Stew Benedict (LF), Mats Wichmann (Intel), Kay Tate (Novell), Jeff Licquia (LF), Russ Herrold (Owl River)
Jeff: 4.1 schedule. Last week there was some desire to meet our published schedule. I sent an email to Ibrahim, and he basically said if the workgroup wants it and we can deliver, go for it and issue an update later if needed.
Jeff: Some of the advocates for meeting the schedule (Robert and Alan) aren't here today.
Mats: I also objected last week, and I'm less against it now, due to some open 4.1 issues.
Jeff: The devchk issues or other things?
Mats: No manpage for ptrace and some possible issues that we may have gone too far with adding macros for ptrace.
Jeff: I did look at ptrace and there seems to be some correlation to the devchk complaints and the fact that we're still using SLES10 for some builders.
Mats: For those not following in IRC, we have some build chroots that are OK to build, but too old to actually run compliant apps or successfully run devchk. 3 are new enough, 4 are not
Jeff: If the issue is just that the build slaves are too old, that's a relatively simple fix. I'm not entirely convinced that's the only issue with the ptrace symbols though.
Mats: I was seeing possible architecture-specific differences also.
Jeff: I believe the RC process has always allowed for us feeling comfortable before releasing, so I think postponing for another week is in order.
Jeff: I think it's a good idea to move all the build slaves to SLES11, so we can successfully run devchk in native mode, plus the ptrace manpage.
Jeff: If we can work all this out, perhaps we can do a release candidate on the 7th
Kay: I'll get the other guys on the phone next week, or get enough info to represent them next week
Jeff: I think Robert would even be in agreement, with a real, valid issue at hand and not just delaying for more testing.
Jeff: Are they other 4.1 specific issues to be addressed?
Mats: We have the bugs feeding into the rollup
Jeff: I think we're scheduled to do triage at 1:00PM tomorrow.
Jeff: I'm going to try and see if LSB 4.1 makes it easier to build openjdk as a compliant app
Jeff: Anything more?
Mats: Are we planning to have and LSB track at the April collab summit?
Jeff: It would be a good idea. Things kind of fell apart for the November Plumber's conf
Mats: We are still a LF workgroup and I think they're all expected to meet then. I'd like to know sooner or later for planning purposes.
Jeff: I'll bring it up with Ibrahim. Do we want to have a track outside the summit, as well as a track as part of the summit?
Mats: I'd like one outside of the main 3 days, so as not to overlap with possible conflicts with Meego activities
Jeff: Early to talk about themes, but we have had some internal talk about post-4.1 acitivities
Jeff: In short, yes we are going to do something, and we need to figure out what pretty quickly.
End of Call