wrote:
If anybody has questions or comments about the Lisp packaging
draft, today would be a really great day to send them
to me, so I can respond tonight before the meeting.
I am on vacation so I haven't had all that much time to review things
properly, but one thing I noticed is that, as someone not familiar with
Lisp who might be reviewing packages, some of the guidelines don't
really enlighten me as to how I might actually tell if a particular
package meets them. For example, I see that libraries should be managed
by "asdf" and that they should be able to load asdf with some specific
lisp code. The guidelines, however, don't inform me as to how I might
tell if the package does those things.
Also, a specfile template would really be appreciated. As it is, if
these guidelines were passed, I'd have no idea how to actually review
lisp packages.
- J<
12:19 a.m.
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
Meeting time is at 17:00 UTC. FPC members, please try to be on-time, as
the Fedora Board meets at 18:00 UTC.
Items scheduled to be discussed:
Python virtual Provides: PackagingDrafts/Python
Haskell: PackagingDrafts/Haskell
Font bundles amendement to Fonts policy:
PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles
Lisp: PackagingDrafts/Lisp
As a reminder, the process for getting items onto the FPC's agenda is
documented here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure
Wat is the plan with this meeting, is it going through ? I'm asking
because there have been some cancellations so I wonder how usefull it is
to get together. I'll be there this time, sorry for missing the last few
times.
Regards,
Hans
4:29 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Again, to reiterate, the Board simply said that it was in support of
MinGW in Fedora, but it should be separated, and that FESCo should
handle the technical specifics.
What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate
repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just
because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
7:06 a.m.
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a
separate
repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just
because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although
it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools
themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora. The libraries compiled
against it for windows use are what should be in another repo.
My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge spec files
in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to
be done outside our cvs repo as well.
However that's just my opinion, and since the board has asked FESCo to
sort out the technical details, and I'm not in FESCo anymore, that
opinion doesn't amount to much (:
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
11:22 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:06:59AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate
> repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
> Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just
> because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
> is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although
it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools
themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora. The libraries compiled
against it for windows use are what should be in another repo.
[I'm going to prepare something more detailed, hopefully integrating
efforts with the cross-compiler folks, but just on these two points ...]
If we ship only the four base packages (mingw-gcc, mingw-binutils,
mingw-w32api and mingw-runtime) then the only software that can be
compiled is software which doesn't use any libraries. That's pretty
restrictive.
To compile, for example, libvirt, one needs six other libraries. As
with Linux, you need the library around (foo-0.dll) in order to link.
Anyone compiling libvirt would need to download the source for each of
these six libraries and './configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 ; make ;
make install' before they could start on libvirt, and of course it
isn't really that simple since those libraries don't all just
cross-compile without needing tweaks and patches. Tweaks and patches
are what spec files are for. This is why we'd like to ship
pre-compiled DLLs (only) of those six libs.
I think people have somehow got the impression we want to (a) ship
FIREFOX.EXE and/or (b) cross-compile every library in Fedora. I'd
like to say that (a) is not our intention, ever, and (b) isn't even
technically possible, nevermind that it is completely undesirable.
My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge spec
files
in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to
be done outside our cvs repo as well.
There are two ways that we've proposed that one could build
'mingw-gnutls'. One is as a completely separate package, another is
as a subpackage of the ordinary gnutls. I investigated and built
packages both ways (see links below) just to see what was technically
feasible. It turns out that both methods are *technically* feasible.
Which is better from technical, organizational or political points of
view is a completely different question.
http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/?cmd=manifest;manifest=9...
http://hg.et.redhat.com/misc/fedora-mingw--devel/?cmd=manifest;manifest=9...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v
12:55 p.m.
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:06:59AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>> What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate
>> repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
>> Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just
>> because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
>> is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
> Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although
> it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools
> themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora. The libraries compiled
> against it for windows use are what should be in another repo.
[I'm going to prepare something more detailed, hopefully integrating
efforts with the cross-compiler folks, but just on these two points ...]
If we ship only the four base packages (mingw-gcc, mingw-binutils,
mingw-w32api and mingw-runtime) then the only software that can be
compiled is software which doesn't use any libraries. That's pretty
restrictive.
To compile, for example, libvirt, one needs six other libraries. As
with Linux, you need the library around (foo-0.dll) in order to link.
Anyone compiling libvirt would need to download the source for each of
these six libraries and './configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 ; make ;
make install' before they could start on libvirt, and of course it
isn't really that simple since those libraries don't all just
cross-compile without needing tweaks and patches. Tweaks and patches
are what spec files are for. This is why we'd like to ship
pre-compiled DLLs (only) of those six libs.
When people talk about a separate repo, it's something that would still
allow this workflow to happen. The separate repo exists on the Fedora
master mirror but mirrors of us have the option to include or exclude
these other repos depending on their ability to carry the extra packages.
This separate repo will have a yum configuration file that I think
should be shipped by default. I think it should also be turned on by
default. This would make the fact that there is a different repo for
the packages transparent to end users. (However, this portion is
something that FESCo decides, not FPC... this case would need to be
argued in front of FESCo).
I think people have somehow got the impression we want to (a) ship
FIREFOX.EXE and/or (b) cross-compile every library in Fedora. I'd
like to say that (a) is not our intention, ever, and (b) isn't even
technically possible, nevermind that it is completely undesirable.
Who is "we"? That is the crux of your statements. If a group of Fedora
contributors who are not the libvirt team decide that they want to have
a complete cross-compilation environment to be able to build firefox.exe
for windows under Fedora at some point in the future, I'd like us to
not stand in their way. OTOH, even if that never happens, there is
still the issue that MingW is not the only crosscompilation system that
we want in Fedora. To scale across architectures as well as in depth on
one os-architecture also has an impact on mirrors which can be mitigated
by having a separate repo.
> My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge
spec files
> in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to
> be done outside our cvs repo as well.
There are two ways that we've proposed that one could build
'mingw-gnutls'. One is as a completely separate package, another is
as a subpackage of the ordinary gnutls. I investigated and built
packages both ways (see links below) just to see what was technically
feasible. It turns out that both methods are *technically* feasible.
Which is better from technical, organizational or political points of
view is a completely different question.
This is partially a FPC issue and partially a FESCo/Board issue. The
four people present for the FPC meeting last week discussed this
informally and there was consensus that separate packging made more
sense. However, FESCo will need to decide how having a separate
download repository maps to our cvs repository. The two options I see
are separate packages (as discussed by FPC) and separate branches within
CVS. Which one is decided will have some influence over any eventual
Guidelines that the FPC writes and/or approves.
-Toshio
11:10 p.m.
On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 17:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:06:59AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 10:29 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > What is the board's rationale for putting MinGW packages in a separate
> > repository, when other cross-compiler toolchain (eg ARM) are in the main
> > Fedora repository. Seems to me like we're penalizing MinGW just
> > because it happens to be related to Windows, even though MinGW's code
> > is still just as open source as anything else in our repos.
>
> Actually I think the prevailing thought that the Board has (although
> it's up to FESCo to really nail it down) is that the mingw tools
> themselves are absolutely suitable for Fedora. The libraries compiled
> against it for windows use are what should be in another repo.
[I'm going to prepare something more detailed, hopefully integrating
efforts with the cross-compiler folks, but just on these two points ...]
If we ship only the four base packages (mingw-gcc, mingw-binutils,
mingw-w32api and mingw-runtime) then the only software that can be
compiled is software which doesn't use any libraries. That's pretty
restrictive.
This is way too restrictive. In fact, such a restriction closes out
any cross-toolchain from Fedora.
> My personal opinion is that if you're going to need to munge
spec files
> in order to produce packages built against mingw, those munges need to
> be done outside our cvs repo as well.
Building cross-toolchains inevitably
needs some target-libraries. If you
want to see cross-toolchain packages in Fedora, these target-libraries
must be shipped as part of Fedora.
Ralf
2:37 p.m.
On Tuesday, 15 July 2008 at 19:25, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
Meeting time is at 17:00 UTC. FPC members, please try to be on-time, as
the Fedora Board meets at 18:00 UTC.
I couldn't make it, again, and I'm sorry. The current meeting time is
consistently
overlapping with my sport activities which can't be rescheduled. That time
might change after the vacations are over, but I won't know until then.
I'd very much like to change that meeting time or step down from FPC if that's
not possible. I don't see any point in being on the Committee if I can't attend
the meetings.
Moreover, I'm on vacation for the most of August and will only have Internet
connectivity via a cellphone, if at all, and that's expensive, so I'll
be limiting it as much as possible.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
Livna http://rpm.livna.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
11:59 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Jason Tibbitts wrote:
I am on vacation so I haven't had all that much time to review
things
properly, but one thing I noticed is that, as someone not familiar
with Lisp who might be reviewing packages, some of the guidelines
don't really enlighten me as to how I might actually tell if a
particular package meets them. For example, I see that libraries
should be managed by "asdf" and that they should be able to load asdf
with some specific lisp code. The guidelines, however, don't inform
me as to how I might tell if the package does those things.
Well, it does say where
asdf system definition (.asd) files need to be
installed. I guess I'm assuming that the packager would realize that
the library isn't managed by asdf if no .asd file is present upstream.
I've small changes to clarify this. I've also clarified that you should
type "(require 'asdf)" at the REPL in order to test if the Lisp
implementation is capable of loading asdf. I think that if a package
reviewer doesn't know what a REPL is, then they aren't qualified to
review a Common Lisp implementation package (although Lisp libraries
should be easily reviewable without any Lisp domain knowledge).
Also, a specfile template would really be appreciated. As it is, if
these guidelines were passed, I'd have no idea how to actually review
lisp packages.
I'll post a spec template for Lisp libraries. I agree that this
would
be helpful. But the current draft as written already says where things
need to be installed and what the required dependencies are. How can
you say it gives you no idea how to review lisp packages?
Thanks,
AG
- J<
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
12:37 p.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Jason Tibbitts wrote:
Also, a specfile template would really be appreciated. As it is, if
these guidelines were passed, I'd have no idea how to actually review
lisp packages.
Ok, done. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Lisp
When is the next meeting on this subject?
Thanks,
AG
4:11 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Anthony Green wrote:
I think that if a package
reviewer doesn't know what a REPL is, then they aren't qualified to
review a Common Lisp implementation package (although Lisp libraries
should be easily reviewable without any Lisp domain knowledge).
Wow, really? I guess that in that case all I can do is wish you luck in
getting any packages reviewed at all. Well, that and that I'm inclined
to vote against guidelines which don't explain things sufficiently so
that the available reviewer pool is capable of understanding them.
- J<
8:20 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting (Tuesday July 22)
Jason Tibbitts wrote:
Anthony Green wrote:
> I think that if a package reviewer doesn't know what a REPL is, then
> they aren't qualified to review a Common Lisp implementation package
> (although Lisp libraries should be easily reviewable without any Lisp
> domain knowledge).
Wow, really? I guess that in that case all I can do is wish you luck
in getting any packages reviewed at all.
Remember that I'm making a distinction
between Lisp implementations and
Lisp libraries. The Common Lisp situation is similar to that of Java,
in that there are multiple implementations of the language runtime, and
many library packages that are designed to work with any of the
implementations. Fedora's Java packaging guidelines only cover java
libraries, and ignore the implementation side. I think that packaging a
Java implementation, much like packaging a Lisp implementation, requires
a certain amount of specialized domain knowledge. That's probably why
it was omitted from the Java packaging guidelines.
Well, that and that I'm inclined to vote against guidelines which
don't explain things sufficiently so that the available reviewer pool
is capable of understanding them.
I could simply drop the Lisp implementation
packaging guidelines from my
draft (to mirror our Java guidelines), but I'd rather not since what I
have is better than nothing. All of the major FOSS Common Lisp
implementations are already in Fedora, so it's not like we'll need many
reviewers with the rudimentary Lisp knowledge necessary to deal with them.
AG
5752
days inactive
5762
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
23 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Anthony Green -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Hans de Goede -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jesse Keating -
Ralf Corsepius -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi