Attached you'll find the 'minutes' of our meeting. It's just what my irc client logged during the meeting.
We discussed:
* Webpage update
* Sync final RH content to Legacy systems
* Get yum conf file out
* configure build server to work w/ fc3
* Bugzilla management of existing bugs for fc3
* Official policy wrt x86_64 packages
* Official policy wrt Fedora Extras
The following action items came from the meeting (with some notes if
applicable)
ACTION: mether will make changes to wiki
ACTION: jkeating will communicate w/ Eric R to setup meeting for web content
changes, or find alternative web author
ACTION: jkeating will find out if fc3 only uses the new repodata/ format
ACTION: Jeff_S will find / create bugzilla entry to get legacy-yumconf package
published.
Note: Jeff created bug 177966 for this.
ACTION: jkeating will finish fc3 content sync to master mirror
ACTION: jkeating will make necessary changes to mach config so that fc3
packages can be built.
ACTION: jkeating will get fc3 component added to bugzilla
ACTION: request community to clean up existing fc3 bugs and move/mark/close as
necessary
ACTION: investigate docs for working w/ bugzilla within Legacy
ACTION: Bless a bug migration policy, possibly automate what can be automated.
Must bedone before community is let loose on it.
ACTION: jkeating will contact RH security team for a report on open security
issues that could affect FC3.
ACTION: mether to add the x86_64 info to the FAQ :-)
ACTION: mether will review this discussion and produce Fedora Extras FAQ entry
We also decided to meet again same time on Wed, day after tomorrow:
14:52 <ender> Ok, so meeting Wed Jan 18, 2006 at GMT 2100, US PST 1300,
US EST 1600
Thanks to those that attended.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
13:01 <ender> **** Meeting Start **** 13:01 <ender> the purpose of this meeting is to discuss our FC3 transition. 13:02 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:02 <ender> The Fedora Foundation handed it over today (please note FF, not Red Hat), so the ball is now in our court. 13:02 <ender> welcome Anatorian 13:02 <Anatorian> just here to observer 13:02 <ender> ok. 13:02 <ender> so we did some pre-work for fc3, and there is some fimal work necessary. I'd like ot run through topics that I have on my mind, then we'll go through them. 13:03 <ender> so the attention needing items that I see: 13:03 <ender> * Webpage update 13:04 <ender> * Sync final RH content to Legacy systems 13:04 <ender> * Get yum conf file out 13:04 <ender> * configure build server to work w/ fc3 13:04 <ender> * Bugzilla management of existing bugs for fc3 13:05 <ender> um, thats the items that I can think of. 13:05 <ender> do any ofy ou have other items to bring forth? 13:05 <Questor> x86_64? 13:05 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:07 <ender> Questor: good point. 13:07 <ender> * Official policy wrt x86_64 packages 13:07 <Jeff_S> I'm a bit confused about what will happen with fedora extras packages. It'd be nice to have a policy on that. I don't imagine many of the extras contributors will be willing/able to support FC3 13:07 <BobJensen> ender: once the yum config is available can you cc me the anouncement? [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13:08 <ender> * Official policy wrt Fedora Extras. 13:08 <ender> BobJensen: sure, I'll try to remeber that. 13:08 <ender> any other issues to add to the agenda? 13:08 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:09 <Jeff_S> not at the moment 13:10 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:10 <ender> ok, so lets start at the top. 13:10 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:10 <ender> ** Webpage Updates 13:10 <mether> I am here 13:10 <ender> So we'll need a blurb on fedoralegacy.org 13:11 <ender> indicating we've taken over FC3. We should have the information included re Extras and x86_64, once we discuss that later today. 13:11 <ender> Eric Rostetter is our web guy, however he has been less and less active over the last few months. 13:12 <ender> With the resounding success of the Fedora Project wiki, I'm halfway tempted to dissolve the fedoralegacy webpage and move it all into the wiki. 13:12 <Questor> Is Eric continuing to update the website when it's needed? 13:13 <ender> however that will take some work to move some of the more dynamic pages, such as mirror list that gets created by scripts, and the repoview stuff. 13:13 <ender> Questor: we haven't made any updates recently, so... yes, but I'm not confident. 13:14 <mether> ender, you can just redirect the main site but keep the mirror list and stuff in fedoralegacy.org before moving over finally 13:14 <ender> In the mean time, lets try to identify the web changes necessary. 13:14 <Jeff_S> I think moving almost everything to the wiki is a good idea. We can always link from the wiki back to repoview & mirror stuff on fedoralegacy.org 13:14 <Jeff_S> err, yeah what mether said :) 13:14 <mether> ender, I can manage it much better if its in the wiki 13:14 <mether> ender, also a community contest for a site redesign might work 13:14 <ender> Jeff_S: right. We were doing some update info specific to releases before repoview was available. It's custom hacky stuff that needs human interaction. I'd really like to move it to repoview, automated. 13:15 <ender> lets table this side discussion for a seperate meeting. 13:15 <ender> so, current web changes needed: 13:15 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: "Sonar_Guy has Left the Building!!" 13:15 <Jeff_S> well, I can write a blurb for the wiki, but someone with access will need to modify the main web page 13:15 <ender> 1) Put FC3 blurb on front page. (cover extras/x86_64 info) 13:16 <ender> 2) supported releases right side module 13:16 <ender> The FAQ moved to the wiki right? 13:16 <mether> ender, it hasnt yet 13:17 <mether> ender, been asking that for a while 13:17 <Jeff_S> yum.conf + legacy RPM + howto for FC3 should be added 13:17 <ender> mether: ok, we'll discuss that w/ the website move meeting. 13:17 <mether> ender, can i copy and modify the existing FAQ? 13:17 <ender> 3) FAQ touchup for FC3 support, add info for x86_64 and Extras there as well. SHould probably blurb about continued FC1 support too. 13:18 <ender> mether: sure, that'd be good to have it there. 13:18 <mether> ender, I will add appropriate notes on FC1 there too. 13:18 <ender> 4) Advisories pages need to include FC3 13:18 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:18 <ender> 5) Download page needs info on FC3 13:19 <ender> 6) download.fedoralegacy.org needs fc3 info 13:19 <ender> 7) Documentation page needs fc3 info 13:20 <Questor> Another agenda item?: Disposition of FC1 13:20 <ender> 8) participate should be updated w/ pekka's new fc3 needwork links once they show up. 13:20 <ender> Questor: sure. 13:20 <ender> Ok, I think thats all the fedoraproject.org changes necessary. Anybody have an idea of what wiki changes are needed? 13:21 <mether> ender, I do 13:21 <Questor> You mean fedoralegacy.org changes, ender. 13:21 <mether> ender, I will spice up the content, look and feel 13:21 <mether> ender, within the wiki pages. 13:21 <mether> ender, can you clarify point 5) 13:21 <tbeck> I just joined to be sure to let you guys know I appreciate all the hard work you all have been doing. 13:22 <Jeff_S> tbeck: thanks 13:22 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:22 <Sinner_> howdee 13:23 <mether> ender, do we need to provide information on downloading FC3 itself? 13:23 <Jeff_S> mether: I think he means this page: http://fedoralegacy.org/download/ 13:23 <ender> mether: no, I don't think that would be necessary. We don't want to encourage MORE users of FC3. (; 13:23 <Jeff_S> lol 13:24 <tbeck> lol.. FC# did hurt alot 13:24 <tbeck> fc3 13:24 <mether> Jeff_S, oh ok. I am new to stuff there 13:24 <mether> anyway this is here 13:24 <mether> http://fedora.isphuset.no/ 13:24 <ender> mether: yes, for 5) I meant http://fedoralegacy.org/download/ 13:24 <mether> if people really really want FC3 13:24 <Sinner_> is there anything in FC3 that makes it a "must-have" distro? 13:25 <Jeff_S> it was must-have a year or so ago :) 13:25 <ender> Sinner_: not that I can think of. There wasn't anything significantly broken in the churn to fc4. 13:25 <Sinner_> I mean, "must-have", because c-panel will only work with FC3, it's version of PHP is specialy stable, etc 13:25 <ender> mether: ok, I'll trust you to the wiki changes. 13:25 <ender> Sinner_: not that I am aware of, but I haven't looked very hard. 13:25 <mether> ender, hey thats the only thing I do for hours... 13:26 <mether> ender, every day. 13:26 <Sinner_> (those "examples" were all made up) 13:26 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:26 <Jeff_S> Sinner_: not really... FC4 was more exciting 13:26 <ender> so I'll try to contact Eric and see if I can't get him involved in discussions regarding the changes. Now that we have a list of WHAT to change we're in semi-good shape. The next thing for that topic is what chnages to make. 13:27 <Perlboy> ender, mind linking me to that list? 13:27 * Perlboy just got here :) 13:27 <ender> if Eric is not available, I'll try to find somebody else who can help. 13:27 <ender> Perlboy: sure. 13:27 <Sinner_> Jeff_S: then, droping FC3 in, say, 3 months should be no trauma... if there is enough publicity: osnews, slashdot, htp://fedora-legacy.org , etc etc etc 13:27 <ender> 1) Put FC3 blurb on front page. (cover extras/x86_64 info) 13:27 <ender> 2) supported releases right side module 13:27 <ender> 3) FAQ touchup for FC3 support, add info for x86_64 and Extras there as well. SHould probably blurb about continued FC1 support too. 13:27 <ender> 4) Advisories pages need to include FC3 13:27 <ender> 5) Download page needs info on FC3 13:27 <ender> 6) download.fedoralegacy.org needs fc3 info 13:28 <ender> 7) Documentation page needs fc3 info 13:28 <ender> 8) participate should be updated w/ pekka's new fc3 needwork links once they show up. 13:28 <ender> and then wiki changes. 13:28 <ender> Perlboy: got it? (; 13:28 <Perlboy> right 13:28 <Jeff_S> Sinner_: well I'm sure as long as there's people around using it, we'll keep pushing updates for it (or until it gets cycled out) 13:28 <Perlboy> and i trust there's no change to 7.3 & 9 maintainence 13:29 <Jeff_S> all we're doing is adding fc3 13:29 <ender> Perlboy: that is correct. 13:29 <Perlboy> k cool 13:29 <ender> Ok, I think the first topic of our meeting has been covered, website stuff. 13:29 <Perlboy> doesn't this mean the FL project is now maintaining 5 versions though? 13:30 <ender> any objections to moving on to data sync? 13:30 <Jeff_S> Perlboy: yes 13:30 <Perlboy> oh dear 13:30 <ender> Perlboy: yes. 7.3, 9, fc1, fc2, and fc3. 13:30 <Jeff_S> ender: nope 13:30 <Questor> ender: Would you like me to telelphone Eric to encourage his joining our meeting? 13:30 <Perlboy> k 13:30 <Perlboy> data sync? 13:30 <Perlboy> what about it? 13:31 <ender> Questor: I have not his phone number. I'll contact him. The 'what to change' is a different meeting too. 13:31 <ender> ** FC3 Data Sync 13:31 <ender> so, a month or so ago I started syncing a lot of the FC3 content. It is now a bit out of date, so I need to finish syncing i tup. 13:31 <ender> this should only mean the updates tree. 13:32 <BobJensen> ender: if you need website help and Eric is not available I will join to help with these tasks 13:32 <ender> I hope to have this done and pushed to our master mirror by tonight, for syncing to remote mirrors. 13:32 <Questor> (Newcomers: Agenda posted here: http://rafb.net/paste/results/WynQvp28.html ) 13:32 <ender> BobJensen: that would be most welcome. I will remember that offer (; 13:33 <Jeff_S> ok, but this may involve x86_64 stuff as well - should we discuss that first? 13:33 <ender> Jeff_S: The x86_64 content will be put on the servers as well. 13:33 <Jeff_S> ok 13:34 <ender> Ok, moving on to Yum Conf? 13:34 <Jeff_S> ender: sure 13:35 <Questor> Do we have 2 versions of yum to support for FC3 or just one now? 13:35 <ender> Ok, so a short time ago, a test yum repo package was posted for testing. 13:35 <ender> Questor: hrm, I'm not sure what you mean. 13:35 <ender> Questor: oh the repodata format? 13:36 <Questor> FC3 may have advanced to only use the repodata format yum by the time FC3 was originally published? 13:36 <ender> Questor: I think that is entirely possible. 13:36 <ender> that is a good question to ask outside the folks here. I'll follow up w/ that. 13:37 ::: Sinner_ is now known as SinnerBOFH 13:37 <ender> what would that mean for us though? Not much. The tool that generates the data is somewhat automated. 13:37 <Jeff_S> Questor: yes I believe it uses the new format, but the old "headers" were left for those that were upgrading 13:37 <Questor> 'k 13:37 <Jeff_S> I think we should still have both "headers" and "repodata" 13:37 <Questor> Good point, Jeff_S 13:37 <ender> So we'll need somebody to do QA on the test package for release to FC3. IT'll go into legacy-utils repo. 13:37 <ender> Jeff_S: we're currently generating both IIRC 13:38 <ender> Jeff_S: but I can make sure. 13:38 <Jeff_S> ender: yes I think I saw both 13:38 <Questor> Is the test package have a Bugzilla issue open on it. That would help get QA going. 13:38 <Questor> Is => Does 13:38 <ender> Questor: I _think_ it does. but I'm failing to search my email correctly. rawhide evo bug won't let me sort emails. 13:38 <Jeff_S> I think this is the URL for the package (for the record) http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jeff/legacy/legacy-yumconf-3-2.fc3.src.rpm 13:38 <Jeff_S> let me verify that though 13:40 <Jeff_S> the yum.conf in that RPM has base & updates enabled (utils and updates-testing are present, but not enabled) 13:40 <Jeff_S> I think that is what we finally agreed upon on the mailing list 13:41 <Jeff_S> it'd be good to test it out now that the FC3 mirror is up :) 13:41 <ender> Jeff_S: sounds about right. 13:41 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/supporter/sustaining/BobJensen has joined: #Fedora-Legacy 13:42 <ender> So we'll need to find a bzilla entry, and get last QA done and get it published so we can reference it on the websites. 13:43 ::: |404|[EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:43 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/supporter/sustaining/BobJensen has quit: Remote closed the connection 13:43 <ender> anybody willing to trawl bugzilla to see if there is a bug on this issue? 13:43 <Jeff_S> ender: I'll give it a try 13:43 <ender> oh, for the sake of irc log grepping: 13:43 <ender> ACTION: mether will make changes to wiki 13:44 ::: |404|Innoc_JF is now known as eucke 13:44 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will communicate w/ Eric R to setup meeting for web content changes, or find alternative web author 13:44 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will find out if fc3 only uses the new repodata/ format 13:44 <ender> ACTION: Jeff_S will find / create bugzilla entry to get legacy-yumconf package published. 13:45 <ender> there. That'll make stuff easy to find (; 13:45 <Jeff_S> question - if I can't find a bug, should I file it under FC3, or...? 13:45 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will finish fc3 content sync to master mirror 13:45 <ender> Jeff_S: file it for Fedora Legacy 13:46 <Jeff_S> ok 13:46 <ender> hrm, I see something we need already. 13:46 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED]/supporter/sustaining/BobJensen has joined: #Fedora-Legacy 13:46 <ender> there is no fc3 component for Fedora Legacy 13:46 <Jeff_S> nope, that's why I asked :) 13:46 <ender> Jeff_S: use 'unspecified' for now. 13:46 <Jeff_S> works for me 13:46 <ender> we'll talk about bzilla later. 13:47 <ender> ok, any more thoughts re legacy-yumconf ? 13:47 ::: BobJensen-Away is now known as BobJensen 13:47 <ender> wb BobJensen 13:47 <MrBawb> the use of mirrorlist= instead of baseurl=? 13:47 <MrBawb> I haven't looked at the package yet to see 13:47 <ender> MrBawb: good question. We as of yet don't have the infrastructure that mirrorlist requires. 13:47 <BobJensen> thanks ender 13:48 <ender> that is something we can look into providing in the near future, but I don't think we have time for it before the yumconf goes out. 13:48 <ender> I actually want to redesign some of the mirror stuff. 13:48 <ender> seperate meeting (; 13:49 <ender> Ok, moving from yum topic to Build Server. 13:49 <ender> ** Build Server 13:49 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:49 <ender> afaik, the changes necessary here are setting up mock to know about fc3 build targets 13:49 <ender> Questor: were you able to determine if these were in fact missing? 13:49 <Questor> We continue to use mach, not mach, right? 13:49 <Questor> not mock 13:50 <Jeff_S> "mock" or "mach" 13:50 <Questor> Yes, they are missing. 13:50 <Questor> It may be a simple cut-n-paste of the FC2 to replace 'fc2' strings with 'fc3'... needs looking into. 13:50 <ender> Questor: oh sorry, mach 13:50 <Questor> (in the mach config files) 13:50 <ender> Questor: ok, I'll add that to my action list. 13:51 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will make necessary changes to mach config so that fc3 packages can be built. 13:51 <ender> Any further thoughts on build system? before moving to Bugzilla? 13:52 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 13:52 <Questor> I don't think most people here deal much with the build system itself ... 13:52 <Jeff_S> I assume that mock & plague are on the back burner until after the transition? 13:53 <ender> Jeff_S: yes, they're still very much in my attention, but there is a lot of groundwork to do leading up to that. 13:53 <ender> ok, moving along (welcome davej_ ) 13:53 <ender> ** Bugzilla 13:53 <davej_> lo 13:53 <ender> I think we've noticed that we need an fc3 component within bugzilla. 13:53 <Questor> (Newcomers: Agenda is posted at: http://rafb.net/paste/results/WynQvp28.html ) 13:53 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will get fc3 component added to bugzilla 13:54 <ender> Other than that, there are a lot of bugs still open for fc3. For kernel bugs, I'll let davej_ speak for a moment. 13:54 <ender> davej_: yo uhave the.. erm.. floor 13:54 <Questor> Will there be new packages that will be needing to be added also to Bugzilla for the FedoraLegacy Product? 13:55 <davej_> there's around 120 open kernel bugs against FC3. Later today I'm going to migrate them to FC4 bugs. There's nothing of 'security' consequence in that lot. 13:55 <davej_> however.. there are a number of local DoS problems in the last FC3 kernel that I never got around to fixing. A good starting point for patches might be to look at other vendors (Debian and Ubuntu both have 2.6.12 based updates out iirc) 13:56 <davej_> the good news is that there's no really nasty security bugs there. 13:56 <davej_> (to the best of my knowledge at least) 13:57 <davej_> [I'm done] 13:57 <ender> phone, just a moment. 13:57 <Jeff_S> davej_: ok, thanks 13:58 <Questor> davej_: Is there a list somewhere of the local DoS problems? 13:58 <ender> back. 13:58 <davej_> questor: [EMAIL PROTECTED] can probably give a definitive list 13:58 <ender> Questor: that is a good question. I'll have our bugzilla guy verify thta all fc3 packages exist within Legacy as well. 13:59 <davej_> worth speaking to him in general, not just for kernel related issues too, as he's probably tracking other packages too. 13:59 <ender> Questor: so I'm going to have davej_ hook up with mdeslaur regarding the kernel security stuff. 13:59 <davej_> mdeslaur: if I'm not around on irc at anytime (I idle a lot), feel free to drop me a mail 13:59 <mether> Questor, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security 14:01 <ender> As for existing bugs, some trawling is necessary. This is a good item to ask for community help on. 14:01 <ender> not just LEgacy community, but Fedora community in general. 14:01 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.69 [Firefox 1.5/2005111116]" 14:01 <Jeff_S> Just for the record, bug # 177966 was created for the legacy-yumconf package 14:01 <ender> current FC3 bugs need to be examined for security issues. If security, moved to Legacy. If not, needinfo if problem still exists in fc4/5, if nothing in a short time, close. 14:02 <ender> Jeff_S: awesome. Thanks. 14:02 <ender> those are just my thoughts on how to handle the bugs, but it is similar to what we've done in the past. 14:02 <ender> Any other thoughts RE bugzilla? 14:03 <mether> ender, do we have good docs on how to handle bugzilla? 14:03 <ender> ACTION: request community to clean up existing fc3 bugs and move/mark/close as necessary 14:03 <mether> ender, within legacy 14:03 <mether> ender, because if we are requesting community to do anything, its better to provide as specific information as we can 14:03 <ender> mether: hrm, I'm not sure if we do. Worth looking into. The difference for within Legacy and without is not really different, so re-using existing bugzilla docs seems logical. 14:04 <davej_> I'm going to mass-migrate the fc3 kernel bugs to fc4 with the comment at http://people.redhat.com/davej/eol.txt Anyone spot anything obviously wrong with that ? 14:04 <ender> ACTION: investigate docs for working w/ bugzilla within Legacy 14:04 <mether> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugsAndFeatureRequests 14:04 <mether> this is a doc written by me 14:04 <mether> have it include more specific information on legacy 14:05 <mether> i havent had much time to update it lately but I add it if someone sends me the raw content 14:05 <Jeff_S> davej_: looks good to me 14:05 <ender> davej_: looks good to me. 14:05 <mether> email sundaram AT redhat.com if you want to help with that 14:05 <ender> mether: thanks 14:06 <Questor> Just want to make clear: We are only going to be responsible for security / critical fix bugs left in Bugzilla attached to FC3? 14:06 <ender> Questor: yes. 14:06 <ender> Questor: absolutely. 14:06 <Questor> Does that mean we close all non-security-related FC3 bugs? 14:06 <mether> Questor, stock response and close all bugs and request them to reopen if its security related? 14:07 <Jeff_S> Don't we want to move them to FC4/devel if it is still relevant? 14:07 <Questor> Yes... I can see that davej_'s text slightly reworded would be wonderful for such a message on those bugs? 14:07 <mether> Questor, you can probably get the current security details for FC3 from the RH security team 14:07 <mether> Questor, mjcox 14:07 <Questor> okay... 14:08 <mether> depending on bugzilla might leave out some security issues that havent been reported 14:08 <ender> I'm pretty sure what we did last time was needinfo all the non-security bugs, saying retest w/ latest FC. If no response, then they were closed. 14:09 <mether> ender, i think it was actually closed and requested to be reopened 14:09 <ender> mether: could have been. I'm a bit fuzzy on it. 14:09 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: "Chatzilla 0.9.69.3 [Firefox 1.0.7/20050915]" 14:09 <mether> the university guy did that 14:09 <mether> dont remember his name now 14:09 <ender> Matt? 14:10 <mether> ya thats it 14:10 <Questor> Mattew Miller? 14:10 <mether> yes 14:10 <Jeff_S> LOL, aren't there a lot of university guys using linux? :) 14:10 <mether> davej does stock closes all the time 14:10 <Questor> er, Matthew 14:10 <mether> Jeff_S, he is infamous... 14:11 <Jeff_S> I see 14:11 <mether> Jeff_S, see everyone guessed the reference right 14:11 <ender> Matthew Miller is still eager to join the Legacy project in a more official way, but his schedule nad our infrastructure hasn't always seen eye to eye. 14:11 <Jeff_S> mether: yep 14:11 <ender> he also was our main contact for the first FUDCon, so we all kind of know the name (; 14:12 <Jeff_S> I know the name, just didn't click with "university guy" 14:12 <ender> ah heh 14:12 <ender> so... 14:13 <Questor> Getting back to Bugzilla... do we need some automated stuff to be done then? 14:13 <ender> we've got the action to get the community to trawl bugzilla, do we need another action item that should be done first which is come up w/ a migration policy? 14:13 <ender> Questor: automation could maybe take care of one part of it, but human eyes need to see if it is security or not. 14:14 <Jeff_S> ender: ok - I think what happened last time seems like a good policy 14:14 <ender> ACTION: Bless a bug migration policy, possibly automate what can be automated. Must bedone before community is let loose on it. 14:14 <ender> anything further on bugzilla? 14:14 <Questor> Do we need some kind of organization to the Bugzilla-trawling, so people don't do the same work twice? Maybe some kind of "Depends on Bug # nnnnnn" to be done on bugs that people have found aren't Legacy material? 14:15 <ender> Questor: I can't think of anything useful in that regard. 14:15 <ender> Questor: we'll get dkl (RH's bugzilla guy) in here to discuss the migration so that he can lend his thoughts. 14:15 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: "thanks all for your work" 14:15 <Questor> Well, most folks don't have privileges to close bugs, so we may need to think over how we trawl. 14:16 <ender> Questor: right. 14:16 <mether> ender, why dont we get the security information from the RH security team and just close all the bug reports? 14:16 <ender> mether: that could make sense. 14:16 <mether> ender, we dont really know that all security issues are being reported in bugzilla anyway 14:16 <ender> mether: if the security team still has the data on what affects fc3. 14:17 <mether> ender, I think they have all those really handy 14:17 <ender> mether: right, but we're discussing what to do with the current bugs. 14:17 <mether> ender, I usually get responses within a day on queries 14:17 <ender> k 14:17 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 14:17 <mether> ender, close them all... 14:17 <Questor> Also - will there be issues if any FC3 security bugs are (hidden due to newness of security issue)? 14:17 <ender> let ${diety} sort them out? 14:17 <ender> Questor: the security team can help us(me) with that. 14:18 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will contact RH security team for a report on open security issues that could affect FC3. 14:18 <Questor> I'll contact the security team if you want. 14:18 <n2048> trying to install a .rpm file of kernel-smp-2.6.10-1.771_FC2.i686 so I can install kernel-module-nvidia-2.6.10-1.771... the rpm output says the kernel rpm is installedd already, how do i implement and boot this kernel so i can install the nvidia rpm 14:18 <ender> Questor: I've already been in contact w/ them, I can continue. 14:18 <n2048> uname -a reports 2.6.5-1.358smp 14:18 <Questor> 'k 14:19 <ender> n2048: edit your /etc/grub.conf file. 14:19 <ender> ok, ready to talk bout x86_64? 14:19 <Questor> No more Bugzilla questions here.. 14:19 <Jeff_S> ender: ok 14:20 <ender> ** x86_64 14:20 <ender> Ok, so here is the scoop. 14:20 <ender> until we replace our current build system, x86_64 packages cannot be produced. 14:20 <n2048> ender: how do i update when it is modified, eg lilo u just type lilo (but its grub this time) 14:20 <ender> That said, our srpms can be rebuilt. 14:20 <ender> n2048: grub re-reads the conf each boot, you don't need to run anything. 14:21 <Jeff_S> n2048: that's it, just edit and reboot 14:21 <mether> n2048, just modify and save it. no need to run any commands after that 14:21 <n2048> ok ty, :) 14:21 <n2048> be bak soon huray 14:21 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: "Leaving" 14:21 <mether> someone remind me to add this information to the FAQ 14:21 <ender> So I'm working hard to get our new build system ready to go, but it wont be for a bit. 14:22 <Questor> ACTION: mether to add the x86_64 info to the FAQ :-) 14:22 <ender> so officially Legacy is not producing x86_64. We'll happily look at user problems when rebuilding srpms for x86_64 though, and once our build system supports it, we'll rebuild all issued updates officialy for x86_64 14:23 <Jeff_S> ender: would it help if I give access to a couple people to my buildsystem, or would you rather just wait? 14:23 <Jeff_S> build -> copy -> sign kinda thing... 14:23 <ender> Jeff_S: hrm, thats an interesting idea. 14:23 <Questor> The hardware we have (on jane) is capable of running x86_64, but it isn't doing so currently, right? 14:23 <ender> Questor: that is correct. 14:23 <ender> Questor: I _really_ want to get that resolved before April. 14:24 <ender> Jeff_S: thats a discussion we could have w/ our build team. 14:24 <Jeff_S> mine's more of a test setup, although it should be up all the time (and that should be good enough for what legacy needs...) 14:24 <Questor> Would we want to also then start supporting x86_64 for FC2 (FC1??) as well? 14:24 <Jeff_S> Questor: those didn't get released for x86_64, did they? 14:24 <ender> lets say officially no x86_64 for now, and use the game plan publically, but we could definately look at using your build system in the mean time for doing x86_64 builds. 14:25 <Jeff_S> ender: ok, well I'm glad to allow a few people there temporarily, just let me know 14:25 <ender> I don't think fc2 was released for x86_64 14:25 <Questor> Jeff_S, FC2 was. 14:25 <Questor> FC1 wasn't initially. 14:25 <ender> wait, I'm wrong. 14:26 <Jeff_S> oh 14:26 <ender> Questor: so yes, we could then rebuild all of FC2 packages for x86_64 too. 14:26 <Jeff_S> lol, that's a lot of rebuilding to do! 14:26 <Questor> Well, rebuild all the *legacy-produced* packages for FC2. 14:26 <ender> Jeff_S: I also have an x86_64 system, single opteron w/out a lot of memory 14:27 <ender> once we go to plague, we can have multiple building boxen, but I doubt we'll need anything more than 1 14:27 <Jeff_S> ender: I like having two, that way one does i386 while the other builds x86_64 at the same time :) 14:28 <ender> Jeff_S: well, jane is a dual proc box, and most builds aren't threaded, so that can easily happen anyway (; 14:28 <Jeff_S> great 14:28 <ender> Jeff_S: jane sits idle a very large amount of time. i'm not convinced yet that we need more systems, other than storage. 14:28 <Jeff_S> I agree, we're not putting out that many packages 14:28 <ender> hooking a large storage device to jane would be welcome, for /data/mirror/ 14:29 <Questor> It can easily handle building both i386 and x86_64 14:29 <ender> I may eventually probe the Fedora Foundation and our users for some $$ to put together a storage box w/ iscsi to hook into jane. 14:29 <Jeff_S> ender: although it would be nice in case of HW problems 14:29 <ender> Jeff_S: yes, redundancy is key. 14:30 <ender> ok, so with what I've talked about, mether do you think you can come up w/ the FAQ text for x86_64 ? 14:30 <Jeff_S> but back to the policy - I think what you said is fine: we don't support x86_64 (yet), we can work out details later 14:30 ::: Questor is now known as Questor-brb 14:30 <ender> mether: ? 14:32 ::: Questor-brb is now known as Questor 14:32 <mether> ender, yes I can 14:33 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 14:33 <mether> ender, sorry. I am attending other meetings too. 14:33 <Jeff_S> yuck 14:33 <ender> mether: ok, great. 14:33 <ender> moving on to our last item: 14:33 <ender> ** Fedora Extras 14:34 <ender> so here is my blurb on this. 14:34 <ender> oh: 14:34 <n2048> the kernel booted successfully, i installeed the nvidia rpm and loadedd the xorg without errors, i do not have glx working, but i checkedd that glx and dri was in the xorg.conf, do i needd to install a lib or mesa or something? 14:34 <ender> ACTION: mether will review this discussion and produce Fedora Extras FAQ entry 14:34 <ender> n2048: I'm afraid you will have to wait a moment, I'm trying to finish up a meeting. 14:34 <Jeff_S> n2048: are you sure you're using 'nvidia' and not 'nv' as the driver in your xorg.conf? 14:34 <ender> So, Fedora Legacy exists to continue security/severe bugfixes for Core components. 14:35 <ender> We exist because as it stands no outside folks can touch core components. 14:35 <ender> Fedora Extras is entirely community driving, all work being done outside of Red Hat. 14:35 <n2048> Jeff_S, ack, i dont think im using either. i think the xorg overWrote my .backup with another .backup (which i backed up to .backup.nvidia 14:35 <n2048> it says 'vesa' 14:36 <ender> Maintainers of Fedora Extras packages can continue to roll out packages for older Fedora Core releases. 14:36 <Jeff_S> n2048: ok, that's probably the problem then 14:36 <n2048> Jeff_S, think i found one with nvidia in the driver section, ,brb =) 14:36 <ender> from a man power and from a organization stand point, I don't believe it makes sense for Fedora Legacy to touch Fedora Extras packages. 14:36 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: Client Quit 14:37 <ender> does what I say make sense? 14:37 <Jeff_S> ender: I agree, but I just see a large potential for security issues if extras contributors start forgetting about older distros 14:37 <Questor> I agree, ender. 14:37 <mether> Jeff_S, some of them will deliberately choose to ignore older distros if they are not interested. Extras project leaves the decision to the maintainers 14:38 <Questor> Question: Each FedoraExtras package has a given person tagged as the maintainer for that package, no? 14:38 <Jeff_S> mether: exactly 14:38 <Jeff_S> Questor: yes 14:39 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined: #fedora-legacy 14:39 <ender> yes, Extras continuance is souly within the hands of the maintainer. 14:39 <Jeff_S> Sorry, but I'm going to have to go in a couple minutes... 14:39 <ender> I'm not all that clear on how the CVS system works for Extras, but I think it should be easy for a maintainer to have somebody else roll stuff for the older Fedora releases, w/out stomping on the current stuff. 14:39 <ender> Jeff_S: we're almost done. thanks so much for coming. 14:39 <Jeff_S> yw 14:40 <Questor> What we might think about doing is -- if there is an extras package that our Legacy community thinks really needs to be updated for a given vulnerability, we can look into it then. 14:40 <Jeff_S> ender: I think the access is controlled by package and not by distro 14:40 <ender> Jeff_S: k. 14:40 <mether> ender, what I think is a better position is this "Fedora Legacy does not formally support Fedora Extras packages. Extras project leaves package maintainership for older packages at the maintainer's discretion. If there are community members with the legacy project willing to handle security issues in Extras packages in circumstances where the previous maintainers are not interested in maintaining older releases, then the legacy project will try and pr 14:40 <mether> ovide support for these contributors to enable them to maintain packages as part of the legacy project" 14:40 <ender> Questor: sure, the maintainer could be contacted and urged to release. 14:41 <Jeff_S> ok, got to go... 14:41 <ender> mether: um, not quite. 14:41 <Jeff_S> mether: that sounds pretty good to me 14:41 <n2048> Jeff_S, found an xorg.conf with 'nvidia' in the driver section, i see load glx but not load dri, GLX isn't loading 14:41 <ender> mether: the package should remain within the Extras system, built by the extras infrastructure. 14:41 ::: Jeff_S is now known as Jeff_S_Gone 14:41 * n2048 panics 14:41 <mether> ender, ok change the last reference to extras project then 14:41 <ender> mether: sounds good to me. 14:42 <Questor> It's possible, though, that a given maintainer not any longer have access to an older distro in order to build? Where are extras built anyway? 14:42 <ender> Any other thoughts RE Extras? 14:43 <ender> Questor: Extras are built within the Extras Build System, which uses mock/plague. I don't believe there are any plans to shut off the FC3 target. 14:43 <Questor> Excellent. 14:43 <ender> Ok, that was my last topic. Whew! long meeting. 14:43 <ender> anything else? Lets review the action items: 14:43 <Questor> There are no Extras for FC2? 14:44 <ender> Questor: seems extras started w/ 3 14:44 <MrBawb> Questor: extras are new for fc3 14:44 <ender> thats what mirrors have. 14:44 <ender> ACTION: mether will make changes to wiki 14:44 ::: [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit: Remote closed the connection 14:44 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will communicate w/ Eric R to setup meeting for web content changes, or find alternative web author 14:44 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will find out if fc3 only uses the new repodata/ format 14:44 <BobJensen> the miragtion from fedora.us happened with FC3 14:45 <ender> ACTION: Jeff_S will find / create bugzilla entry to get legacy-yumconf package published. 14:45 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will finish fc3 content sync to master mirror 14:45 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will make necessary changes to mach config so that fc3 packages can be built. 14:45 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will get fc3 component added to bugzilla 14:45 <ender> ACTION: request community to clean up existing fc3 bugs and move/mark/close as necessary 14:45 <ender> ACTION: investigate docs for working w/ bugzilla within Legacy 14:45 <ender> ACTION: Bless a bug migration policy, possibly automate what can be automated. Must bedone before community is let loose on it. 14:45 <ender> ACTION: jkeating will contact RH security team for a report on open security issues that could affect FC3. 14:45 <ender> ACTION: mether to add the x86_64 info to the FAQ :-) 14:46 <ender> ACTION: mether will review this discussion and produce Fedora Extras FAQ entry 14:46 <ender> ok, thats what I have done. 14:46 <mether> please cc on the legacy list post if I am involved 14:46 <mether> I am not subscribed there yet though I am doing it shortly 14:46 <mether> and I would like to add one more item 14:47 <mether> though its not related to FC3 as such 14:47 <mether> Questor, go ahead then 14:47 <mether> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports 14:47 <mether> the details of this report is available from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/News 14:48 <mether> my plans are available from https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2006-January/msg00091.html 14:48 <ender> mether: ah yes. We need a writer for the Legacy weekly reports. 14:48 <ender> mether: I'll take that on for now. 14:48 <mether> it would nice for someone to do the reports 14:48 <mether> for the legacy project 14:48 <mether> on a weekly basis 14:48 <mether> go through the references above in detail 14:48 <ender> mether: Since I"ll be doing the core, I can do the Legacy too. 14:48 <mether> and mail off list if you require any additional help 14:48 <mether> in getting started 14:49 <mether> every week the report should be done by friday 14:49 <mether> you can start early 14:49 <mether> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/WeeklyReports/2005-Jan-23 14:49 <mether> and do additions on a daily basis 14:49 <mether> or at the end of the week 14:49 <ender> So I'd like to meet again very soon to cover these action items to see how we're progressing. 14:50 <mether> i need this completed by every friday for the translators to do their job 14:50 <mether> string freeze on friday and published on subsequent monday 14:50 <mether> ender, you probably should spread the work around to others too 14:50 <ender> any objections to meeting again here day after tomorrow? Same time? 14:50 <BobJensen> ender: once you have contacted Eric, let me know so if help is needed from me I can jump in 14:51 <ender> BobJensen: ok, will do. 14:51 <ender> mether: yes, I've tried to not take on things which others can do, aside from the weekly report (; 14:51 <Questor> No objections here, ender. 14:52 <ender> Ok, so meeting Wed Jan 18, 2006 at GMT 2100, US PST 1300, US EST 1600 ? 14:52 <mether> ender, meetings mins are posted to the list? 14:52 <BobJensen> I will be here if I can 14:52 <ender> ok. I'm going to post the meeting minutes, as well as a rehash of the action items to fedora-legacy-list. 14:53 <ender> Adjourn in 3... 14:54 <ender> 2.. 14:54 <ender> 1.. 14:55 <ender> ** ADJOURN ** 14:55 <ender> Thanks everybody.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
