From Fedora Project Wiki

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2007-08-28}


  • DavidLutterkort (lutter)
  • JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
  • JesseKeating (f13)
  • RexDieter (rdieter)
  • TomCallaway (spot)
  • ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)
  • VilleSkyttä (scop)


The following drafts have been accepted by FESCO and are to be written into the guidelines:


The following proposals were considered:

  • The first three sections of (Requires and Provides for PEAR and PECL packages and Macros and Scriptlets for PECL packages).
  • Accepted (7 - 0)
  • Voting for: tibbs spot abadger1999 scop rdieter lutter f13

Other Discussions

The following additional items were discussed; see the logs for full details.

IRC Logs

[12:04]  * rdieter comes back in
[12:05]  * spot is here
[12:05]  <rdieter> abadger1999: how's that? :)
[12:05]  <abadger1999> heh heh
[12:05]  <spot> f13 will be here shortly
[12:06]  <spot> he was fondling his balls.
[12:06]  * lutter is here
[12:06]  <lutter> spot: tmi
[12:06]  <rdieter> eew
[12:06]  <f13> *sigh*
[12:06]  <spot> scop: here?
[12:08]  <spot> tibbs?
[12:08]  <tibbs|h> Yep.
[12:09]  <spot> ok, well, we've only got one item for today: PHP!
[12:09]  <f13> fwiw, I was using to help my wrists.
[12:09]  <spot> specifically,
[12:09]  * RemiFedora here if you need comment about this draft ;)
[12:10]  <spot> RemiFedora: the "Packages with channels" section has a lot of TODO in it
[12:10]  <spot> RemiFedora: is that ready for us to vote on yet?
[12:10]  <RemiFedora> yes, mainly PEAR/PECL updates ready for now
[12:10]  * scop is here now
[12:11]  <tibbs> Trying to do a visual diff of the old and new versions.
[12:12]  <RemiFedora> i think diff are in "FPC  notes"
[12:12]  <tibbs> Well, sort of.
[12:13]  <tibbs> PEAR adds mandatory Requires(post) and (postun) and uses the %{__pear} macro now.
[12:13]  <tibbs> Which is all good.
[12:14]  * spot is not a PHP expert, but all the changes that don't say "TODO" look ok to me
[12:14]  <tibbs> +1 from me to the PEAR Packages and PECL Packages sections.
[12:14]  <tibbs> We're to vote on the "Marcos and scriptlets" section as well?
[12:14]  <spot> tibbs: yeah, i think so.
[12:15]  <tibbs> It would be nice to not need to ask that question.
[12:15]  <RemiFedora> yes, register PECL extensions is new (already done for PEAR extensions)
[12:16]  <tibbs> Does EPEL lose anything by not having %{pecl_install} and %{pecl_uninstall} ?
[12:16]  <RemiFedora> EPEL lose extensions registration (as in Fedora <= 7)
[12:17]  <tibbs> But is it problematic not to have it?
[12:17]  <tibbs> Or is it not meaningful for old PHP versions?
[12:17]  <RemiFedora> it's only information (answer to "pecl list")
[12:18]  <tibbs> OK.
[12:18]  <spot> +1 on PEAR Packages, PECL Packages, and Macros and Scriplets
[12:18]  <RemiFedora> and registration is broken (for RPM) until pear 1.5.0
[12:18]  <tibbs> So +1 from me to the first three sections.
[12:18]  <abadger1999> That sounds reasonable to me
[12:19]  <abadger1999> +1 for those three changes
[12:19]  <scop> +1 too
[12:19]  <rdieter> +1 too
[12:19]  <scop> has there been any effort in having rpmbuild autogenerate some of this stuff?
[12:19]  <lutter> +1
[12:20]  <tibbs> what could be autogenerated?
[12:20]  <scop> eg. some of the requires/provides
[12:20]  <spot> ok, the first three sections pass vote.
[12:20]  <RemiFedora> scop, we have "pear make-rpm-spec"
[12:20]  <scop> RemiFedora, that's not quite what I mean - I'm thinking about stuff like python abi version
[12:20]  <tibbs> rpmbuild doesn't even do automatic dependency generation for Python.
[12:21]  <scop> it does the abi part, and Panu is working on more
[12:21]  <tibbs> Well, except for python(abi).
[12:21]  <jeremy> tibbs: although panu is working on auto dep generation for python
[12:21]  <jeremy> (after it being on my todo list for way too many years)
[12:21]  <RemiFedora> i'm thinking of something to check PEAR dependencies (as for perl)...
[12:21]  <scop> anyway, that's not at all a blocker here, just thought it would be good to think about it for php too
[12:21]  <scop> RemiFedora, good
[12:22]  <f13> +1 for me.
[12:22]  <spot> ok, does anyone have anything they'd like to bring up today?
[12:24]  <f13> I have not.
[12:24]  <abadger1999> Yes
[12:24]  <abadger1999> One item + one FYI
[12:24]  <abadger1999>
[12:25]  <abadger1999> This is clarification of existing guidelines, does anyone think I made it more confusing?
[12:25]  <tibbs> The whole review guideline/packaging guideline separation needs cleanup, I think.
[12:26]  <abadger1999> tibbs: True.  It would be best if we could generate the review guidelines from the packaging guidelines automatically.
[12:26]  <bpepple|lt> spot: I contacted harold hoyer about the Initscripts lsb question we had during FESCo last week, and he's going to work on a guideline proposal.  Once he's done, he send it to the mailing list.
[12:26]  <spot> So, on the clarification, it looks good to me.
[12:26]  <tibbs> abadger1999:  That would require more wiki magic than I would care to know about.
[12:27]  <rdieter> clarification: +1
[12:27]  <tibbs> +1
[12:27]  <spot> +1
[12:28]  <abadger1999> +1 from me of course
[12:28]  <f13> +1
[12:29]  <spot> ok, thats +5.
[12:29]  <spot> abadger1999: what was your FYI?
[12:29]  <abadger1999>
[12:29]  <abadger1999> Most of the meat is there now.  I'll post a finished draft to the mailing list today
[12:30]  <abadger1999> We have two packages that are going to be implementing the "multiple versions" portion of that in the very near future.
[12:30]  <spot> ok
[12:30]  <scop> +1 for the previous clarification
[12:30]  <abadger1999> One is already submitted:
[12:30]  <abadger1999> So you can look at the spec file now.
[12:31]  <abadger1999> The question of when to provide eggs is somewhat open.
[12:31]  <abadger1999> I lean towards upstream being the decider of what they provide but there are arguments the other way as well.
[12:32]  <spot> abadger1999: looks good, looking forward to the final draft
[12:33]  <spot> any other business for today?
[12:34]  <abadger1999> Nothing else here
[12:34]  <spot> ok, i guess we're done for today then. thanks everyone. :)
[12:37]  <-- scop has left this channel ("Leaving").
[12:39]  <tibbs> BTW, the Emacs guidelines should move to writeup as they were approved by FESCo last week.
[12:42]  <spot> ok