Jeff Licquia (LF), Robert Schweikert (Novell), Stew Benedict (LF), Mats Wichmann (Intel), Kay Tate (Novell), Alan Clark (Novell)
Jeff: RC is not yet out, but mostly built. 2 issues - bug in the sdk, lib->lib-5.0 rather than lib->lib-4.1 in the RC build. Worked around this, but required full rebuilds. Discovered during the appbat build
Jeff: The other interesting issue is the s390 problems. We lost our primary build machine from IBM. We consume a lot of resources on that machine, and there's a question as to whether they're still willing to provide this service for free.
Jeff: There's a possibility that if we get it back, we may have to reprovision if we've lost our chroots etc. We may have to look at other options if we don't get it back.
Kay: There's another option, IBM has an emulator, that runs on x86, and it may be cheaper for them to offer that to use rather than an s390 VM instance
. Jeff: What's the speed like? I know Hercules is rather slow
Kay: That's something we need to ask
Jeff: What's the name again
Kay: The Z personal development tool
Jeff: That might be an interesting option
Kay: I have some contacts with some people we can talk to about it
Jeff: So for the short term, we gone back to our old ihost.com instance. It's still SLES10, which isn't ideal, but it's something
Jeff: Don't seem to be able to run 2 buildbots, doing active builds (s390, s390x) at the same time
Jeff: Could run s390 in Hercules, but it will definitely slow down builds
Jeff: In the meantime, we don't have complete s390/s390x builds for the RC just yet
Jeff: We'll have to make a note in the release notes that s390/x builds aren't quite done yet
Jeff: Any other comments re: s390/s390x?
Jeff: Moving on, RC is built on 5 of 7 archs. Doing a download to sign them. Upload back should go fast thanks to rsync. I'll put a note out on irc to have people to check that I haven't made any mistakes. Then the RC notes will go out
Jeff: Any questions on the RC?
Jeff: One minor observation. We decided to change the versions for app-checker and dist-checker to 4.1.x.x. Code changes are very small, but we bumped the versions to align with 4.1
Jeff: xdg-utils is still 4.0.0, because for 4.1 we either need to promote it or drop it.
Stew: Doesn't delaying decision this mean we need to rebuild things and not be able to release RC1 as final?
Jeff: Good point, we may need to rebuild cmdchk. Perhaps we should decide now. Comments?
Mats: Everyone seems to be using this stuff
Jeff: Do we want to vote?
Robert: I'm OK with putting it in,br> Jeff: Anyone on the call opposed to putting it in?
Mats: Does the xdg/desktop spec call out how one autostarts an app in the GUI?
Jeff: Looking at the spec, I don't think we call this out
Mats: I think you're right, looking at the couple of installer commands
Jeff: So we just need to see if it impacts cmdchck
Mats: Happens a level up, in dist-checker
Stew: In problem_db2, waived, changing the record now for only LSB < 4.1
Mats: Commands don't have a database field, mandatory since, like other things
Mats: Do need to make a change in the database, possibly need to do a RC2
Jeff: I'd say go ahead and make the spec change. Which I think means Trial Use will be empty
Mats: If it is, I'll leave it out
Jeff: raised the question in IRC - where does xdg-utils belong?
Mats: right, but desktop encompasses submodules, and xdg-utils, as commands, has to go into one of those
Jeff: Face-to-Face, I'm sure you've all seen the announcements about conferences. The Collab Summit is April 6-8 in San Francisco again. (Wed-Fri). Do we want to do a private session before then like we've done before? Do people have travel issues?
Robert: In the budget for me
Kay: Unless I change jobs, no
Mats: Unknown at this time for me
Jeff: Do we want to have a pre-conf again?
Mats: Is major work on a new release really in the cards?
Jeff: There's 4.2 work being talked about, as well as LSB related work not tied to a release. These are things we could talk about in the Summit
Robert: I think Mats was talking about something else. Do we have the commitment to keep going with LSB? We're down to 4.5 people participating. Should we just go into maintenance mode? If the answer is no, then we need to figure out how to do it better, as 4.1 is again late by 2 months or more. If we want to do it right, we need better commitment/staffing with the people being paid to work on LSB
Mats: In my case, I'll have to defend attending the Summit/F2F, and if I do so, I need something to come out of it
Jeff: On the plus side, we seem to be having some uptick in interest in the LSB. Several certs, inquiries from large companies, some interest from the board
Kate: Alan. anything on the board?
Alan: I talked to Jim, but haven't heard back. We need the board's interest and support to move forward. Pushing on that in time for the collab summit may be a good deadline
Jeff: So do we think it's worth doing an extended session or just the Summit?
Robert: I'm good with either one. Don't think we should have a track, given the participation in the past. We can give a presentation on the current status
Jeff: Sounds to me like the Mon-Tues thing isn't going to be necessary, just the Wed-Fri Summit days.
Mats: If I do end up there, I'll have other things I'm supposed to be doing (Meego) which may conflict if LSB is going on during the conference
Jeff: Perhaps we can schedule around the Meego activities
End Of Call