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