16:14:02 <ashledombos> #startmeeting
16:14:02 <chwido`> Meeting started Tue May 13 16:14:02 2014 UTC.  The chair is ashledombos. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.openmandriva.org/om/en/MeetBot.
16:14:02 <chwido`> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
16:14:19 <itchka_> I think you need a hash instead of a !
16:14:28 <pcpa> but it is more important obviously if a partial update would break the system, like the bash becoming broken issue we had in the last ncurses update
16:15:08 <ashledombos> <pcpa> What about my suggestion of no longer enforcing Mandriva library policy (note that this may anger some people...) [17:59] <pcpa> https://project.openmandriva.org/work_packages/23 [18:00] <ashledombos> pcpa: why this may anger some people? [18:00] <ashledombos> compatibility breakage?
16:15:25 <ashledombos> [18:02] <pcpa> ashledombos: well, because it basically means making specs compatible with fedora (I have been doing it on some of my packages, but need a rpmlintrc to break the enforcing of mandriva policy) [18:03] <pcpa> the idea of mandriva library policy is good to aid in library major upgrades, and backward compatibility, but abf does not understand it
16:15:51 <ashledombos> [18:04] <pcpa> abf removes all packages from the previous build, basically, it only supports the simple (that happens to be the fedora) way [18:06] <pcpa> what was done in openmandriva 2014.0 was to not remove previous packages, now the repository is using way too much space due to too many previous builds there [18:06] <pcpa> I think there are cases of more than 5 versions of the same package
16:16:03 <ashledombos> [18:06] <ashledombos> then there is no reason for still enforcing it, as it's useless, right? [18:06] <gmoro> pcpa, we should probably go with the libfoo{major} thing don't you think? [18:07] <ashledombos> unless maybe some third party package may need a specific older release...
16:16:12 <ashledombos> [18:07] <gmoro> so a mass rebuild would catch some cases where the new major doesn't work, and would be a matter of point out to the libfoo{major} [18:07] <pcpa> ashledombos: I agree we cannot just say it is over, some people still want to use it, my suggestion is to not make it the only option (without a crafted rpmlintrc to use another way)
16:16:20 <ashledombos> [18:09] <pcpa> what fedora provides for updates without breaking is "buildroot overrides" where one can temporarily change the build chroot, good for new majors and reverting fast if it breaks [18:10] <pcpa> and updates that consist of 1-n packages "atomically" updated in mirrors/hdlists, so there should not be a window of time with a broken mirror [18:12] <gmoro> pcpa atomically updating the mirrors is a must have
16:16:28 <ashledombos> [18:12] <gmoro> :/ [18:12] <ashledombos> It seems only gmoro here among active people  is able to have a correct vision of it, my opinion is that, if we can remove some load in repos, without loosing much in features, it's a ++ [18:12] <ashledombos> i mean out of you pcpa :) [18:12] <pcpa> gmoro: yes, it is good for updating at once a list of packages after a library major bump
16:16:56 <ashledombos> [18:13] <itchka_> pcpa: Wouldn't this have massive implications for contrib?
16:17:34 <ashledombos> _/!\Sorry for flooding, just for the record /!\ now it's finished :)
16:17:50 <pcpa> itchka_: it has no implications for contrib, well, other than another informal suggestion I had, that is to merge main and contrib
16:18:09 <pcpa> and only have a "core" repository and a non-free repository
16:18:27 <itchka_> I don't think that is ever going to happen :)
16:18:42 <pcpa> it used to be main developed/maintained by Mandriva S/A and contrib by the comunity...
16:18:45 <ashledombos> #chair itchka_ pcpa
16:18:45 <chwido`> Current chairs: ashledombos itchka_ pcpa
16:19:05 <gmoro> pcpa, exactly, what makes no sense anymore
16:19:15 <gmoro> as everything is community now
16:19:26 <gmoro> contrib became something like a dead repo
16:21:04 <ashledombos> this is a question we talked about with itchka_ yesterday :)
16:21:20 <ashledombos> I had difficulty to understand the reason of contrib
16:21:20 <pcpa> About the library policy, AFAIK only us and mageia use it, and every other distro uses another approach, or not strict the mandriva library policy, but still some libfoo$major when needing to have multiple versions of a library
16:21:56 <ashledombos> gmoro: maybe a "testing" repos would be more interesting?
16:21:59 <itchka_> pcpa: I see what you are saying but on the other hand there is absolutely no chance that we could currently maintain all of contrib to any kind of a standard.
16:23:08 <itchka_> pcpa: so adding ti to main would be suicidal. We also ahve to consider things like mass builds.
16:23:55 <ashledombos> in fact, the concern is less about having a kind of "core" and "extra" repos than the confusion with the naming "contrib"
16:24:20 <ashledombos> it takes sense for rosa
16:24:33 <ashledombos> as there is officially maintained package, and community repos
16:25:07 <pcpa> itchka_: I have been actively maintaining a lot of packages for as long as 5+ years, and they are in contrib, maybe I should then move those packages to main
16:25:10 <itchka_> I was trying to champion a kind of testing repo for contrib where commonly used programs are tested and maintained. If they are popular enough they are pulled into main.
16:26:02 <itchka_> pcpa: This might make alot of sense theya re clearly useful otherwise you would not havge maintaed them.
16:26:16 <ashledombos> i think it's a good idea
16:26:27 <itchka_> 'scuse typing errors :)
16:26:49 <ashledombos> btw is it doable to rename contrib repo, or absolutely not?
16:26:55 <ashledombos> i mean for cooker
16:26:59 <pcpa> itchka_: the problem is that, if you have very-well-maintained-package-1.0 in main, and bad-package-2.0 in contrib, but both happen to "Provides: feature" the contrib one wins
16:27:03 <ashledombos> not released distro
16:27:12 <pcpa> because of higher version
16:27:22 <pcpa> we had such problems before several times
16:27:34 <pcpa> only way to work around that is not enable contrib repo
16:28:08 <ashledombos> why not three repos then?
16:28:12 <itchka_> pcpa: That's a wierd one I suppose people identify the later package as being better because it's newer.
16:29:06 <ashledombos> more or less something like debian, stable, testing and dev, servers only using stable, users stable and testing, and testers all repos
16:29:08 <gmoro> itchka_, mass build should be controlled by manifests of packages, not repos, we should have a way to say what is the "main" and what is contrib without separating the repos "physically"
16:29:11 <itchka_> pcpa: Ah I misunderstood is this a urpmi issue?
16:30:04 <ashledombos> need to drive and go, see you after
16:30:08 <pcpa> itchka_: no, just two packages providing the same feature and urpmi chooses the one with highest EVRD
16:30:12 <itchka_> by ash
16:30:29 <itchka_> pcpa: I understand
16:31:10 <itchka_> pcpa: I guess urpmi could be patched to favour the main repo.
16:33:04 <itchka_> pcpa: bero sees main as those packages that end up on the DVD.
16:34:56 <pcpa> patching urpmi just for this is overkill, most times it happens is by accident, and two packages in main could provide the same feature...
16:35:33 <itchka_> pcpa: When we make changes to the packaging policy there must be a knock on effect relating to the amount of additional work that deves will have to do. If the change was made would it be a gradual thing or is it such that it would have to be all done in one go?
16:35:34 <pcpa> most times it is either a mistake, or on purpose alternatives
16:36:13 <pcpa> itchka_: the suggestion is to not make it mandatory, mostly to do a minimal change to rpmlint, everything else just works
16:40:30 <itchka_> pcpa: Could I suggest you take a liitle time to detail the overall implications of the change then veryone could say take week to look at it and understand the issues . Then the following week you could address any queries and then the issue would be put to the vote.
16:43:15 <pcpa> itchka_: the main difference would be to allow splitting packages like this:  pkg, pkg-libs, pkg-devel, instead of pkg, libpkg1, libpkg-devel
16:43:49 <pcpa> a good advantage is that then we could have exactly the same spec in fedora and openmandriva
16:44:02 <gmoro> pcpa, but not in mageia and ROSA
16:44:07 <gmoro> that can be a con
16:44:22 <pcpa> suse uses a schema similar to "mandriva policy" http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Shared_library_packaging_policy
16:44:32 <gmoro> pcpa, and probably matt and other will be infuriate by this
16:44:58 <itchka_> pcpa: I belive that some see this as sabotage nut don't quoteme :)
16:45:10 <pcpa> gmoro: that is the anger part I told :-)
16:45:12 <itchka_> but don't quote me :)
16:45:43 <gmoro> pcpa, well, the main reason is keep compatible with rosa and mageia
16:46:00 <gmoro> pcpa, you little fedora bastard, trying to sabotage us :p
16:46:12 <gmoro> to use Red hat style
16:46:15 <gmoro> hhahahha
16:46:16 <itchka_> pcpa: gmoro: So politically it's a hot potato
16:48:03 <gmoro> pcpa, probably is better to "fix" or policy instead don't you think
16:48:19 <gmoro> it's quite sane to separate the libs and allow them to coexist
16:48:26 <gmoro> besides the fact that we don't :)
16:49:59 <pcpa> gmoro, itchka_ : too bad I cannot rename the "work package" should mean, "make mandriva library policy optional"
16:50:44 <itchka_> pcpa: That sounds like just the ticket :)
16:51:01 <itchka_> ah well what's done is done.
16:51:30 <gmoro> pcpa, well, yes, would be cool to be optional, but you would end up with fedora style repo in no time
16:51:59 <gmoro> matt and Pulfer I think actually are quite resistant with bad split libs
16:52:05 <gmoro> so they are probably against it
16:52:28 <itchka_> Guy's I have to depart and ashledombus has left me in charge of the meeting can you take over and close the meeting when you are ready pcpa?
16:53:18 <itchka_> #chair pcpa
16:53:18 <chwido`> Current chairs: ashledombos itchka_ pcpa
16:53:35 <itchka_> chwido
16:54:05 <itchka_> #help
16:54:15 <pcpa> itchka_, gmoro: then we come back to the point were abf does not support it, and the abf issue I opened to make mandriva library policy make sense is at best in a "we want your patches" from abf people
16:56:25 <pcpa> but I think we are bike shedding due to TPG not here :-)
16:56:57 <itchka_> pcpa: I need this explaining to me and I just don't have the time now.
16:57:14 <gmoro> pcpa, well, there's an agenda?
16:57:16 <gmoro> sorry about that
16:57:29 <gmoro> I didn't paid attention this was a meeting :)
16:57:36 <gmoro> I didn't pay attention this was a meeting :)
16:57:40 <itchka_> There's no agenda
16:57:56 <gmoro> pcpa, yes, but I do agree to remove the policy enforcing for now
16:58:07 <gmoro> until someone can fix ABF to ensure the policy is workable
16:58:11 <itchka_> I must go
16:58:18 <gmoro> itchka_,  cya
16:58:33 <pcpa> so, who is still attending the meeting?
16:59:16 <pcpa> We should probably start talking about 2015.0 specification list
17:00:24 <gmoro> pcpa, probably just you at this point
17:00:32 <gmoro> as I need to go now as well :)
17:00:47 <gmoro> cya you all
17:00:52 <gmoro> pcpa, don't fell lonely :)
17:02:13 <pcpa> #endmeeting