====================== #fedora-meeting-1: fpc ======================
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 16:59:29 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-01-09/fpc.2014-01-09-... .
Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (abadger1999, 16:59:35)
* #339 software collections in Fedora (abadger1999, 17:07:57) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 (abadger1999, 17:08:03) * LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AToshio% 2FSCL_Guidelines_%28draft%29&diff=366334&oldid=364381 (abadger1999, 17:09:22) * LINK:
https://bitbucket.org/osmanov/pecl-ev/src/30589504e7cbe14445053682e42c07f7d3... (RemiFedora, 17:27:23)
* #369 Guidance on dealing with the bundled libev in perl-EV (abadger1999, 17:33:04) * Proposal to allow libev-source (with conditions -- see summary in ticket) approved. (+1:6, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:41:56) * Proposal to allow libev-source (with conditions -- see summary in ticket) approved. (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0) (abadger1999, 17:43:13)
* #375 Update to the Addon Packages naming guidelines for Python 3 Modules (abadger1999, 17:43:22) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/375 (abadger1999, 17:44:09)
* 374 Ada guidelines changes for Comfignat and runpaths (abadger1999, 17:59:06) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/374 (abadger1999, 17:59:11) * Latest GNAT_add_rpath changes approved (+1:6, 0:0, -1:1) (abadger1999, 18:08:09)
* #377 tmpfiles.d guidelines update (abadger1999, 18:09:09) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/377 (abadger1999, 18:09:56) * Proposal to use systemd-tmpfiles --create and not have packages specify the directories under /var/lock in rpm's %files rejected. Vote to approve the proposal was (+1:0, 0:0, -1:5) (abadger1999, 18:30:53)
* Open Floor (abadger1999, 18:31:04)
Meeting ended at 18:36:47 UTC.
Action Items ------------
Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)
People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * abadger1999 (100) * geppetto (30) * tibbs|w (18) * limburgher (14) * RemiFedora (14) * racor (10) * Rathann (10) * Rombobeorn (8) * zodbot (7) * SmootherFrOgZ (5) * tibbsphone (1)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 13:38:16 -0500, James Antill wrote:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-01-09/fpc.2014-01-09-...
17:53:34 * RemiFedora can't find where confusion is. Current guidelines seems clear about "a now removed exception"
Remi, the Wiki page has been updated by Toshio three weeks ago already! That's why it is _better_ and less confusing already, but not perfect. See page history:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ANamingGuidelines&...
17:54:02 <abadger1999> yeah -- I think it's just the examples that he wants clarified.
Yes, as explained in the ticket, they have lead to confusion in the gstreamer1-python review ticket. Note that *I* would have applied the %parent-%child nameing guidelines for that package, but the package submitter derived the package name from the examples and the _existing_ gstreamer-python package.
The guidelines also don't tell that the old packages need not be renamed.
The meeting log also adds something new, and that is new subpackages for Python 3 may keep the old base name and need not prepend the python3- prefix. That would be a clarification item, too.
17:55:01 <tibbs|w> I don't know; there's that wall of text but nothing actually saying what he'd like changed.
Only the FPC knows what naming scheme they want to be applied. I'm not fond of the enforced %parent-%child scheme and would prefer staying closer to upstream names.
17:55:50 <tibbs|w> So, yeah, clarify the examples as much as possible but don't actually change any guidelines unless someone tosses in a proposal for what they actually want changed.
To drop from the examples the packages that apply the old naming scheme and replace them with any packages that apply a python- prefix and follow current guidelines. Use "python-foo" as a last resort.
17:58:54 <tibbs|w> I'm sure we'll get complaints (and still no draft) if that wasn't what was being requested.
The only one who complains here is you. :( Be thankful that I've taken the time to inform the FPC about the confusion. Why publish such guidelines and lots of text about %parent-%child relationship, if there is no real interest in getting packagers/reviewers to follow those guidelines? Who cares whether the package is named gst-python or gstreamer-python or python-gstreamer?
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
James Antill -
Michael Schwendt