packaging February 2020

packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org

15 participants
18 discussions

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2019-08-15 16:00 UTC)
by James Antill 18 Jul '21

18 Jul '21

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2019-08-15 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2019-08-15 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2019-08-15 16:00 UTC UTC 2019-08-15 17:00 BST Europe/London 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2019-08-15 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2019-08-15 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2019-08-16 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2019-08-16 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2019-08-16 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2019-08-16 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #902 Cleanup & enhance spec files .fpc 902 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/902 #topic #904 Caret versioning .fpc 904 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/904 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 #topic #914 Automatic R runtime dependencies .fpc 914 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/914 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

3 2

Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
by Nicolas Mailhot 14 Mar '20

14 Mar '20

Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats: final stages of the Harfbuzz consolidation decided at the 2006 Text Layout summit https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/TextLayout/ – appstream & fonts – weak dependencies – and probably more I forget here It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: This project builds on tooling enhancements in redhat-rpm-config and rpm itself, done during the past two years for the Forge and Go sets of packaging macros. It started 2 years ago as a fork of fontpackages, which is the core of our current fonts packaging guidelines. It will require putting the fonts-srpm-macros package in the default build root, like is done for other domain-specific packaging macro sets. Major additions: – better documentation (clearer and more complete) – better automation (less packager hassle for better and more complete results) Major removals: – tools and scripts – fixing metadata with ttname Mostly because no one seems willing to maintain those scripts, or port ttname to python 3. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new guidelines. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 4

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Nicolas Mailhot 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 20:30 +0100, clime a écrit : > > What about fedpkg local and fedpkg verrel then? Putting %{dynrel} reconciliation in the rpmbuild -bs stage using detached file state means that fedpkg local (or checking out git state and building in mock or copr or OBS or via plain rpmbuild -bs) will give you the same result as launching fedpkg build. Which is exactly what you want to make QA and testing workflows work. Those don’t live exclusively in koji. And because only production builds get committed back the packager can change his mind and stage a few more changes before doing the production build, without polluting the changelog builds that were never pushed to users. For fedpkg verrel you'll probably want to output a last (saved in detached file) and next line (probably factorizable by externalizing the dynrel bump logic in a separate command). That’s more honest anyway, next may happen or not, when you launch fedpkg verrel, it’s mere potential (the next commit may bump version and invalidate your future build). > As for changelog, generally with build system commiting back to > dist-git, there is a problem that I can be concurrently pushing > changes while the build system tries to push its changes and build > system is not human so it will not know how to resolve such > situation. I understand, but that’s the consequence of automating changelog. Right now the reconciliation is done by the human packager (you can get in a similar situation by working on a change at the time a mass rebuild runs). > Do you have a solution for situation when I launch a build and then I > do another change, commit, and push (the changes to changelog can be > quite arbitrary here)? You can set a lock at fedpkg build time, and forbid fedpkg commit in that branch till the lock is released (fedpkg build in the branch succeeded or not). The packager can still git commit things, as long as he does not touch the detached changelog file. Only fedpkg commit syncs git state with detached changelog state. An alternate simpler strategy would be to mark the fedpkg build as failure in koji if sync-back failed. That would work too. The build system need not be ultra smart, just robust WRT human behaviour. (If the packager deliberately messes with the detached changelog while a production build for the same branch is ongoing he deserves a build failure – the changelog state is undefined till the build ends, so he’s doing changes on quicksand. If he tried that today he’d probably have to rewrite his changelog if the build failed) > I think, this is not a decision of rpm upstream but an infrastructure > thing or a mock thing. mock and rpm upstreams excel when they work together. My premise is that they are better qualified than us to do rpm/buildsys boundary fine tuning. Populating changelog from git and syncing back to fedora git are fedpkg/koji responsability, because Fedora git is Fedora specific infra. Handling release autobumping and build recording belongs to the lower layers, however. They’re the same with or without Fedora git, they belong to lower levels. > I think your proposal wouldn't quite work for copr because it has no > access to those repositories (which especially for src.fp.o is good > in your proposal, otherwise copr would be modifying src.fp.o repos). copr does not need write access to Fedora git, its builds do not participate to the production build lineage as long as no one re- imports them in koji (which should be a deliberate fedpkg command, not something driven by copr itself). copr only needs access to its own private git to remember its own last successful build, if people want it to autobump from last successful state. (maybe they don’t). srpm import in copr will overwrite copr state with the state the new srpm contains, which is fine too. Putting state in detached srpm source files has the following super- duper property. You can import the srpm or scm checkout between systems, and they’ll just pick up from the point the previous system left things, without needing a full scm import. So you do not need to deal with incompatible scms (or lack of scm). > So if someone wanted to have a build counter in the release, yes, > this could be an implementation although it would be much easier to > simply catch the information from copr's database where this info is > stored It is simpler from the buildsys POW, but it ties state in a specific git and buildsystem. So it will break cross-buildsys workflows. Cross-buildsys workflows are critical for the project success because they enable sharing work with other distros, and allow packagers to make the best of a palette of build systems (each with its own constrains and limitiations). Fun fact: I noticed today than one of my old Fedora packages was rebuilt by others for AIX. This kind of cross- pollination is one of the strengths of the rpm ecosystem. Don’t break it by making out packages depend on Fedora git or buildsys state. > in fact there would never be a changelog file at > all because nobody uses fedpkg commit in git repos that are not from > src.fp.o so this dynamic changelog thing wouldn't be usable for copr > at all. When using a buildsys that didn’t automate changelog filling, you can just write in the detached changelog file directly. The build part won’t care how you filled this file with changes, it just needs it to record a build point. scm to changelog plumbing logic is going to change over time (for example, if we drop pagure for gitlab, or git for the next best thing). It is dangerous to set it in stone. dynrel autobumping and recording builds in the changelog is more of an rpm format change. It can (and should) be done in an independant way. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Help with Nagios/NRPE: SELinux considerations
by Martin Jackson 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

Hello, I recently adopted nagios and nrpe packages (also nagios-plugins); but nagios and nrpe are my chief concerns at the moment. I'm working on getting the released fedoras and epel 7/8 level on 4.4.5. There are a number of open bugs due to SELinux denials. There's a memory leak in 4.4.3 in epel7 that I think needs to be addressed. There was an open PR in the nagios package, which I accepted and have been trying to deploy. It also kind of bridges into nrpe, which I kind-of suggested and am now thinking I should not have. I'm not really clear on how executables get their contexts. The patch defines a nrpe_etc_t type, but how does that get associated with the nrpe binary? Can it have multiple contexts and if so how? I'm relatively new to this level of RPM packaging, but excited to learn how to deal with these kinds of concerns and wanting to provide a great nagios experience in the ecosystem. Thanks in advance for any pointers or advice! Marty

1 0

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Nicolas Mailhot 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 13:49 +0100, clime a écrit : > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 10:15, Nicolas Mailhot via devel > <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Anyway, here is what I would personnaly consider a robust, > > inclusive, > > and future-proof design: > > I will need to ask some questions to really understand it. > > > — a %{use_dynstate} rpm variable enables dynamic changelog/release > > behaviour > > — probably initialy set to false distro-wide, to let volunteers > > test > > the thing by setting it to true iin their specs, > > — then to true (opt-out), when kinks have been fixed, and > > FPC/FESCO > > greenlights general availability > > > > – when activated, last changelog, evr and %{dynrel} state are saved > > in one or several detached files > > You mean the last changelog, evr, and %{dynrel} are stored once > %{use_dynstate} is set and and after one invokes fedpkg commit? > I think there should be some explicit action (e.g. the commit) to > generate the files after I set the %{use_dynstate} value to true in > the spec file. Once a spec sets %{use_dynstate} to true changelog, last computed changelog, ev, neutralized-r, and %{dynrel} are taken from detached files. neutralized-r is the evaluation of Release with %{dist} set to a neutral value (for example “-”). State is stored in files included in the srpm to be able to import to and from Fedora git (pretty much a hard requirement if tooling is to be kept Fedora-git neutral, which is itself a hard requirement to be able to interact with packaging work existing outside Fedora git). You need the last computed ev and neutralized-r to decide whether %{dynrel} can be kept, needs bumping, or should be reset to 1. I don’t trust mixed mode, KISS, changelog is detached or not, don’t try to have it both ways, here lies madness and confusion. > How is %{dynrel} computed here at this stage Nothing is computed at this stage. Detached changelog state, is a commit property (except for build date). It is computed at fedpkg commit time: – if detached changelog data is absent → move in-spec changelog data to the detached file if data exists, → otherwise init detached data to nothing – after the first fedpkg commit with %{use_dynstate} set to true, the detached changelog file exists and the in-spec changelog has been removed. – others have detailed possible fedpkg commit strategies to stuff changelog with new info %{dynrel} and build changelog info are a build property. They are computed at build time: – if computed ev ≠ last saved ev or last %{dynrel} is undefined → reset %{dynrel} to 1 – otherwise if computed neutralized-r = last neutralized-r → bump %{dynrel} – otherwise, do nothing, something already took care of things – save the new computed ev, computed neutralized-r and dynrel to the detached files – add a build line with the full evr (and full dist) to detached changelog – at build time, there is no relationship with magic git state or magic buildsys info, the srpms are 100% autonomous as before. The detached changelog has already been populated manually or by distro automation or manual processes when it reaches build stage and a new build is recorded (with a new dynrel value, if necessary). > Is the intention here that with each new build of the same package, > the value of %{dynrel} is bumped and committed back? It is bumped (or reseted to 1) whenever comparison with last saved state shows a bump or reset is needed. Build-time state changes need to be commited back, of course (otherwise the produced srpm needs to be re-imported manually) > That means the evr file read from the repository needs to contain > somehow outdated values at this point (when srpm is being built in > build system), otherwise %{dynrel} would be always bumped? Final dynrel state is not computed before a build, yes. The build will decide if it needs to bump dynrel, or can reset it to 1. I had forgotten to document the reset, sorry. There is no need to compute a new dynrel before actual build, the packager may yet change ev or r. > > – a build line is added to the detached changelog, using the > > current > > date and full evr (without %{dist} neutralization) > > — that probably requires defining a rpm variable to track whom > > the > > build is attributed to > > – it can default to "Anonymous coward" or whatever if not > > explicitely > > set > > I think today's changelogs do not contain name of the person who > built the pacakge Today’s changelog mixes who made spec changes and who built the result. That what confuses you. Confusion is anthetical with automation. This proposal clearly documents that changelog can change at build time (fedpkg build) and between builds (fedpkg commit). From a package consumer POW, the only attribution and timestamp that matters is who build the final package and when, because the builder is taking the responsability of pushing a result to users. A clean changelog is: %changelog * timestamp builder-id - built-EVR ← set at build time - change ← set at commit time - change ← set at commit time - change ← set at commit time Not sure at all the change lines need attribution or timestamping. From a package user POW they are virtual potential changes that won’t materialize before a build. So yes before someone presses the build button the detached changelog will look like this %changelog - staged change - staged change - staged change * timestamp builder-id - built-EVR ← set at build time - past change - past change - past change The act of building adds the final %changelog line: * timestamp builder-id - built-EVR > You mean there would be different kinds of built srpms? We already have two level of srpms, one before dynamic BuildRequires processing and one after. It’s up to rpm upstream to decide at which srpm level they would prefer preforming dynrel and dynchangelog munging. I want upstream rpm involved for dynrel and dynchangelog to be independent from current Fedora git infra, and interoperable. > For copr, it is not possible, because it has read-only access to git > repositories being built. It has some access to private git repos, you see copr initialising them when giving it a new srpm to build. > I think there are good examples where some things can be done without > rpm changes - e.g. the simple-koji-ci to do automatic scratch builds > on a new commit. For something that is effectively a format change (moving changelog outside the spec itself) it’s a bad bad idea to do it without rpm upstream vetting and involvment. Sure you can kludge things without them. Operational word: kludge. Will forever be a pain point as long as it is not integrated upstream. Magic git-only or bbuildsys-only state is a misfeature, (s)rpms should cut the git/buildsys cordon as soon as they are born. scratch build are something else entirely. They are transient non- shared things that do not need to cleanly export or import in other build systems Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 1

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file
by Nicolas Mailhot 29 Feb '20

29 Feb '20

Hi, Anyway, here is what I would personnaly consider a robust, inclusive, and future-proof design: — a %{use_dynstate} rpm variable enables dynamic changelog/release behaviour — probably initialy set to false distro-wide, to let volunteers test the thing by setting it to true iin their specs, — then to true (opt-out), when kinks have been fixed, and FPC/FESCO greenlights general availability – when activated, last changelog, evr and %{dynrel} state are saved in one or several detached files — evr computed using a fixed neutral %{dist} value (for example “-” since it’s forbidden in %{dist}) – those files are given standard rpm variable names and added to Sources: – manual packager Source900: %{dynstate} or whatever – rpm later updated to allow source file declarations via macros at to eliminate boilerplate (I need this in forge and go packages) – or the detached files are set in stone as separate Tags with a default value overridable via the %{dynstate} variable in a new rpm version – the packager adds %{dynrel} wherever he sees fit in his Release string – at fedpkg commit time changelog state is updated with info taken from fedora git state, *without* evr and build date – that’s Fedora-specific integration, exact commit/tag syntax to mark things to inject or ignore TBD Fedora-side – fedpkg commit sets a tag in git to mark anything older can now be ignored for changelog generation purposes – detached changelog state remains packager-editable, like the in- spec changelog today. That allows pruning useless no longer relevant stuff and fixing grammar errors — at rpmbuild -bs stage – evr is computed using the same neutral %{dist} value as before, and the saved %{dynrel} value – if it is equal to the previously saved evr %{dynrel} is bumped and saved in the detached file – a build line is added to the detached changelog, using the current date and full evr (without %{dist} neutralization) — that probably requires defining a rpm variable to track whom the build is attributed to – it can default to "Anonymous coward" or whatever if not explicitely set – Koji, OBS and Copr can set it to whoever asked them to build the package – the result constitutes the new srpm (either first or second level srpm as upstream rpm sees fit) – that’s generic non Fedora-specific behaviour that work as well in rpmbuild -bs, mock, copr, koji, OBS, whatever, with or without Fedora git presence – Koji/copr need to commit the new dynamic dynrel/changelog state to git (a build-striggered state change is commited by the build system) And yes that requires some work rpm-side. That is necessary to maintain the rpm decentralized design and keep srpms independent from anyone’s git state. Personnaly, I don’t see the point of pretending we can move our infra forward without ever touching rpm. The cardinal sin of Modularity was attempting to create an overlay over existing rpm/dnf behaviour, without changing this behaviour when it needed improving. Contrat that with dynamic buildrequires or weak deps that slotted into our workflows with hardly any ripple. Though they were major feature changes. But, they were done with rpm upstream, instead of trying to bypass it. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-02-27 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2020-02-27 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2020-02-27 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2020-02-27 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2020-02-27 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2020-02-27 17:00 UTC UTC 2020-02-27 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2020-02-27 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2020-02-27 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2020-02-28 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2020-02-28 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2020-02-28 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2020-02-28 03:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 = Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-938 Add Package Review Process page https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/938 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

Doubt about explicit compiler mention in the BuildRequires field
by José Abílio Matos 27 Feb '20

27 Feb '20

I am asking this about https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Is the requirement that we should explicit state the compiler or is it enough to have it implicitly. Case in point, R binary packages. Each package requires R-devel. Now R-devel requires R-core-devel that requires gcc-c++ gcc-gfortran So the BuildRequires for gcc-c++ is there but implicitly. If the requirement is for the BuildRequires to be explicit then it should be said that explicitly in the guidelines page. As an example in the "Packaging Q&A" section. What do you think? Regards, -- José Abílio

3 2

Summary/Minutes from today's FPC Meeting (2020-02-20 17:10 - 18:00 UTC)
by James Antill 20 Feb '20

20 Feb '20

====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ====================== Meeting started by geppetto at 17:10:17 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-02-20/fpc.2020-02-2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (geppetto, 17:10:18) * #946 Bootstrap Exception for .NET Core 3.1 (dotnet3.1) (geppetto, 17:17:34) * ACTION: Bootstrap Exception for .NET Core 3.1 (dotnet3.1) (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:21:51) * #pr-940 Revisit the Python guidelines (geppetto, 17:22:35) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/940 (geppetto, 17:22:42) * ACTION: Revisit the Python guidelines (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 17:25:50) * Open Floor (geppetto, 17:26:12) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/7199 (nim-nim, 17:33:50) * LINK: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/826 (decathorpe, 17:42:14) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803281 (decathorpe, 17:49:55) * ACTION: limburgher Will review macros in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=18032811 (geppetto, 17:53:06) Meeting ended at 17:58:57 UTC. Action Items ------------ * Bootstrap Exception for .NET Core 3.1 (dotnet3.1) (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Revisit the Python guidelines (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) * limburgher Will review macros in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803281 Action Items, by person ----------------------- * limburgher * limburgher Will review macros in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803281 * **UNASSIGNED** * Bootstrap Exception for .NET Core 3.1 (dotnet3.1) (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) * Revisit the Python guidelines (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * geppetto (45) * nim-nim (29) * decathorpe (27) * tibbs (23) * zodbot (16) * ignatenkobrain (6) * limburgher (5) * omajid (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

1 0

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-02-20 17:00 UTC)
by James Antill 19 Feb '20

19 Feb '20

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2020-02-20 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): ================= Day: Thursday ================== 2020-02-20 09:00 PST US/Pacific 2020-02-20 12:00 EST --> US/Eastern <-- 2020-02-20 17:00 GMT Europe/London 2020-02-20 17:00 UTC UTC 2020-02-20 18:00 CET Europe/Berlin 2020-02-20 18:00 CET Europe/Paris 2020-02-20 22:30 IST Asia/Calcutta ---------------- New Day: Friday ----------------- 2020-02-21 01:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2020-02-21 01:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2020-02-21 02:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2020-02-21 03:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting = Followups = #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #909 Suggest that linting/measuring-coverage is not for %check .fpc 909 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/909 = New business = #topic #946 Bootstrap Exception for .NET Core 3.1 (dotnet3.1) .fpc 946 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/946 = Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-938 Add Package Review Process page https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/938 #topic #pr-940 Revisit the Python guidelines https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/940 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

packaging February 2020