Hi, Here's a short summary of yesterday's meeting; unfortunately, clb couldn't join us, so I've attached the log. Here's a list of things we discussed (see http://crux.nu/Wiki/MeetingAgenda for more details): 1. ld.so.conf.d (Flyspray #253) - starting with CRUX 2.5, we'll have an "include /etc/ld.so.conf.d/*.conf" line in ld.so.conf, to allow ports to add files there, this should save some issues/post-install scripts. The bug report has the full details, including a patch Action points: merge patch, update handbook 2. Format of .arch files - we agreed that users should look at dot files, these are for tools; so my idea to add the "# Arch maintainer" to .arch files doesn't make sense Action points: merge Lucas' pkgmk changes 2.1 "Arch maintainer vs. maintainer confusion" - treach mentions that it will be potentially confusing to users to have both a "maintainer: " and "arch maintainer: " line in Pkgfiles; we should discuss this further, I think it's an valid concern Action point: further discussion needed 3. Bug tracking - avoid having bugs in "New" state; we want to use that one to determine which bugs are really new; there's an "Unconfirmed" state to express you've seen a but, but you're not yet working on it. Once we discuss it on the ML or IRC, we should go ahead an mark it "Unconfirmed" or "Assigned"; even more so if we comment on a bug - assign as many bugs as possible to the right persons Action point: These are two things everyone can help with 4. "real" IRC meetings - we want to start with regular IRC meetings, which are more formal that the casual ones; the main difference is that crucial decision should be scheduled for these meetings - I suggest we call it "project meeting", as opposed to "casual meeting"; other suggestions are highly welcome! - I'd suggest we do them monthly, to allow everyone to plan in advance; maybe the first tuesday per month? - This is just a personal distinction, but I'd for example postpone a BBQ with friends for one of the "real" meetings but not the casual ones Action point: define date and frequency 5. the name "causual developer's IRC meeting" will be kept 6. "notify" hook for contrib - we've suggested to add a post-commit (actually 'update') hook to the contrib repo to send out "notify" mails; Jose has brought this up on the contrib mailing list Action point: unless there are objections from the contrib crew we'll add such a hook 7. mailing list for reports - the mailing list for prtverify and source check will be called crux-reports unless there's any complaints :-) Action point: I'll create that list later this week unless someone can come up with a better name :-) Finally, we consider moving the starting time to 20:00 CEST, for three reasons: - 18:00 is pretty early - 18:00-23:00 is just too long to keep it efficient - the attendees of the two meetings we had so far could typically attend after 20:00 Please comment :-). Cheers, Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 10:11:47 +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote: [..]
2. Format of .arch files - we agreed that users should look at dot files [...] of course, they should "not have to look at dot files" :-)
Thanks to treach for pointing that out. Johannes -- Johannes Winkelmann mailto:jw@smts.ch Zurich, Switzerland http://jw.smts.ch
Sorry I couldn't make it. I had a timezone fail, showing up a day early, then got sick that night. On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 10:11:47 +0200 Johannes Winkelmann <jw@smts.ch> wrote:
Hi,
Here's a short summary of yesterday's meeting; unfortunately, clb couldn't join us, so I've attached the log. Here's a list of things we discussed (see http://crux.nu/Wiki/MeetingAgenda for more details):
2. Format of .arch files - we agreed that users should look at dot files, these are for tools; so my idea to add the "# Arch maintainer" to .arch files doesn't make sense Action points: merge Lucas' pkgmk changes
There was a question raised , by Johannes I believe, about whether this file should be sourced or not. In my implementation only the architecture is read, then the architecture environment is defined in pkgmk.conf. If the ".arch" file was sourced it would allow environment changes outside of pkgmk.conf. This could have certain advantages in overriding environment variables that break for certain ports without having to modify the Pkgfile. This of course is open to abuse by hiding details from the build script. It comes down to how important is it for the user to be aware that certain ports require changes to MAKEFLAGS, CFLAGS, etc?
2.1 "Arch maintainer vs. maintainer confusion" - treach mentions that it will be potentially confusing to users to have both a "maintainer: " and "arch maintainer: " line in Pkgfiles; we should discuss this further, I think it's an valid concern Action point: further discussion needed
Perhaps rather than having an Arch Maintainer, the port only has Maintainer. Then change the format of the ".arch" file to allow meta data and define the "Master Maintainer" in there. This would fit well with the idea that dot files are of no interest to end users. All they need to know is who to complain to if a port needs improvement, not who the lead maintainer is.
Finally, we consider moving the starting time to 20:00 CEST, for three reasons: - 18:00 is pretty early - 18:00-23:00 is just too long to keep it efficient - the attendees of the two meetings we had so far could typically attend after 20:00
It's still a stretch for me, 20:00 CEST == 04:00 EST. I'll generally try to make it by about 22:00 CEST, but I can't promise anything.
Please comment :-). Cheers, Johannes
-- Lucas Hazel <lucas@die.net.au>
participants (2)
-
Johannes Winkelmann
-
Lucas Hazel