=================================== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-12-19) ===================================
Meeting started by t8m at 18:00:39 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-12-19/fedora-meeting.2012-12-19-18.00.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * init process (t8m, 18:01:19) * #615 Strategy for services that do not have systemd native unit files (t8m, 18:04:23) * LINK: http://paste.stg.fedoraproject.org/2660/ <- list of packages (notting, 18:14:27) * Push updates which change the sysv init to systemd unit as NTH to F18 now did not get enough votes. (t8m, 18:27:28) * AGREED: Changing the sysv init scripts to systemd units is highly encouraged even to provenpackagers willing to help. We will revisit the situation 1 week before F19 branch point to see if we can just have provenpackagers to finish them, or set deadline. (t8m, 18:35:03) * #896 Refine Feature process (t8m, 18:36:02) * discussion deferred waiting for concrete proposal (t8m, 18:37:10) * #969 libexecdir guideline conflicts with extant packages (t8m, 18:38:15) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/158#comment:12 (abadger1999, 18:39:18) * AGREED: 1. systemd is granted an exception to put helper applications in /usr/lib/systemd (t8m, 19:03:17) * AGREED: 2. the systemd unit files of all the packages are granted an exception to be under /usr/lib/systemd (t8m, 19:03:33) * Next meeting chair (t8m, 19:10:37) * Next FESCO meeting will be on Jan 2nd 2013 (t8m, 19:15:01) * ACTION: mmaslano will chair on 2nd January meeting (t8m, 19:15:31) * ACTION: sgallagh will chair on 9th January meeting (t8m, 19:16:03) * Open Floor (t8m, 19:16:15) Meeting ended at 19:19:25 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mmaslano will chair on 2nd January meeting * sgallagh will chair on 9th January meeting Action Items, by person ----------------------- * mmaslano * mmaslano will chair on 2nd January meeting * sgallagh * sgallagh will chair on 9th January meeting * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * t8m (82) * abadger1999 (51) * mitr (50) * nirik (47) * sgallagh (42) * notting (32) * mmaslano (18) * halfline (15) * mjg59 (8) * zodbot (8) * adamw (5) * jwb (5) * jreznik (2) * pjones (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot ---------------- 18:00:39 <t8m> #startmeeting FESCO (2012-12-19) 18:00:39 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 19 18:00:39 2012 UTC. The chair is t8m. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:39 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:01:10 <t8m> #chair notting nirik mmaslano t8m pjones mitr jwb sgallagh abadger1999 18:01:10 <zodbot> Current chairs: abadger1999 jwb mitr mmaslano nirik notting pjones sgallagh t8m 18:01:16 * sgallagh is here 18:01:19 <t8m> #topic init process 18:01:25 <t8m> hi all 18:01:30 * nirik waves. 18:01:32 * notting is here 18:01:35 <mmaslano> hi 18:01:43 <jwb> hi 18:02:20 <mitr> Hello all 18:02:30 * abadger1999 here 18:03:02 <t8m> Welcome to last FESCo meeting before EOW :) 18:03:47 <t8m> I suppose we can start? 18:03:48 <sgallagh> Topic for Open Floor: if we survive Friday, should we restart the epoch? /kidding 18:04:18 <t8m> We have only a few followups today. 18:04:23 <t8m> #topic #615 Strategy for services that do not have systemd native unit files 18:04:27 * jreznik is lurking and and hoped to survive Friday too 18:04:29 <t8m> .fesco 615 18:04:33 <zodbot> t8m: #615 (Strategy for services that do not have systemd native unit files) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/615 18:05:31 <t8m> If there is still 150 packages that have unconverted init scripts I suppose we cannot easily block them. 18:06:13 <t8m> (or quickly fix them if we weren't able to do this by this time) 18:06:57 <nirik> well, we are just going to need to keep plugging away, and at some point decide we want to just mass commit/fix the last ones... 18:06:59 <mitr> I really hate that we have 3 (or is it more now?) different package integration mechanisms. 18:07:10 <t8m> so perhaps we should close this ticket and say it is ongoing effort and the packages should be converted when possible. 18:07:11 <mmaslano> 3? 18:07:11 <notting> mitr: integration mechanisms? 18:07:29 <mitr> notting: "ways an individual package plugs into the service framework" or something 18:07:46 <notting> what's the third? 18:07:52 <mitr> mmaslano: SysV, systemd as of F15, systemd with more updates as mentioned by Johan in the last comment 18:07:54 <nirik> there's really 150 left? 18:07:57 <nirik> % repoquery -qf /etc/init.d/\* | sort | uniq | wc -l 18:07:57 <nirik> 38 18:08:15 <mmaslano> maybe he counts bugs? 18:08:20 <mitr> s/Johan/Johann/ sorry 18:08:28 <t8m> nirik, hmm that looks much better than 150 18:08:53 <t8m> nirik, what's the count without the uniq? 18:09:12 <nirik> 44 18:09:24 <nirik> .bug 713562 18:09:31 <zodbot> nirik: Bug 713562 Tracker bug for SYSV to systemd conversion - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=713562 18:09:34 <mitr> 26 open bugs 18:10:02 <nirik> this seems to me something we could target for f19... 18:10:46 <t8m> nirik, any proposal? 18:11:17 <notting> nirik: two locations 18:11:22 <notting> # repoquery --repoid fedora -qf /etc/init.d/\* /etc/rc.d/init.d/\* | sort | uniq | wc -l 18:11:22 <notting> 223 18:11:35 <nirik> ah ha 18:11:37 <t8m> ah 18:12:19 <nirik> proposal: keep plugging away at these, revisit later in f19 cycle to see if we can just have provenpackagers finish them, or set deadline. 18:12:21 <abadger1999> ah -- /etc/rc.d/init.d is the canonical location; /etc/init.d/ is a symlink for debian compat that some packages seem to use. 18:12:34 <jwb> nirik, +1 18:12:39 <abadger1999> nirik: +1 18:12:46 <sgallagh> nirik: +1 18:12:56 <mitr> If we want to set a deadline, we should set it ASAP to give maintainers more time 18:12:57 <notting> nirik: syre, +1 18:13:02 <notting> nirik: 175 source rpms 18:13:02 <t8m> nirik, +1 although I feel that the situation won't be much better later in f19 cycle 18:13:16 <t8m> mitr, +1 18:13:44 <nirik> well, I think we are down to ones that need provenpackagers or prodding... or just simply don't update much. 18:14:02 <sgallagh> mitr: We're going to hit the same problem as in previous releases: what do we do when that deadline passes? 18:14:09 <sgallagh> Historically the answer has been "nothing" 18:14:14 <t8m> nirik, there still might be some that are really nontrivial to change 18:14:27 <notting> http://paste.stg.fedoraproject.org/2660/ <- list of packages 18:14:43 <nirik> also, some of those packages are fine... compat sysvinit ones. 18:14:50 <nirik> (which are pointless IMHO, but we allow them) 18:14:54 <mitr> Proposal: Ask everyone to convert their packages by F19 branch time; packages that don't update then have automatically approved comaintainers (anyone already sponsored is eligible - or do we want even unsponsored people with a sponsor watching them as a possible new path to Fedora?) 18:14:54 <sgallagh> What is yum doing in there? 18:15:24 <adamw> on this topic - there are a few bugs proposed as NTH for F18 on the basis that they want to get systemd conversions in 18:15:27 <t8m> sgallagh, I suppose it is a compat sysvinit subpackage 18:15:35 <adamw> anyone have an opinion on whether that's something we want to be doing this late? or should we push them to f19? 18:15:36 <notting> sgallagh: yum-cron 18:15:39 <mitr> t8m: Can the conversion be more difficult than moving the init script into /usr/libexec/my-private/package and running it from the .service file 18:15:40 <mmaslano> why at? I converted it long time ago 18:16:01 <t8m> adamw, I think pushing them to f19 is fine 18:16:04 <sgallagh> It might be useful to refine that search to rule out those packages that have .service files. 18:16:04 <abadger1999> adamw: Leaf packages or core packages? 18:16:07 <t8m> mmaslano, compat subpackage 18:16:13 <mmaslano> ah sure 18:16:17 <abadger1999> core packages, I don't like the risk. 18:16:28 <adamw> abadger1999: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/srptools-0.0.4-16.fc18,rdma-2.0-6.fc18,opensm-3.3.15-3.fc18,libibmad-1.3.9-1.fc18,libibumad-1.3.8-1.fc18 is the specific update. 18:16:33 <mitr> adamw: I'd prefer to defer them now, the service ordering impact can be fairly disruptive 18:16:49 <notting> it's inifiniband. would anyone in fedora notice if it broke? (only half kidding) 18:17:03 <sgallagh> adamw: I'm with mitr here. At this point it's probably too risky 18:17:10 <nirik> mitr: I don't think that tells us what to do if there's no comaintainers, etc... unless we want to add 'provenpackages will convert the rest' or something (and then we need to find such people willing to do it. ;) 18:17:51 <sgallagh> nirik: I suggest we visit that if and when it becomes necessary. 18:17:54 * abadger1999 wonders which of those packages contains the systemd unit files 18:18:10 <sgallagh> In that case, leaf packages can probably be blocked, and non-leaf packages can be addressed by provenpackagers 18:18:29 * abadger1999 would like to let them through if they're leaf -- otherwise the packager is stuck maintaining the old scripts through the life of f18. 18:18:35 * abadger1999 repoquerying 18:18:47 * nirik is with abadger1999 on that. 18:18:50 <mitr> nirik: Right, it's not a full solution, and we don't really have one (except retiring the packages, which is radical, or finding individual volunteers for this occasion, which I think mostly only prolongs the pain) 18:19:04 <adamw> sgallagh: mitr: abadger: thanks 18:19:07 <sgallagh> abadger1999: How do we define "leaf" in this situation? 18:19:20 <nirik> non critpath, no other packages depend on it? 18:19:22 <adamw> so that's 2 for let them through and 2 for don't let them through :) 18:19:23 <abadger1999> sgallagh: I'd be okay with anything up to "not-critpath" 18:19:34 <sgallagh> abadger1999: Package dependencies don't necessarily imply service ordering. 18:19:36 <mitr> abadger1999: We have branches for that, is it really a significant hurdle? 18:19:52 <abadger1999> mitr: it's a time span... 18:20:12 <sgallagh> For example, if a samba conversion caused winbind to load at a different time, it could break service user lookups 18:20:15 <sgallagh> (theoretically) 18:20:22 <abadger1999> ie: having to care about both systemd and sysv init scripts for six more months than they would if the unit files go into f18. 18:21:06 <mitr> abadger1999: Ah, you're talking about the NTH. I still think that merging git branches should not be a significant hurdle, but it does add some complexity 18:21:27 <abadger1999> mitr: <nod> 18:21:42 <nirik> so, we are getting sidetracked here... 18:22:24 <nirik> on adamw's question, could we vote? allow systemd converts in as NTH bugs now if they are non critpath 18:22:36 <abadger1999> +1 18:22:42 <sgallagh> Yeah, +1 18:22:43 <t8m> nirik, +0 18:22:48 <nirik> +1 18:23:13 * nirik also frankly feels it's getting almost too late for NTH's... 18:23:14 <mitr> -1 still 18:23:53 <jwb> 0 18:24:18 <mmaslano> 0 18:24:58 <t8m> pjones, notting? 18:25:14 <t8m> still can get 5 votes 18:25:24 <nirik> pjones is out this week. ;) 18:25:26 <notting> i'm +1 18:25:40 <nirik> so, looks like not enough votes to pass unless someone changes. 18:25:46 <t8m> ah then unfortunately not enough votes 18:26:46 <nirik> ok, and on the ticket then? any proposals or votes on existing proposals? 18:27:16 <jwb> i'm still for your original proposal of working through the existing packages during f19 (starting now of course) 18:27:20 <sgallagh> nirik: I'm still +1 for the original proposal 18:27:28 <t8m> #info Push updates which change the sysv init to systemd unit as NTH to F18 now did not get enough votes. 18:28:05 <t8m> I see 5 votes for the original nirik's proposal 18:28:07 <sgallagh> FWIW, I think the end result of that is that the final decision falls to the bugzappers to decide 18:28:38 <nirik> well, it's on us if we just keep carrying those packages with sysvinit, or force them to be changed, or drop the packages entirely. 18:29:12 * abadger1999 still +1 to nirik's proposal. 18:29:12 <t8m> anybody wants to add or change votes to the original proposal? 18:30:50 <nirik> converting sysvinit scripts: a fun holiday task for any provenpackager. ;) 18:31:01 <notting> i'm fine with just trying to work through them. we'll likely need to support sysv scripts for some value of indefinitely for third-parties, so... *shrug* if some packages in fedora still have them 18:31:18 <t8m> #agreed Changing the sysv init scripts to systemd units is highly encouraged even to provenpackagers willing to help. We will revisit the situation later in f19 cycle to see if we can just have provenpackagers to finish them, or set deadline. 18:31:44 <mitr> When is the "later" we will revisit? 18:32:09 <nirik> mitr: good question. we don't have much of a f19 schedule yet. ;( 18:32:28 <sgallagh> I suggest the branch, whenever we set that 18:32:34 <t8m> We have just feature submission deadline 18:33:20 <mitr> F19 branch time sounds fine 18:33:38 <nirik> sure, branch is fine whenever that is. Or just a week before then 18:33:44 * jreznik could mark it somewhere not to forget... 18:33:45 <mitr> Or 1 week before F19 branch, to allow the proven packagers to do the work and avoid yet another inter-branch difference? 18:33:56 <t8m> mitr, +1 18:34:15 <abadger1999> +1 18:34:19 <sgallagh> mitr: +1 18:34:25 <t8m> #undo 18:34:25 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Agreed object at 0x5fd4c6d0> 18:34:26 <nirik> +1 18:34:49 <mmaslano> +1 18:35:03 <t8m> #agreed Changing the sysv init scripts to systemd units is highly encouraged even to provenpackagers willing to help. We will revisit the situation 1 week before F19 branch point to see if we can just have provenpackagers to finish them, or set deadline. 18:35:51 <t8m> anything else to this topic? if not, let's move on 18:36:02 <t8m> #topic #896 Refine Feature process 18:36:07 <t8m> .fesco 896 18:36:10 <zodbot> t8m: #896 (Refine Feature process) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/896 18:36:18 <mitr> I'm afraid I still have nothing, I hope to have a proposal done during the holidays. 18:36:45 <t8m> OK, let's defer. 18:37:10 <t8m> #info discussion deferred waiting for concrete proposal 18:37:16 <sgallagh> +1 to defer. I think last week we said we intended to have a higher-bandwidth discussion at FUDCON as well? 18:37:27 <nirik> yeah, and there's a bunch of ideas on the wiki page... 18:37:29 <t8m> sgallagh, this should be about smaller changes 18:37:34 <sgallagh> ok 18:37:37 <nirik> we just need some concrete ones written up. 18:37:51 <t8m> to be able to change things for F19 features 18:38:08 <t8m> next topic 18:38:15 <t8m> #topic #969 libexecdir guideline conflicts with extant packages 18:38:20 <t8m> .fesco 969 18:38:23 <zodbot> t8m: #969 (libexecdir guideline conflicts with extant packages) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/969 18:38:28 * nirik thinks abadger1999 had the background on this? 18:39:04 <abadger1999> yep -- fpc discussed this at their meeting this morning. 18:39:18 <abadger1999> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/158#comment:12 18:39:42 <abadger1999> Basically, there's two different things that systemd places in the wrong place (according to guidelines). 18:39:58 <abadger1999> FPC is willing to write in a special exception for systemd if fesco wants them too. 18:40:11 <abadger1999> but the systemd maintainer's arguments failed to persuade fpc. 18:40:25 <abadger1999> so it's up to us whether we wantto override them. 18:40:40 <nirik> which are the two things? 18:40:47 <nirik> and where should they go instead? 18:40:58 <abadger1999> the two areas are helper applications -- those could be covered by a non-multilib exception. 18:41:09 <sgallagh> systemd is itself not multilib, correct? 18:41:15 <notting> sgallagh: correct 18:41:16 * nirik looks at the ticket, sorry 18:41:20 <mitr> IMO: /usr/lib/systemd is mostly FHS-incompliant; it should be split over /etc,/usr/{bin,share,%{_lib},libexec}. /usr/lib/systemd is pretty close to /opt/systemd, which is quite the opposite of FHS. 18:41:25 <abadger1999> the other are the unit files (carried by any service that needs systemd to start). 18:41:28 <mitr> I'm fine with a systemd exception for historical reasons, but I want the maintainers to commit to not using the /usr/lib/mypackage-mostfiles model for new Fedora packages. 18:41:28 * jwb needs to head out early. apologies 18:41:30 <mitr> (Extending the requirement to structurally new features of systemd would be pushing it, wouldn't it?) 18:41:37 <abadger1999> those would not be covered y a non-multilib exception. 18:41:58 <mitr> Is anyone suggesting we move all of the unit files out of /usr/lib/systemd at this point? 18:41:59 <notting> Proposal: Applications can use /usr/lib/%{name} as a substitute for /usr/libexec/%{name} for binaries executed at runtime in the package. Applications should not mix the two usages in a single package. 18:42:29 <sgallagh> I'm opposed to moving the unit files at present. We've got enough difficulty with adoption without moving things all over the place 18:42:38 <t8m> sgallagh, +1 18:42:38 <mitr> notting: -1 to a blanket thing like that. 18:42:51 <t8m> notting, -1 agree with mitr 18:43:07 <abadger1999> notting: I think half of that is already in the guidelines revision that FPC made... (the part about /usr/lib substituting for libexec) 18:43:32 <mjg59> It seems a touch odd to argue about FHS compliance while simultaneously arguing in favour of using libexec 18:43:37 <abadger1999> notting: the part about binaries executed at runtime would be new. 18:43:38 <mitr> notting: (Either the file is an internal implementation detail of the package, in which case moving it to /usr/libexec during packaging is very cheap, or it is an inter-package API, in which case it has no business being in /usr/lib*) 18:43:42 <notting> abadger1999: ? 18:44:00 <abadger1999> notting: new to write down... not new in practice :-) 18:44:07 <notting> abadger1999: if the change is already made, then how is systemd in violation for having binaries there? 18:44:44 <mitr> notting: What does the "at runtime" language mean, btw? 18:44:56 <abadger1999> notting: so what FPC wrote is that if fesco grants a non-multilib exception, the helper binaries could go in /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64 (or /usr/libexec) 18:45:02 <abadger1999> notting: so there's two things: 18:45:12 <abadger1999> 1) fesco would need to grant a non-multilib exception 18:45:16 <notting> mitr: things executed "itself" during runtime, not things directly executed by end users 18:45:20 <t8m> notting, If I read what FPC agreed upon correctly we need to explicitly grant the exception to the package 18:45:30 <abadger1999> 2) fesco would also need to grant a special exception for the unit files to stay in /usr/lib. 18:45:50 <t8m> abadger1999, I am +1 to both these proposals of FPC 18:46:09 <halfline> are the things in there really in /usr/lib or are they in /lib which now happens to be in /usr since we've merged them? 18:46:17 <sgallagh> abadger1999: I don't understand why the unit files are in /usr/lib either. Shouldn't they be in /var/lib[64] ? 18:46:42 <mitr> halfline: I can't see that it makes any difference to the lib/lib64 question 18:46:44 <sgallagh> halfline: Is there a distinction at this point? 18:46:53 <t8m> #proposal 1. systemd is granted an exception to put helper applications in /usr/lib/systemd 18:46:58 <notting> sgallagh: they started out in /lib because they were on the root fs and there's no /share. *shrug* 18:46:59 <mitr> We sort of used /lib where there should have been a /share, but... 18:47:05 <abadger1999> sgallagh: So there's been conflicting stories over time about what unit files "are".... I believe the last word was that the upstream maintainers consider them arch-specific data files. 18:47:16 <abadger1999> although in practice we've never seen a unit file that was arch specific. 18:47:20 <halfline> right that's my point, /lib is datadir if you don't have /usr 18:47:28 <halfline> and datadir is where the units would go 18:47:40 <t8m> #proposal 2. the systemd unit files of all the packages are granted an exception to be under /usr/lib/systemd 18:47:43 <abadger1999> If they're arch specific data, then they belong in %{_libdir} 18:48:01 <abadger1999> If they're non-arch specific data, they belong in %{_datadir} 18:48:11 * sgallagh nods 18:48:11 <abadger1999> If they are config they beolong in %{_sysconfdir}. 18:48:29 <halfline> they can't be arch specific, you shadow them in /etc if you want to override them 18:48:33 <sgallagh> I'm pretty sure they're not config, since IIRC they are overridden by placing a config in /etc 18:48:54 <sgallagh> Yeah, so that sounds to me like they qualify as non-arch-specific data 18:49:06 <mitr> halfline: /etc can be arch specific - it is bound to the system in question. 18:49:15 <t8m> they should be in %{_datadir} but they aren't for historical reasons (being in rootfs) 18:49:16 <notting> i'm fine with granting both execptions, but i'd prefer the stronger language about using /usr/lib instead of /usr/libexec 18:49:18 <abadger1999> sgallagh: it's a grey area of definition of what's "config" -- but I don't think anyone wants to get into that at this meeting ;-) 18:49:44 <t8m> notting, can you be more specific how the proposal would like? 18:49:50 <sgallagh> abadger1999: I'm going to stick with: these files aren't intended to be user-modified, they are effectively a visible internal default :) 18:49:56 <nirik> so, if we didn't grant any exception, where would those two things end up? %{_libdir} ? 18:50:08 <mitr> sgallagh: They are an inter-package API, so not really "internal" 18:50:11 <halfline> the packages i've seen either have /etc/something-x86_64 or do things like put ${LIB} in file if they have arch specific stuff in /etc 18:50:13 <notting> t8m: pretty much what i proposed above? 18:50:29 <t8m> notting, but you don't specify systemd in that proposal 18:50:29 <abadger1999> nirik: as long as the maintainers tell us that they're arch-specific data, we'd continue to say they need to go in %{_libdir} 18:50:39 <sgallagh> mitr: Well, it's not a perfect metaphor 18:50:40 <notting> t8m: let me rephrase 18:50:41 <mitr> nirik: Most of the unit files probably in %{_datadir}, executables in %{_libdir} or libexec 18:50:51 <abadger1999> nirik: if the maitnainers switch to arch-indep data, we'd say %{_datadir}. 18:51:05 <notting> t8m: i'm fine with your exceptions, but i would *prefer* a generic exception for /usr/lib/foo as a substistute for /usr/libexec/foo, as proposed above 18:51:11 <abadger1999> for the executables, %{_libexecdir} or %{_libdir} unless we grant a non-multilib exception. 18:51:19 <notting> t8m: s/substitute/alternative/ 18:51:40 <t8m> notting, hmm I'm -1 to that then 18:52:54 <sgallagh> Assuming we grant no exceptions, will the systemd maintainers make the change. Assuming they do, how long will it take to accomplish (and will it affect our F18 final release)? 18:52:59 <nirik> on the one hand, this seems like nitpicking... on the other hand, I ask why they should be excepted... why can't they follow the rules. 18:53:08 <notting> in any case, i'm +1 to both of t8m's exceptions. doing otherwise is stupid. 18:53:14 <nirik> big major -1 to changing anything in f18 18:53:24 <mitr> sgallagh: ... and what about all the user documentation that says "copy file from /usr/lib/systemd/system* to /etc/"? 18:53:46 <abadger1999> Current aproved guidelines have: "If a package has been granted an explicit exception from FESCo to permit it to not be multilib enabled, then it may use %{_prefix}/lib instead of %{_libdir}." which is intended to modify this current guideline http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Libexecdir 18:54:03 <sgallagh> mitr: I wasn't counseling that we should do it. Just asking for the effort required if we did 18:54:39 <mitr> sgallagh: Right, it's just not "our" effort only that would be affected. 18:54:46 <abadger1999> sgallagh: it will not affect f18 final -- too late for that and fpc usually is okay if things are fixed at "Point in time and forwards." 18:55:01 <t8m> I am +1 to both of my proposals above as well 18:55:22 <mmaslano> surpsingly 18:55:22 <sgallagh> I'm +1 to the unit files for pragmatic reasons. +0 to the helpers. 18:55:31 <mitr> Proposal: Both exceptions as mentioned in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/158#comment:12 are approved. At the same time FESCo states that similar exceptions to newly introduced packages wiill not be granted; packages are expected to place their files throughout /usr/{bin,share,lib*} per the FESCo criteria. 18:55:39 <mmaslano> +1 to both t8ms proposals. We probably don't have better proposal 18:56:02 <notting> mitr: -1 to that 18:56:04 * abadger1999 notes that FPC asked that both exceptions be granted or denied as a group... separate was seen as being more confusing for no less work. 18:56:26 <mitr> sgallagh: Helper paths are by now embedded in the user-made copies of /usr/lib/systemd unit files in /etc 18:56:38 <sgallagh> ugh 18:56:55 <sgallagh> Ok, then I don't really see any choice other than to grant both exceptions. 18:57:03 <mitr> notting: Why? Do you thing the bin/lib/share distinctions of FHS are not valuable? 18:57:47 <notting> mitr: i think arguing over internal usage of /usr/libexec/xxx vs /usr/lib/xxx isn't worthwhile 18:58:21 <halfline> libexec isn't in FHS anyway is it? that's a redhatism right? 18:58:29 <abadger1999> halfline: it's a GNU-ism. 18:58:42 <abadger1999> GNU coding standards specify libexecdir. 18:58:45 <mitr> notting: Maybe libexec vs.lib (but see the issue of /etc/ copies above, we won't be able to multilib this in the future), but bin/lib/share? 18:59:15 <halfline> do any other major distros that ship GNU software have /usr/libexec ? 18:59:36 <mitr> notting: I could understand a position that the FHS splits are overall wrong and that we should abandon it in favor of per-package subtrees or something 18:59:52 * abadger1999 notes that he thinks discussing libexecdir is a sidetrack. 18:59:58 <halfline> fair enough 19:00:10 <t8m> abadger1999, +1 19:00:11 <abadger1999> this is really about %_libdir vs %_prefi/lib 19:00:15 <notting> mitr: it's mainly about forcing /usr/lib64 for internal binaries, making them compile-time differences. see also python reading both locations 19:00:20 <mitr> halfline: BSDs 19:00:36 * nirik is a very weak +1 to the exceptions I guess. It anoys me that we are basically granting this just because it would be work to do it correctly. 19:00:48 <halfline> seems like we should align with other linux distros and with FHS before aligning with BSDs, but we can talk about it later 19:00:53 <mitr> nirik: I'm concerned about the user configuration breakage more than the packagers work... 19:01:01 <nirik> mitr: yeah. 19:01:06 <nirik> and docs, and ... 19:01:08 <mjg59> halfline: libexec is only in the FHS 3.0 draft, not any actual FHS 19:01:12 <t8m> mitr, yeah, that's more important 19:01:27 <mitr> notting: Well as long as the paths are expected to appear in user-maintained configuration, they don't belong anywhere in /usr/lib* IMHO 19:01:30 <mjg59> halfline: It's not widely used outside RH-derived distributions 19:01:46 <halfline> yea 19:01:49 <mitr> t8m: how many votes were there for your proposal? 19:02:00 <halfline> so my thoughts are systemd as an upstream project still supports separate /usr 19:02:10 <halfline> so the fact that it's upstream paths sort of reflect that makes sense 19:02:12 <t8m> mitr, if sgallagh changes his vote for the second exception both would pass 19:02:17 <halfline> and it seems silly to me we would override those upstram paths 19:02:20 <sgallagh> t8m: I already did 19:02:37 <t8m> sgallagh, oops I somehow overlooked it 19:02:44 <sgallagh> Probably should have said +1 explicitly though 19:02:50 <mitr> t8m: So let me add +1 to that, and then we talk only about the part where we talk about the future policy? 19:03:00 <t8m> mitr, good idea 19:03:17 <t8m> #agreed 1. systemd is granted an exception to put helper applications in /usr/lib/systemd 19:03:21 <nirik> IMHO there is no policy... if anything else wants to do this they must specifically ask for exceptions. 19:03:33 <t8m> #agreed 2. the systemd unit files of all the packages are granted an exception to be under /usr/lib/systemd 19:03:42 <mitr> nirik: OK, s/policy/statement of FESCo intent/ 19:04:14 <halfline> so in my mind, the exception for projects should be if they run in early boot up and they (from an upstream point of view want to support separate /usr) they should get an exception in fedora 19:04:24 <t8m> mitr, go ahead with modified proposal 19:04:36 <halfline> since staying consistent with upstream (and by extension across distros) is valuable enough of a reason for an exception 19:04:49 <mitr> Proposal: FESCo states that similar exceptions to newly introduced packages wiill not be granted; packages are expected to place their files throughout /usr/{bin,share,lib*} per the FHS criteria. 19:05:25 <t8m> mitr, +1 19:05:27 <nirik> counterproposal: this is a one time exception for systemd. Other packages that wish to do this must specifically ask for exceptions. 19:05:31 <abadger1999> halfline: i'd put consistent with upstream as a comparatively low priority in general. 19:05:48 <mmaslano> +1 19:05:53 <mitr> halfline: Such projects already must have a configuration variables that decide between /bin /usr/bin etc., so it seems trivial to have a variable that switches between /lib and /usr/share 19:05:53 <mjg59> mitr: How does the existing systemd behaviour contravene the FHS? 19:06:02 <mmaslano> um +1 to mitrs proposal 19:06:11 <abadger1999> halfline: for instance, things that are multilib would need to modify their locations at a higher priority than what upstream wants. 19:06:14 <sgallagh> nirik: I think FESCo exceptions are assumed to be possible no matter what 19:06:15 <t8m> nirik, we don't need to vote on this - this is just what is agreed upon by FPC 19:06:19 <mitr> mjg59: See abadger1999's descriptions of %{_datadir} and various others above 19:06:21 <sgallagh> I'm fine with mitr's phrasing. +1 19:06:39 <mjg59> mitr: Those appear to be descriptions of Fedora policy, not the FHS 19:06:56 <nirik> sure, then I am confused why we are not done with this ticket? :) why do we need anything else... 19:07:11 <notting> mjg59: using /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib<qual> could be argued to contravene it 19:07:18 <mitr> mjg59: Using %{_datadir} for non-archspecific is one of the cornerstones of FHS. 19:07:29 <nirik> I mean, proposal: packages entering the fedora collection should meet fedora packaging guidelines. Does that get us anywhere? ;) 19:07:33 <t8m> nirik, we have the mitr's proposal for statement of future FESCo intention 19:07:36 <sgallagh> Proposal: move on to the next topic :) 19:08:02 <mjg59> notting: The presence of lib<qual> is optional, so it'd be invalid for any application to depend upon it. Distribution policy may require its use, but I don't think that's an FHS constraint. 19:08:03 <nirik> sgallagh: +1 19:08:11 <t8m> we are not finished voting - I see +4 on mitr's proposal 19:08:13 <mjg59> mitr: No, that's not actually something the FHS says 19:08:29 <mitr> mjg59: http://www.linuxbase.org/betaspecs/fhs/fhs.html#thefilesystem 19:08:45 <mjg59> mitr: Yes, I know 19:08:56 <nirik> -1 to mitr's proposal, because I think it's unneeded/confusing. 19:09:40 <t8m> notting, abadger1999, ? 19:09:54 <notting> nirik: believe i was already -1 19:09:55 * abadger1999 votes with nirik on this 19:10:10 <t8m> OK then, moving on 19:10:37 <t8m> #topic Next meeting chair 19:10:47 <t8m> When we will meet next? 19:11:01 * mitr won't be available on Dec 26 19:11:10 * t8m neither 19:11:15 <mmaslano> in January? 19:11:17 * notting neither 19:11:30 <mmaslano> 2nd January? 19:11:39 * abadger1999 won't be available Dec 26, Probably not on Jan 2 either 19:12:18 <t8m> Anybody else won't be able to join the meeting on Jan 2? 19:12:27 * nirik should be around then, but also won't cry if we don't meet. ;) 19:12:44 <notting> i should be around on the 2nd 19:12:52 <t8m> I am not sure if I'll be around on 2nd or not 19:13:14 <mmaslano> so 9th January 19:13:20 <sgallagh> I will most probably be around the 2nd 19:13:48 <mitr> I'll probably be available on the 2nd 19:14:08 <mmaslano> do we have a quorum for 2nd? 19:14:13 <mmaslano> I can attend 19:14:20 <t8m> I think we can try to meet on 2nd - we'll see if the quorum will appear 19:14:31 <mmaslano> ok 19:14:53 * sgallagh volunteers to chair on the 9th 19:15:01 <t8m> #info Next FESCO meeting will be on Jan 2nd 2013 19:15:09 <mmaslano> I can chair 2nd January 19:15:31 <t8m> #action mmaslano will chair on 2nd January meeting 19:16:03 <t8m> #action sgallagh will chair on 9th January meeting 19:16:15 <t8m> #topic Open Floor 19:16:25 <t8m> Anybody has anything for open floor? 19:17:59 <t8m> If not I close the meeting in 2 minutes. 19:19:25 <t8m> #endmeeting -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
