Attendees: Mats Wichman (Intel), Robert Schweikert (Novell), Jeff Licquia (LF), Stew Benedict (LF), Jiri Dluhos (Novell)
Jeff: Would like to flesh out some of the ideas from last week and the F2F into concrete proposal/plans
Jeff: I've done a little work on this already, with a link from the Project Plan page to a Modularization page
Jeff: What are the next steps?
Robert: Based on the ISV feedback on the list, it sounds like what we're doing now is the correct thing for their needs (my interpretation)
Robert: Based on that, maybe we don't need a radical course correction. Just focus on improving what we have and getting the message out
Jeff: If I remember the list messages, there were suggestions to target high profile apps. We tried this in the past and it didn't work out too well. Why not?
Jeff: There was a mention to target a framework instead of end applications, also
Robert: If we can't pick an industry we all like, go back to the Firefox discussion we had at the F2F and add everything needed to build firefox as a high profile app to get the word out
Jeff: Speaking of targeting a specific industry, I couldn't find the IDC paper Darren mentioned.
Robert: Perhaps try emailing the guy that did the presentation to see if we can get access
Jeff: Perhaps, or find a similar report, or I can check with LF staff
Jeff: So it sounds like, based on the mailing list feedback, a radical change may not be as important as letting folks know what we're doing
Jeff: We have things in the pipeline to realize that (LJ article, LWN)
Jeff: I might not hurt though to do some of the other things, targeting the community distros, profiles
Robert: Exposing profiles to the outside world is a good thing. Allows admins/ISVs to target only what's needed
Jeff: So how do we move forward? How do we address modularization, what are the details? Robert can you spend some time on the wiki page?
Robert: I can do that
Jeff: Ditto for the other proposal, have someone who's in favor of it to flesh out the details on the page. Maybe have Vladimir flesh it out. Mats, do you have insights?
Mats: I have thoughts, I'll add some things to the wiki
Mats: We have a new tool, for collaborative edits
Jeff: Right, the gobbi(?) stuff. I'll add some notes the wiki so people can find it
Jeff: Anything else on modularization proposal or the 5.0 schedule?
Jeff: Next topic, FHS. People are interested in it. People are happy with the notion of LSB taking it over
Jeff: Grabbed the FHS sources and put it in bzr, was able to build the 2.3 spec. The sources are in docbook, in sgml, might want to consider updating to xml
Jeff: So next steps? What to do? Put out a call for feedback? Say we're going to do FHS 3.0, we need your feedback
Robert: Maybe move the bugtracker to something less generic?
Jeff: Probably need a mailing list and a web page
Jeff: then get pathname.org to point over to our page
Jeff: Then we also talked about the the F2F, whether it makes sense to keep FHS working for non-linux systems. Will have to try and reach out to other vendors and see the interest
Jeff: last topic - 4.0 refresh
Jeff: To my knowledge, the only thing not up to snuff in the 4.0 tree is appbat. Is that correct?
Stew: Not sure without walking through the bug list. The printing-test thing I just stumbled upon
Jeff: Looks like everything has been built since March15. Except perhaps libchk and cmdchk, which looks like there's only x86_64
Jeff: I'll trigger misc-test builds manually to get those, and manually build appbat for all archs outside of buildbot. Sound like a plan?
Mats: Sounds like a plan. The question came up in IRC, of how do we handle changing interpreter versions (people dropping support for python 2.4)?
Jeff: For the specific case of bzr, I don't think we have a problem
Mats: That's not the question. By referencing older python reference documents, we disallow language features that people take for granted. I'm not sure how we handle that situation in LSB
Jeff: We more or less have the same situation for other standards we reference
Robert: If we're going to refresh python for 5.0, then we just reference the new documents
Jeff: I think what we do is add tests to our test suites that test the new features
End Of Call