20:01:03 #startmeeting 20:01:03 Meeting started Fri Sep 14 20:01:03 2018 UTC. The chair is waldi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:01:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 20:01:29 :) 20:01:51 #topic Present? Who takes minutes? 20:02:02 okay. first question, who's here? 20:02:38 #info lamby is here 20:02:50 i'm obviously here 20:02:55 but i see noone else 20:04:46 #topic Check action items from last meeting 20:05:00 # lamby to send reminder-followup ping to 3425454.QfdHj6pzrc@kitterma-e6430 20:05:30 That's re. NEW processing, right? 20:05:43 i don't now, this mail seems to be from before my time 20:06:00 I believe I sent/actioned that, indeed. 20:06:15 (to ScottK, subtle ping…!) 20:06:27 * ScottK looks up. 20:06:58 * ScottK is here for once (although I may have to run off to retrieve $CHILD from school shortly) 20:07:37 when i attended school we had to get home on our own 20:08:08 so, done? 20:08:31 You probably lived closer to school (she has to stay late for an after-school activity, so the usual bus isn't an option) 20:08:34 #done lfaraone to actually send mail about architecture inclusion 20:08:51 ScottK: 20km or 1.5h by public transport 20:09:10 for the first years, after that only 1h by public transport 20:09:18 #done codesigning cron needs to be more silent 20:09:24 #done ta to send reminder ping to draft email re. node. 20:09:26 No public transport available. 20:09:40 that's a shame 20:09:43 anyway 20:10:04 #topic How much do we care about copyright holders in d/copyright (Scott K) 20:10:34 ScottK: that's an old topic from you. should we skip that? 20:10:41 No. 20:10:51 It's old because I haven't been at a meeting to discuss. 20:11:00 right 20:11:25 TLDR version is developers whine about how painful d/copyright is. Can we make it less so. 20:11:41 Currently policy requires all copyright holders to be listed. 20:12:00 so you would like to restrict it to cases where the license requires it? 20:12:05 If the policy were relaxed to not require it where the license didn't require it, would we be cool with that? 20:12:12 Yes. 20:12:54 For example, Apache 2.0 only requires it in source form. 20:13:25 In the source package, the original files are there, so is it really worth the pain to duplicate that in d/copyright? 20:14:35 Personally, I don't think we (as FTP team) should demand more of d/copyright than is required for license compliance. 20:14:47 i agree 20:15:08 Policy can demand more, but if they do, I'd like to be clear where to aim the people with the torches and pitchforks. 20:16:10 My expectation is that if the FTP team made a clear statement of what it's requirements are, then policy would end up relaxed. 20:16:18 Nodnod 20:16:22 okay 20:17:17 so we would like to relax the requirement for copyright hole´der 20:17:45 We should also address the question of some packages, like src:linux, getting a pass and that's not an excuse for everyone to whine they don't get an exception too. 20:18:09 Good point 20:19:04 Just got the call to go get $CHILD, so I have to go. 20:19:18 It seems like those of use here are agreed. We just need to work out text. 20:20:21 isn't gpl also on the list of licenses not actually requiring list copyright holders on the binary? 20:20:25 #agreed we would like to relax the requirement for copyright holders 20:21:29 #topic Sources for architectures on ports (waldi) 20:21:50 as you've seen there have been some fuss after i started to remove powerpc-only sources 20:22:22 Can you remind us of the major points of objection? 20:22:47 what do you mean with "objection"? 20:23:28 What, exactly, was the "fuss" ? 20:24:31 the people trying to handle powerpc on -ports complained that we are making there work too hard 20:24:56 injecting sources not from the main archive seems to be a problem in the way the -ports archive is handled 20:25:39 i don't think they ever talked to us, but the expected existing (cruft) sources to remain indefinitely 20:26:00 okaley 20:26:47 i asked them to actually talk to us if they want to change how we handle such cases, but they didn't manage to do that yet 20:28:22 Ok. 20:28:44 my question now is: would we be willing to find a solution with them, which would allow sources in the main archive without binaries of any known architecture. including NEW and the necessary dak changes 20:30:09 Alas, this isn't my "area" so I can't really comment. 20:30:24 I mean, how much work would it be? 20:31:26 the dak changes would be the large part. as this needs a throw away binaries for NEW uploads feature, maybe some changes to ignore missing overrides and some code to not call them cruft 20:31:53 we are talking about a handful of packages, most of them installer and bootloader related 20:32:11 Hm. 20:37:03 (Again, no real input…) 20:37:19 okay. i don't think we can decide that now. i would just liked to get some feeling if this could work. but in the end the people wanting such thing would have to step forward 20:38:15 I guess making them definitely aware of that (ie. them needing to do work) would be helpful, otherwise it might just get stuck in limbo 20:39:16 yeah. i'll try to make them aware again if some mails actually show up 20:39:31 Ah. :) 20:40:12 Okay, I am being summoned again for dinner with parents so must dash. 20:40:12 #topic Any other business 20:40:17 Nothing from ,e. 20:40:19 *from me 20:40:21 yep 20:40:24 #endmeeting