Minutes May 18 2011
Jeff Licquia (LF), Mats Wichmann (Intel), Alan Clark (Suse), Stew Benedict (LF), Russ Herrold (Owl River), Wookie (Debian)
- FHS latest.
- 4.0 refresh.
Jeff: FHS - lots of discussion on the list. I'm behind on writing a note to the list on "here's what happens next".
Jeff: My thoughts on the governance issue. It's important and should be addressed. I'm inclined to make 2 concessions short term, 1) follow benevolent dictator mode short term to make progress, and 2) be extremely conservative for 3.0. I'll let people comment on that
Russ: I've noticed on the mail list that it's been dry for so long, that people are jumping in with both feet. Need a roadmap
Jeff: I think I've probably let the list run wild a little too long, will post
Russ: Created an FHS governance doc on the LF gobby instance
At this point this went to gobby, to discuss what's there on the governance model. Additional notes are there (dev.linuxfoundation.org:6522)
Mats: I still want to see how we get from where we are today to a spec draft that can be circulated for comments.
Mats: 3 classes of bugs: straightforward typos/errors, which I worked on; some things that require more thought (X11R6)
Russ: Referencing X11R6 is a mistake. Implementation
Mats: Illustrates that class of bugs. Then there are the wilder class of suggestions. Have to come up with a plan for closure on the 2nd/3rd class of bugs
Jeff: So we need something similar to the LSB triage, publish a list of the bugs and a recommended course of action for them
Jeff: Also need to file bugs for the discussions that don't have one yet, and on the BSD recommendations
Jeff: Anything else on FHS issues?
Jeff: 4.0 refresh: SDK was broken, holding up things. SDK is released (4.1.1) now.
(diversion when Wookie joined, talking about FHS/multiarch)
Jeff: We need a bug filed for FHS to allow multiarch, but not mandate it
Wookie: Don't believe it violates Debian policy, but haven't looked at FHS in detail
Jeff: Had a bit of a hiccup still building appbat, a change I may need to revert, and an issue with conflicting sdk versions installed on the build slave. I think we have builds for everything now.
check of ftp.linuxfoundation.org/pub/lsb/staging - looks like missing libchk for s390/x, everything else there
Stew: Have already done reference runs on all 7 archs, planned to run these new packages to look for regressions. Will be cumbersome to update this many packages across 7 archs, but do-able.
Jeff: So let me know if there are issues, and that should resolve the 4.0. We can talk later about 4.1 refreshes and 5.0 process
Jeff: I'll open the floor for comments, we have a few minutes left
Wookie: I've noticed there's no ARM version of LSB. Shouldn't there be?
Mats: We've been aware of this issue for some years. Don't have anyone to do the work, and "which ARM?"
Wookie: I think the "which ARM" is improving. Debian, Ubuntu, Red Hat, and Meego have all switched
Wookie: Came up at the Ubuntu conference last week. Perhaps we can find a resource in Lenaro
Jeff: We're in the process of planning 5.0, so perhaps an ARM version could be part of that
Wookie: So perhaps I need to bring up something internally to make this happen
Mats: If we can hookup offline, I have some description of what's needed
Jeff: Perhaps we need to start the discussion on lsb-discuss
End Of Call