(09:57:06 AM) ***spot looks around for FPC folks (09:57:17 AM) ltinkl left the room ("Konversation terminated!"). (09:58:16 AM) spot: abadger1999, tibbs, rdieter, delero, SmootherFrOgZ: ping (09:58:32 AM) tibbs: HHowdy. (09:58:32 AM) svahl left the room ("Ex-Chat"). (09:58:49 AM) abadger1999: pong. I'm here. (09:58:50 AM) ***delero is here (09:59:06 AM) rdieter: yo (10:00:57 AM) spot: i don't think racor is coming due to time conflicts, but he did send his votes for todays items via email (10:01:19 AM) lvillani left the room ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."). (10:02:02 AM) spot: we have quorum though, so lets go ahead and get started (10:02:17 AM) spot: first item: GConf scriptlets: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf (10:02:57 AM) dkovalsk left the room (quit: "leaving"). (10:03:22 AM) abadger1999: So spstarr wrote the first section of this by looking at what SuSE does. (10:03:38 AM) abadger1999: (just pinged him in #fedora-devel to see if he's available). (10:03:40 AM) delero: do we know how significant the speedup is ? (10:04:07 AM) tibbs: This is way complicated, though. I'd really want buyin from our Gnome maintainers. (10:04:25 AM) abadger1999: spstarr had generated some numbers but I don't recall what they were. It was significant. (10:04:26 AM) tibbs: Actually it's kind of ludicrously complicated. (10:04:40 AM) kwizart [n=kwizart@fedora/kwizart] entered the room. (10:04:44 AM) spot: tibbs: agreed. i'd want buyoff from them before we even consider adding a pile of painful macros (10:04:51 AM) abadger1999: I agree, so I wrote a much simplified alternative in the bottom section. (10:05:00 AM) abadger1999: mclasen liked my alternative. (10:05:13 AM) abadger1999: (I think that he liked anything that hid things behind macros) (10:05:33 AM) rdieter: mclassen helped spstarr with a revision or 2 of what has been proposed. I assume he's for it (10:06:04 AM) tibbs: Is mclasen the only person we want to see approval from? (10:06:36 AM) abadger1999: Dunno. He's the one from the desktop team that comments on FPC proposals the most. (10:07:01 AM) warren left the room (quit: "Leaving"). (10:07:20 AM) rdieter: during/after meeting we (I) could drop a message to fedora-desktop list asking for further feedback (10:07:22 AM) mclasen [n=mclasen@nat/redhat/x-f2ba5db99bc02eb5] entered the room. (10:07:27 AM) abadger1999: Since spstarr isn't here at the moment, can we defer this to the end and talk about it then? (10:07:40 AM) spot: well, since mclasen is here, i'd like his thoughts on the draft (10:08:00 AM) abadger1999: Ah cool :-) (10:08:36 AM) spot: I have a few points: I think simplifying the scriptlets is a good thing, but i don't want to use macros to obfuscate other things (10:09:11 AM) spot: e.g. I do not like %{magic_requires_for_things}, i much prefer: Requires(pre): %{requires_for_scriptlets} (10:09:24 AM) mclasen: I think opencoding these scriptlets in hundreds of spec files is error-prone and repetitive (10:09:36 AM) mclasen: but I agree that the requires part is not necessary (10:10:47 AM) spot: mclasen: how do you feel about the revised macro proposal at the bottom of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets/GConf (10:11:55 AM) tibbs: I do wish we could keep these drafts a bit cleaner. I can't really understand from this draft what is being proposed by whom. (10:12:17 AM) ***abadger1999 be sure and login -- looks like the wiki's caching is interfering (10:12:27 AM) tibbs: The stuff after "Discussion" is a counterproposal, but it doesn't seem complete. (10:12:37 AM) spot: yeah, it is a bit of a mess. (10:13:00 AM) abadger1999: yeah... so everything above Discussion is spstarr's work. Everything below Discussion is my work. (10:13:20 AM) abadger1999: I mainly focused on whether we could get some macros that were less complex. (10:13:44 AM) spot: yeah, i think keeping the macros simple and to a minimum is key (10:14:19 AM) tibbs: So the spec template is the same in either case? (10:14:25 AM) abadger1999: Before we write it up, it would need to have a ScriptletSnippets entry that explained it... the outline of that is in the comments of the rpm macro script. (10:14:27 AM) tibbs: Well, no. (10:14:32 AM) abadger1999: That's changed too. (10:14:41 AM) spot: no, the spec template would be different, look at the comments in the second scriptlet header (10:14:54 AM) abadger1999: if you read the comments of each rpm macro script you'll see. (10:14:56 AM) mbonnet_ is now known as mbonnet (10:15:12 AM) abadger1999: Another thing I didn't like about the SuSE method is that the macros are different in different cases. (10:16:03 AM) abadger1999: Sometimes you can use find_gconf_schemas as documented in the proposed update... but other times you need to use def_gconf_schemas and add_gconf_schemas instead. (10:16:15 AM) spot: abadger1999: have you tested your macros? spoleeba spot (10:16:42 AM) abadger1999: spot: Yes, and they don't quite work yet. (10:16:53 AM) abadger1999: rdieter: Have you messed with rpm macro files? (10:16:56 AM) spot: okay, i'd like to do this then... (10:17:11 AM) spot: can we table this until next meeting, so that A) the macros can be tested (10:17:16 AM) rdieter: abadger1999: i've dabbled here and there. :) (10:17:24 AM) spot: B) the draft can be cleaned up in a separate proposal (10:17:30 AM) rdieter: abadger1999: mind sending me what you have? (10:17:46 AM) tibbs: Can we agree that we'd like to see something simpler than the SuSE macros? (10:18:04 AM) spot: yeah, i like the direction that abadger1999 is taking it much better than the SuSE style (10:18:16 AM) abadger1999: rdieter: Yep, I'll tar up a small spec and the macro file. spoleeba spot (10:18:26 AM) abadger1999: spot: Cool. Sounds like a good plan. (10:18:34 AM) bpepple|lt [n=bpepple|@rrcs-96-11-136-242.central.biz.rr.com] entered the room. (10:19:07 AM) spot: okay, lets move on to the next item: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Globus (10:19:31 AM) delero: another heavyweight (10:20:35 AM) rdieter: step 1: flog globus upstream for inducing such packaging pain (reminds me of sage) (I'm only slighly kidding) (10:21:07 AM) delero: is the globus packaging going to be the work of a single packager ? (10:21:14 AM) abadger1999: So far it has been. (10:21:33 AM) mattiasellert: I'm here by the way... (10:21:45 AM) abadger1999: These instructions seem to be comprehensive enough that someone else could work on it too, though. (10:21:46 AM) tibbs: Ralf's opinion was that this doesn't need specialized guidelines. (10:21:54 AM) abadger1999: mattiasellert: Excellent. (10:21:55 AM) spot: i'm not really sure why there is so much hopping around handling the LICENSE file as a %doc (10:21:57 AM) rdieter: that's so Ralf (10:22:05 AM) abadger1999: mattiasellert is the author of the proposal. (10:22:07 AM) tibbs: I don't necessarily agree but the comment does have merit. (10:22:31 AM) rdieter: tibbs: nod, it's more a howto than anything else (10:22:35 AM) delero: a lot of work went into this draft... (10:22:37 AM) spot: the spec examples have a creation of the %docdir, then copying the license into %docdir, then multiple lines in %files to cover the docdir as a %dir and the license as a file (10:22:50 AM) spot: when the same end result occurs for %doc LICENSE_FILE (10:23:01 AM) mep [n=mep@host84-149-dynamic.53-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it] entered the room. (10:23:17 AM) mattiasellert: No that would delete the rest of the documentation. (10:23:42 AM) spot: i don't think so... (10:24:26 AM) spot: especially since in your spec example, you're making the $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} directory just before you copy the license into it (and after running make install) (10:24:45 AM) abadger1999: Some packages have documentation and some do not. (10:25:08 AM) mattiasellert: exactly (10:25:12 AM) abadger1999: and since it's a mkdir -p it won't fail if the dir already exists. (10:25:21 AM) spot: even if they do, listing %doc LICENSE in %files should be additive rather than removing the directory to replace it with the license file (10:25:28 AM) delero: right (10:25:38 AM) spot:10:38:19 AM) spot: if it is absurd, it will get pointed out during review (10:38:58 AM) rdieter: good stuff by the looks of it, +1 here too (10:39:12 AM) abadger1999: I think this is a good thing to have: +1 (10:39:44 AM) spot: +1, with the old fedora macros removed delero delhage tibbs tibbs|h (10:41:19 AM) hpachas-PE left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (10:41:24 AM) tibbs: I'm looking to see if there's anything else that could be simplified. (10:41:29 AM) spot: okay. (10:42:02 AM) tibbs: The %install section in the first template is really scary. Is all of that actually needed for a typical library package? (10:42:13 AM) delero: +1 (10:42:20 AM) mclasen left the room ("There must be some way out of here."). (10:43:26 AM) spot: tibbs: it seems to be, but it is also well commented (10:43:41 AM) tibbs: I mean, a simple pushd at the top could shorten a lot of those macros. (10:45:54 AM) abadger1999: mattiasellert: Perhaps this one is specific to a specific package? # Remove unwanted documentation (10:47:20 AM) ***spot wonders if mattiasellert is still with us. :) (10:47:23 AM) mattiasellert: Not really - some versions of doxygen create a bunch of crap. (10:47:55 AM) tibbs: We should document which versions. (10:48:05 AM) tibbs: Otherwise we get cargo cult specfiles. (10:48:22 AM) tibbs: "The template said that I need this. I have no idea if it really does anything." (10:49:22 AM) mattiasellert: OK, I'll compile a list. (10:50:08 AM) spot: so, it seems like there are three things: A) the spec tool (and templates) needs to limit disttag macro use to rhel and fedora >= 9 (10:50:19 AM) warren [n=warren@redhat/wombat/warren] entered the room. (10:50:24 AM) spot: B) the spec tool should use pushd/popd to simplify the %install section (10:50:34 AM) spot: (and templates) (10:50:53 AM) spot: C) documenting the versions of doxygen that need to be cleaned up after (10:51:11 AM) spot: anything i missed? (10:51:39 AM) tibbs: "B" only if it makes sense. It might not. Another possibility would be to stuff $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/globild" would be valuable (11:00:39 AM) abadger1999: Despite: "Most C, C++, and Fortran programs will pick up the correct compiler flags if you use a macro that automatically sets them to build the package, such as %configure or %cmake" ? (11:00:43 AM) spot: but i'm not convinced it belongs in the guideline (11:00:43 AM) warren left the room (quit: "Leaving"). (11:00:49 AM) nman64 left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (11:00:49 AM) tibbs: The guidelines say that the compiler flags must be correct. It doesn't tell you how to read makefiles and edit them if necessary (11:00:54 AM) mdomsch_ [n=mdomsch@cpe-70-124-62-55.austin.res.rr.com] entered the room. (11:01:29 AM) tibbs: abadger1999: So I guess that's a proposal for stripping that sentence from the guidelines, which I would agree with. (11:01:48 AM) rdieter: can the guidelines link-to or refer to this proposal (or something like it) for further details? (11:01:50 AM) mizmo [n=duffy@66.187.234.199] entered the room. (11:01:59 AM) tibbs: The problem is that we're sort of schizophrenic on the issue, because we include specfile templates and such. (11:01:59 AM) spot: rdieter: absolutely (11:02:11 AM) spot: i would much rather let this live in Packagers/ (11:02:18 AM) spot: and link to it from the Guidelines (11:02:24 AM) rdieter: better (11:03:00 AM) RadicalRo left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection). (11:03:03 AM) spot: so, i will formally -1 on those grounds (11:03:18 AM) RadicalRo [n=radical@77.36.4.49] entered the room. (11:03:20 AM) tibbs: Agreed. (11:03:31 AM) spot: okay, thats all the items on today's agenda