Feb 13 03:56:34 -->	rdieter (n=rdieter@sting.unl.edu) hat #fedora-devel betreten
Feb 13 03:57:11 <liquidat>	rdieter: Hej...
Feb 13 03:57:37 <--	mull hat sich getrennt (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
Feb 13 03:57:53 <rdieter>	liquidat: hi
Feb 13 03:58:20 <liquidat>	You can be quite lucky that I'm here - it is just because a review I wanted to write took so much longer (but was very exciting anyway).
Feb 13 03:58:35 <liquidat>	And I'm not sure how long I will stay here - it's 4 o'clock in the morning here...
Feb 13 03:58:42 <rdieter>	what review?
Feb 13 03:58:44 <liquidat>	But well, we'll see.
Feb 13 03:58:50 <liquidat>	I blogged about VirtualBox.
Feb 13 03:58:53 <Kevin_Kofler>	It's 4 AM too, so what? ;-)
Feb 13 03:58:56 <Kevin_Kofler>	+here
Feb 13 03:59:14 <liquidat>	Btw., *that* would be a cool addition for the KDE fedora spin (virtualbox' gui is qt).
Feb 13 03:59:32 <rdieter>	forgive my ignorance, what is it?
Feb 13 03:59:37 <liquidat>	Kevin_Kofler: Well, I guess it's the same time zone, even the same language (somewhat) ;)
Feb 13 04:00:03 <liquidat>	rdieter: A virtual machine. Just like Vmware, but the interface is stunning (perfect designed). It was released as GPL some days ago.
Feb 13 04:00:16 <rdieter>	like qemu too?
Feb 13 04:00:17 <liquidat>	http://liquidat.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/review-innoteks-virtualbox/
Feb 13 04:01:09 <liquidat>	rdieter: Well, "like Qemu" if you mean the GPL part - the GUI is light years ahead, the speed is at the same level as Vmware, and you can even use it for servers because it works on command line as well.
Feb 13 04:01:18 <liquidat>	It is really stunning, believe me.
Feb 13 04:01:29 <rdieter>	looks impressive.
Feb 13 04:01:37 <liquidat>	Astonishing I meant. But, well stunning maybe also ;)
Feb 13 04:01:48 <rdieter>	afk ~2 min.
Feb 13 04:02:37 <liquidat>	Impressive is the right word...
Feb 13 04:03:29 <liquidat>	I copied a small performance test a news magazine here made, it gives a pretty good impression of the VirtualBox performance.
Feb 13 04:06:30 <liquidat>	Hm... so, who is here for the KDE talk?
Feb 13 04:06:40 <rdieter>	back.
Feb 13 04:06:52 <liquidat>	wb
Feb 13 04:07:31 <liquidat>	So - how do we start?
Feb 13 04:08:07 <rdieter>	ok, topic #1, encourage reviews of kde-related pkgs.
Feb 13 04:08:42 <rdieter>	I listed most of the (core) ones on the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFedoraKDE
Feb 13 04:09:06 <rdieter>	this is vital, movement needs to happen asap.
Feb 13 04:09:27 <rdieter>	no modification, or comaintainership can happen until these first pass review.
Feb 13 04:09:30 <liquidat>	What do we need to do? Just making usual package reviews with these?
Feb 13 04:09:44 <rdieter>	usual review, pretty much.
Feb 13 04:10:10 <liquidat>	Ah, ok.
Feb 13 04:10:34 <rdieter>	procedure is slightly different with merge reviews: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WarrenTogami/ReviewWithFlags
Feb 13 04:11:23 <rdieter>	questions/comments?
Feb 13 04:12:02 <liquidat>	I could take a smaller one - the problem is that I have only my laptop as a machine to make mock build tests.
Feb 13 04:12:25 <liquidat>	kdenetwork takes more than 40 minutes here...
Feb 13 04:12:32 <rdieter>	with merge reviews, you can pretty much assume they already build.
Feb 13 04:12:40 <rdieter>	(:
Feb 13 04:12:49 <liquidat>	Well, not kdenetwork, that's the reason why I say.
Feb 13 04:13:17 <rdieter>	really?  interesting, well *most* should build as-is anyway. (:
Feb 13 04:13:26 <rdieter>	at least the kde-3.5.6 pkgs should.
Feb 13 04:13:37 -->	craigt (n=craigt@ool-43512319.dyn.optonline.net) hat #fedora-devel betreten
Feb 13 04:13:40 <rdieter>	kde < 3.5.5 had issues with rawhide's autoconf/automake stack.
Feb 13 04:13:46 <liquidat>	http://bugzilla.redhat.com/195486 there it says it doesn't.
Feb 13 04:14:29 <rdieter>	?? it worksforme.
Feb 13 04:14:33 <liquidat>	Anyway, can you add a flag on the webpage to each bug report if there is a reviewer already or not?
Feb 13 04:14:42 <rdieter>	I'll have to update that for kdenetwork-3.5.6
Feb 13 04:15:12 *	rdieter shrugs.
Feb 13 04:15:30 <liquidat>	Like, kdenetwork has a reviwer, but kdebindings does not?
Feb 13 04:15:56 <rdieter>	kdenetwork hasn't a reviewer (it's assigned still to nobody)
Feb 13 04:16:18 <rdieter>	kdebindings likely doesn't either.
Feb 13 04:18:12 <liquidat>	Strange, at the bug report of kdenetwork Michael J Knox said "I will review this one": https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195486#c2
Feb 13 04:18:12 <rdieter>	and in comment #9, said "I'll have to step out..."
Feb 13 04:18:12 <rdieter>	"and be unable to complete this review"
Feb 13 04:19:18 <rdieter>	anyway, there's a mix of merge reviews (from Core), and Review Requests of mine.
Feb 13 04:19:24 <liquidat>	Sorry, didn't see that :(
Feb 13 04:19:49 <rdieter>	the latter ones follow the "usual" Extras' procedure, the former the new ReviewWithFlags method.
Feb 13 04:20:11 <rdieter>	anything else?  otherwise, I'll try to move on.
Feb 13 04:20:17 <liquidat>	No, please move on.
Feb 13 04:21:04 <rdieter>	topic #2: package splitting.
Feb 13 04:21:50 <rdieter>	Rationale here is to include in the main pkgs only those bits we want installed by default,
Feb 13 04:21:57 <rdieter>	the rest split into subpkgs or into an -extras pkg, or simply omitted altogether (rarely).
Feb 13 04:22:42 <rdieter>	The best bits, trying to avoid overlaps in functionality.
Feb 13 04:23:01 <rdieter>	Again, I refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureFedoraKDE
Feb 13 04:23:30 <rdieter>	Does the list of items to split-out make sense?
Feb 13 04:23:45 <liquidat>	Almost: kdenetwork lists kpdf?!
Feb 13 04:23:54 <rdieter>	(that list was mostly from a brainstorming session I had at FUDCon with Aaron Seigo of kde)
Feb 13 04:24:09 <rdieter>	kpdf != kpf
Feb 13 04:24:23 <liquidat>	Oh, my fault, sorry.
Feb 13 04:24:27 <rdieter>	n p
Feb 13 04:25:28 <rdieter>	stuff in () is what replaces the lost functionality (if that wasn't obvious).
Feb 13 04:25:40 <Kevin_Kofler>	What's the rationale for splitting off ktalkd? Doesn't that mean that if someone old school enough tries to send you a "talk" message, it gets just lost or printed on some console you'll never notice?
Feb 13 04:26:05 <rdieter>	ktalkd != old talk protocol.  It's something even older and different, afaik.
Feb 13 04:26:35 <rdieter>	(or am I rememberring it wrong?)
Feb 13 04:26:46 <liquidat>	http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdenetwork/ktalkd/introduction.html
Feb 13 04:27:06 <Kevin_Kofler>	That at least claims it takes messages from "talk", as well as "ntalk" and "otalk".
Feb 13 04:27:11 <liquidat>	There are security concerns about running that app on multi-user-machines.
Feb 13 04:27:20 <liquidat>	That shouldn't be integrated!
Feb 13 04:27:46 <Kevin_Kofler>	It being insecure would be a good reason not to install it by default, of course.
Feb 13 04:28:01 <rdieter>	yeah, that warning about use on multi-user machines, is troubling.
Feb 13 04:28:26 <Kevin_Kofler>	Why would you use talk on a single-user machine? ;-)
Feb 13 04:28:47 <rdieter>	exactly.
Feb 13 04:28:47 -->	kmaraas (n=kmaraas@115.84-48-67.nextgentel.com) hat #fedora-devel betreten
Feb 13 04:29:04 <liquidat>	Is someone packaging speedcrunch?
Feb 13 04:29:10 <rdieter>	heck, that's what irc, jabber, etc, is for these days.
Feb 13 04:29:23 <rdieter>	re: speedcrunch, not yet, afaik.
Feb 13 04:29:47 <rdieter>	I should have put that one in the "not yet packaged for Fedora" section.
Feb 13 04:30:14 <rdieter>	any other questions/comments regarding package splits?
Feb 13 04:30:25 <liquidat>	I will try to submit speedcrunch tomorrow...
Feb 13 04:30:31 <rdieter>	thanks.
Feb 13 04:30:59 <rdieter>	the splitting business may involve a wee-bit of work, but I think it will be worth it (hopefully, we'll have to time)
Feb 13 04:31:20 <rdieter>	recall: F7t2 freeze is 02/20
Feb 13 04:31:53 <liquidat>	I agree...
Feb 13 04:32:01 <rdieter>	ok, last topic on my informal agenda: app defaults/setup.
Feb 13 04:32:26 -->	fedorared (n=john@fedora/fedorared) hat #fedora-devel betreten
Feb 13 04:32:52 <rdieter>	In short, setup things so that stuff works as sanely as possible out of the box.
Feb 13 04:33:42 <rdieter>	one optimization that may be controversial was to make pdf the default print output, and make kpdf the default print preview.
Feb 13 04:34:04 <rdieter>	(maybe just pdf for print preview, anyway)
Feb 13 04:34:17 <liquidat>	I tried that one on my local machine, and it worked.
Feb 13 04:34:49 <liquidat>	The question is how much work this is on the packages, but in other cases I would prefer kpdf - the old one was really old.
Feb 13 04:35:20 <rdieter>	this part, I don't see as being much work (less than pkg splitting, in any case)
Feb 13 04:35:46 <liquidat>	What are reasons against, than?
Feb 13 04:36:35 <rdieter>	I can't think of any reason, but I'm biased.
Feb 13 04:37:02 <rdieter>	any other ideas for possible app/setup customization to improve user experience?
Feb 13 04:37:34 <liquidat>	Well, it would be cool to have another style
Feb 13 04:37:44 <Kevin_Kofler>	Have you seen jkatz's proposed list of spins yet? http://katzj.livejournal.com/400723.html
Feb 13 04:38:15 <liquidat>	Polyester together with Fedora colours would be nicer than just the plain KDE.
Feb 13 04:38:18 <Kevin_Kofler>	There's no full KDE spin in that plan, just a live CD...
Feb 13 04:38:22 <rdieter>	yes, I saw his rough draft (though I forgot to comment on it)
Feb 13 04:38:44 <rdieter>	yeah, we plan on making a full/regular spin first, then livecd too (if we have time)
Feb 13 04:39:32 <rdieter>	liquidat: I'm strongly against anything buy plastik as the default, thought we can include other styles in the spin.
Feb 13 04:40:10 <liquidat>	rdieter: Ok, than plastik :)
Feb 13 04:40:24 <rdieter>	new/flashy styles are cute, but are also a source of irritating bugs.
Feb 13 04:41:07 <Kevin_Kofler>	Just make sure the good old Bluecurve libs end up on the spin.
Feb 13 04:41:11 <rdieter>	I'd feel a lot better going with something tried-and-true, which still qualifies as quasi-cool.
Feb 13 04:41:48 <rdieter>	yeah, Bluecurve is/will-be in redhat-artwork (or whatever they end up naming it), no getting away from that, likely.
Feb 13 04:42:32 <liquidat>	Hm.. I have no other ideas...
Feb 13 04:42:35 <Kevin_Kofler>	There's currently a proposal on the ML to split off the Bluecurve binaries from redhat-artwork to avoid multilibbing all that data.
Feb 13 04:42:47 <rdieter>	speaking of theming, I'm also strongly leaning toward using crystalsvg icon theme.
Feb 13 04:43:00 <liquidat>	Which one is the default?
Feb 13 04:43:08 <rdieter>	echo looks nice, but dev's seem only luke-warm to address kde-specific issues.
Feb 13 04:43:42 <rdieter>	Fc-6 defaults to Bluecurve icon theme, I believe.
Feb 13 04:43:52 <rdieter>	I propose to use crystalsvg.
Feb 13 04:43:59 <rdieter>	for F7 kde spin, anyway.
Feb 13 04:44:35 <rdieter>	unless a miracle occurs and echo gets fixed in the meantime.
Feb 13 04:45:02 <liquidat>	So lets take crystalsvg - isn't that even the default for KDE vanilla?
Feb 13 04:45:08 <rdieter>	yup.
Feb 13 04:46:14 <rdieter>	cool thing is, all/most of the customizations, and theming defaults will be contained in a separate .noarch pkg.
Feb 13 04:46:44 <rdieter>	Which will allow local/site admins to customize things easily by replacing/updating that one bit.
Feb 13 04:47:04 <rdieter>	Or even better, use kde's kiosktool to do it.
Feb 13 04:47:11 <liquidat>	Hm, sounds nice :)
Feb 13 04:47:53 <rdieter>	I initially named the "defaults" pkg, kde-config (but that's confusing, since kdelibs includes a binary named kde-config).
Feb 13 04:48:00 <--	daMaestro hat sich getrennt ("Leaving")
Feb 13 04:48:10 <rdieter>	I think I'm leaning toward calling it kde-settings instead.
Feb 13 04:49:06 <liquidat>	kde-settings-default (so others can add kde-settings-corporatebranding or whatever)
Feb 13 04:50:01 <rdieter>	sure, that makes sense too.
Feb 13 04:50:11 <Kevin_Kofler>	kde-default-settings would be more grammatical.
Feb 13 04:51:15 <rdieter>	even better.
Feb 13 04:51:45 <liquidat>	Whatever :)
Feb 13 04:52:16 <rdieter>	if anybody listening knows or is near than@redhat.com, poke him to wake up.
Feb 13 04:53:44 <rdieter>	that's pretty much all I had in mind, any other topics?
Feb 13 04:54:15 *	rdieter had been hoping than would have been here.
Feb 13 04:55:17 <liquidat>	A question: will we include non-security bug fixes when they appear?
Feb 13 04:55:23 <liquidat>	I have the ICQ problem in my mind.
Feb 13 04:55:44 <rdieter>	A big, it depends, but usually, yes.
Feb 13 04:56:08 <rdieter>	we don't want to push big pkg updates for every small bug fix either.
Feb 13 04:56:43 <rdieter>	there's a balance.  (I'd argue the kopete icq warranted being fixed)
Feb 13 04:57:19 <liquidat>	Ah, ok.
Feb 13 04:58:06 <rdieter>	otherwise, review, review, review.  Have I mentioned package reviews? (:
Feb 13 04:59:30 <liquidat>	;)
Feb 13 05:00:02 <liquidat>	Well, I have almost no real experience there, but I will try to push up speedcrunch (ha, cmake one, never tried that in a spec file before).
Feb 13 05:00:03 <rdieter>	good night everybody, we'll reconvene tomorrow at 20:00 UTC
Feb 13 05:00:40 -->	sankarshan (n=sankarsh@202.80.58.210) hat #fedora-devel betreten
Feb 13 05:00:43 <Kevin_Kofler>	Would that be today for us in Europe?
Feb 13 05:01:02 <rdieter>	probably, Tue 20:00 UTC.
Feb 13 05:01:31 <rdieter>	(another time recently suggested on the KDE SIG wiki).
Feb 13 05:01:43 <liquidat>	I'm not sure if I will be there, but good night!
Feb 13 05:01:49 <liquidat>	Or good morning almost ;)
Feb 13 05:01:50 <rdieter>	thanks liquidat, Kevin_Kofler.
Feb 13 05:01:59 <--	liquidat (n=liquidat@4560-02bg04.stw-wh.uni-jena.de) hat #fedora-devel verlassen ("Konversation terminated!")
Feb 13 05:02:30 <--	rdieter hat sich getrennt (Remote closed the connection)
Feb 13 05:02:30 ---	Getrennt ().