14:00:30 <licquia> #startmeeting LSB Bug Triage 2014 Mar 21 14:00:30 <lsbbot> Meeting started Fri Mar 21 14:00:30 2014 UTC. The chair is licquia. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:30 <lsbbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:00:37 <licquia> good morning 14:02:33 <licquia> #info lsb: 8 new, 1 pleasetest 14:02:53 <licquia> #info fhs: 27 new 14:03:55 * licquia has been busy with pre-collab stuff 14:04:16 * mwichmann is pottering through 4.1 spec builds, so as not to lose track of things that might be needed for errata 14:04:31 <licquia> fun 14:04:36 <mwichmann> no 14:04:57 * mwichmann resolutely fails to spot sarcasm 14:05:20 * licquia envisions mwichmann rubbing his hands gleefully at the opportunity to read specifications 14:05:43 <mwichmann> indeed, since there seem to be bugs requiring that 14:05:49 <mwichmann> at least these aren't in ms-word.... 14:05:58 <licquia> that is true 14:06:13 <licquia> alrighty! 14:06:22 <licquia> !lsbbug 3722 14:06:24 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3722 normal, P2, 4.1-updates, licquia, PLEASETEST , app checker doesn't like some RPMs 14:07:16 * licquia cheers; a push from denis 14:07:25 <mwichmann> odd I didn't see mail on it 14:07:38 <mwichmann> sad it ended up missing your beta release 14:07:48 <licquia> didn't either, but less mysterious, given i'm behind on email 14:08:42 <licquia> might not have made beta anyway, given that neither app-checker and dist-checker were rebuilt for the beta 14:09:01 <mwichmann> wonder if something is up with lsb-infrastructure, I don't seem to have seen mail through that list for a while 14:09:52 * licquia has two bugs in his inbox from there, including bug mail for this bug 14:10:18 <mwichmann> ok... maybe I've just deleted too vigorously 14:10:26 <licquia> so, anyway, looks like we just need to test the patch 14:10:28 <mwichmann> any action to take here? 14:11:23 * licquia looks at the bug's blockers 14:12:12 <licquia> it's attached to vip, so won't be overlooked, but we should probably take a look so we're not reminded of it every week 14:12:19 <licquia> volunteers? 14:12:36 <mwichmann> what do you think? 14:12:38 <licquia> heh 14:13:05 <licquia> #action licquia test fix pushed for bug 3722 14:13:52 <licquia> !lsbbug 3945 14:13:54 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3945 normal, P2, ---, licquia, NEW , lsb-build-qt does not build with 5.0 14:14:21 <licquia> this is the cause of our weekly rebuilds of the sdk failing 14:14:37 <licquia> basically, lsb-build-qt builds fine with 4.1, but not with 5.0 14:15:23 <mwichmann> which is odd 14:15:23 <licquia> wasn't noticed until recently because i just added the ability to force lsb versions in builds 14:16:10 <licquia> (plus the released sdk supporting 5.0) 14:16:43 <mwichmann> but snapshot sdk has been pointing to 5.0 for a long time, hasn't it? 14:17:04 <licquia> it has, but remember the sdk is build with the released sdk 14:17:26 <licquia> otherwise, we could have a bootstrapping issue 14:17:26 <mwichmann> oh? 14:18:01 <licquia> yup; one of the early steps in the sdk build is "install the released sdk" 14:18:15 <mwichmann> well... the base part builds itself, so you must mean only the addons (c++, qt) 14:18:41 <licquia> right 14:19:59 <mwichmann> the error must be deceptive, because our SDK has never, afaict, defined MAXNAMELEN 14:20:36 <licquia> i'm suspecting something weird is happening, yes 14:20:44 * licquia votes to make this a 5.0 sdk bug 14:20:53 <mwichmann> as in, it's not in the specdb at all, not even as "existing but not enabled" 14:21:23 <mwichmann> so add some notes to bug, mark it up for 5.0 as you say 14:21:27 <licquia> so, in theory, this should be failing for 4.1 and previous as well 14:21:42 <mwichmann> that's that theory which is not always the same as practice 14:22:27 <licquia> definitely in this case 14:22:47 <licquia> #agreed attach 3945 to 5.0 sdk rollup 14:22:51 <mwichmann> I'd guess some change in response to configure run somehow blocks a path that used to exist 14:23:32 <mwichmann> or perhaps opens a path 14:23:37 <mwichmann> anyway, move on... 14:23:47 <licquia> !lsbbug 3946 14:23:49 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3946 normal, P2, ---, licquia, NEW , Add scandir and alphasort interface with tests 14:24:32 <licquia> this would be a proposed patch 14:24:42 <licquia> any objection to applying it? 14:25:02 <mwichmann> no objection (same for next bug I guess) 14:25:24 * licquia gives it a quick look 14:25:37 <mwichmann> devel only? or will you ever issue fresh 4.1 test binaries? 14:25:41 * licquia smiles, it's even in bzr bundle format 14:26:09 <licquia> i think we should leave that possibility open 14:26:11 <mwichmann> I'm not sure that makes them easier to apply... 14:26:38 <mwichmann> used to work when we had the whatever-it-was-called ... PQM? 14:26:46 <licquia> yup 14:26:58 <licquia> makes it easier for me; no messing with --author or whatever 14:27:06 <mwichmann> oh, ok 14:27:12 <licquia> so, let's apply 14:27:28 <mwichmann> these days I just apply as if it were me, even if denis or someone made the patch 14:27:41 <licquia> #agreed apply patch from 3946 to devel and backport to 4.1 14:27:53 <licquia> #action licquia apply patch from 3946 to devel 14:28:08 <licquia> #action licquia backport 3946 patch to 4.1 14:28:14 <mwichmann> I have some memory that there was cleanup that happened on devel branch that may not be on 4.1 14:28:31 <licquia> could be; we'll see what more needs to happen there 14:28:54 <licquia> going to leave bug state alone for now 14:29:10 <licquia> will mark PLEASETEST once applied 14:29:37 <licquia> !lsbbug 3947 14:29:40 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3947 normal, P2, ---, licquia, NEW , Extend mutex interface in OLVER to support prioceiling and protocol 14:30:01 <mwichmann> there seem to be 8 commits to devel olver since some "backports" last august 14:30:31 <mwichmann> or thereabouts 14:30:32 <licquia> wonder if any of those are worth backporting 14:30:41 <licquia> anyway, same treatment here? 14:30:46 <mwichmann> of course, I'm not really clear how version-dependent olver is 14:30:53 <mwichmann> yes, I'd vote for same 14:31:07 <licquia> not too much 14:31:26 <licquia> #agreed apply patch from 3947 to devel and backport to 4.1 14:31:29 <mwichmann> in /theory/ it would pick up all the new stuff 14:31:32 <licquia> #action licquia apply patch from 3947 to devel 14:31:42 <licquia> #action licquia backport 3947 patch to 4.1 14:32:02 <licquia> i think new stuff needs explicit porting, unlike say libchk 14:32:16 <mwichmann> true 14:32:39 <licquia> but yes, it could be extended that way 14:32:48 <licquia> !lsbbug 3948 14:32:50 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3948 normal, P2, ---, licquia, NEW , Fix spelling of company name 14:33:04 <mwichmann> I found one and changed 14:33:34 <licquia> dropdown has the right spelling now, it looks like 14:33:44 <licquia> so close? 14:33:55 <mwichmann> I'd say so 14:34:08 <licquia> #agreed resolve 3948 14:34:18 <mwichmann> I gave a chance for robjo to follow up and say if there were more instances (I didn't spot) 14:35:00 <licquia> !lsbbug 3949 14:35:02 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3949 normal, P2, ---, mats, NEW , Specification does not outline module composition 14:35:31 <licquia> this goes with robjo's mailing list post? 14:35:35 <mwichmann> right 14:35:47 <licquia> might be worth adding a link to the list archives 14:35:54 * licquia hunts that down 14:36:20 <mwichmann> we could paste some stuff, I'm not overly fond of ml links in bugs 14:36:47 <mwichmann> the points here are: 14:36:55 <licquia> ok, i'll do that too 14:37:09 <mwichmann> the tables mapping libs to modules sort of exist 14:37:27 <mwichmann> that is, each module book has a library list in the introductory chapters 14:37:38 <mwichmann> since books = modules, it's "done", right? :) 14:37:57 <mwichmann> there's no one place where you can find this except in navigator 14:38:04 <mwichmann> and the books pretend to be quite independent 14:38:31 <mwichmann> what will need checking, and is not mentioned in bug so far, is we need to check on the lsb dependencies exposed 14:38:52 <mwichmann> and whether to act on robjo's suggestion to make an introductory book for All of LSB 14:39:55 * licquia tends to think that's a good idea (the intro) 14:40:26 <mwichmann> it is, but requires some rejiggering in quite a few places 14:40:54 <licquia> the text itself, or the spec (to accomodate the new content) 14:41:17 <mwichmann> lsbspec, booksets, refspecs "table of contents" pages, and same pages in puppet where they're used for snapshotspecs and betaspecs 14:41:46 <licquia> ah, yes 14:41:52 <licquia> makes sense 14:42:05 <licquia> so, attach to 5.0 spec rollup? 14:42:11 <mwichmann> sure, that's fine 14:42:15 <licquia> ok 14:42:26 <mwichmann> if we're going to go with a new book, we'll need to pick a title 14:42:48 <licquia> #agreed attach 3949 to 5.0 spec 14:42:56 <licquia> got any suggestions? 14:43:47 <mwichmann> "Linux Standard Base Cascading Style Sheets" ? 14:44:01 <licquia> heh 14:44:07 <mwichmann> yeah, perhaps not 14:44:18 * licquia has an idle thought re: styling of the spec content 14:44:30 <licquia> even rfcs are getting style these days 14:44:37 <mwichmann> indeed 14:44:58 <mwichmann> please don't take on more work now though 14:45:21 <licquia> heh, certainly not 14:45:22 <mwichmann> fwiw, docbook-sgml does not have support for generating a css reference directly, -xml does 14:45:41 <licquia> did we ever complete that migration to xml? 14:45:46 <mwichmann> not close 14:45:52 <licquia> ok 14:45:56 <licquia> so, perhaps someday 14:46:23 <licquia> !lsbbug 3950 14:46:25 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3950 normal, P2, 5.0, mats, NEW , gdk3, gtk3 functions need IntStd entries 14:47:23 <licquia> so this includes the html stuff you were looking at before 14:47:33 <mwichmann> yes 14:47:42 <licquia> as a potential basis for transforming into sql via some scripting magic 14:47:45 <mwichmann> I think that has the basic info we want, just need to munch it 14:48:23 <mwichmann> as in interface name, and relative url 14:48:50 <mwichmann> we need to make sure the base url in the Standard entry points to the url that those are relative to 14:49:30 <licquia> right, so a little munging of those urls will probably be required 14:49:35 <mwichmann> quick check on that 14:50:41 <mwichmann> http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.6, that's actually the right one 14:50:54 * licquia plays with that 14:51:57 <licquia> hmm, looks like there may be some further munging needed 14:52:13 <licquia> that url + one of the urls in the file = 404 14:52:20 <orc_fedo> more generally, when we have mapped to external content, I've noticed that it disappears / moves sometimes ... should there be some process to mirror / cache a point in time image of such? 14:52:25 <orc_fedo> heh 14:52:30 <orc_fedo> jinx 14:52:35 <mwichmann> yeah 14:52:39 <licquia> i would say that should be standard procedure going forward 14:52:41 <mwichmann> a "real" link is: https://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.6/GtkAboutDialog.html#gtk-about-dialog-add-credit-section 14:53:15 <orc_fedo> also, adding a link checker to walk externals periodically and carp, comes to mind 14:53:28 <mwichmann> we have one 14:53:37 <mwichmann> just never gets run 14:53:45 <orc_fedo> there is that 14:54:01 <orc_fedo> so it needs to be a monthly cronned task? 14:54:02 <licquia> so running that periodically should be something to do 14:54:08 <orc_fedo> double jinx 14:54:12 <licquia> heh 14:54:32 * licquia observes that getting a cron job into puppet shouldn't be hard 14:54:42 <orc_fedo> need a bug? 14:54:49 <orc_fedo> actually two: cache, and linkcheck 14:55:11 <licquia> sure 14:55:19 * orc_fedo scurries off 14:55:21 <mwichmann> bzr branch specdb-aux-scripts has url_checker.sh 14:55:29 <mwichmann> (bug food) 14:55:46 <licquia> anyway, 5.0 spec bug? 14:56:24 <mwichmann> and the interesting thing is url_checker actually downloads pages, so it could perhaps be tweaked to be both the checker and the cache-maker 14:56:42 <licquia> that would be interesting 14:56:42 <mwichmann> it's quite simplistic at the moment though 14:57:12 <orc_fedo> I will note in second bug 14:58:21 <mwichmann> yes, the original bug is a 5.0 thing 14:58:33 <orc_fedo> 10:52 licquia> i would say that should be standard procedure going forward 14:59:04 <orc_fedo> urk 14:59:07 <orc_fedo> sri 15:00:47 <mwichmann> we've close to top of hour, can we quickly scan the others? 15:01:02 * licquia recovers from synergy weirdness 15:01:04 <licquia> sure 15:01:36 <licquia> #agreed attach 3950 to lsb 5.0 spec 15:01:49 <licquia> !lsbbug 3951 15:01:51 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3951 normal, P2, ---, mats, NEW , uplift FHS reference to 3.0 15:02:11 <licquia> objections? attach to 5.0 spec? 15:02:33 <mwichmann> if you're sure we're going to release fhs 3.0 15:02:48 <licquia> yup, it was close to being ready back before the hack 15:02:48 <mwichmann> which is largely up to you now 15:03:05 <orc_fedo> sounds like collab summit wiki bait 15:03:24 <licquia> #agreed attach 3951 to lsb 5.0 spec 15:04:14 <licquia> !lsbbug 3952 15:04:16 <lsbbot> licquia: 04Bug http://lsbbugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3952 normal, P2, ---, mats, NEW , type gshort defined in wrong header/library 15:04:59 <licquia> this is errata bait? 15:05:00 <mwichmann> I think this was pretty minor, but do we want errata? 15:05:23 <licquia> perhaps; we can always put it off 15:05:31 * licquia figures it's worth attaching 15:06:31 <licquia> ok, attaching to errata rollup 15:07:34 <licquia> quick question: does the db change need applying? 15:07:42 <mwichmann> it's in already 15:07:47 <licquia> ok, good 15:08:06 <licquia> #agreed attach 3952 to lsb 4.1 errata 15:08:10 <licquia> all done? 15:08:25 <mwichmann> except for orc_fedo's new two 15:08:49 <licquia> should we talk about those, or put off for two weeks from now? 15:08:50 <mwichmann> I have to run now anyway 15:08:56 <licquia> ok, putting off 15:08:58 <orc_fedo> there is that; they will wait 15:09:11 <licquia> #endmeeting