MOTU Meeting Minutes from 12 Jan 2006 (finally)

Stefan Potyra sistpoty at
Sun Feb 5 18:21:45 GMT 2006

Hi folks, sorry for the delay...

finally the notes from the last but one meeting can be found at

Feel free to correct them where they are wrong.
A transcript is included below.


P.S.: This is the collectors edition of the notes. Collect ten spelling 
mistakes to win a special price ;).

Full log can be found at

== Agenda ==

1) Use of /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL vs /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 
for GPLed apps packages. (raphink)
    *Reference in Policy :

2) TODOs: (sistpoty)
    * - Packages still 
depending on libstdc++5
    * - packages 
not yet rebuilt for libstc++ allocator change

3) UVF (sistpoty)
    * extra time for universe?
    * how to handle packages on revu?

4) What's next todo? (sistpoty)
    * unmet dependencies
    * bug triage
    * packages, that ftbfs (who will run an automated test ? when ?)

5) Reorganization of MOTU-related Launchpad teams. See MOTUMeetingTeamReorg 

6) Code of conduct for REVU-uploaders : Currently, a lot of packages are 
uploaded to Ubuntu through REVU. What will happen to them in a year ? Will 
the first REVU-uploader still has to take care of them ? We don't want a 
universe filled with unmaintained packages. + Policy regarding unmaintained 
and useless packages which are only in Ubuntu. Should we remove them ? What's 
the procedure ?

7) Collaborative maintenance on tiber via svn or other means

8) Brainstorming/Ideas how to organize divergence in our universe

== People attending ==
  * Stefan Potyra (sistpoty)
  * Daniel Holbach (dholbach)
  * Stephan Hermann (\sh)
  * Daniel Chen (crimsun)
  * Yann Rouillard (chninkel)
  * Raphael Pinson (raphink)
  * Jordan Mantha (LaserJock)
  * Jani Monoses (janimo)
  * Lucas Duailibe (lucasd)
  * Jonathan Ridell (Ridell)
  * Charles Short (zul)
  * Oliver Gravert (ogra_ibook)
  * Reinhard Tartler (siretart)
  * Tolleg Fog Heen, but not really present (Mithrandir)

== Discussion ==
1) raphink wanted to know, whether packages that are GPL-2 should refer 
to /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-2 instead of the 
link /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL, which points to the latest version of 
the gpl. This might lead to some trouble once GPL-3 is out for packages which 
don't state the "or any later version" term.
\sh pointed out, that there are two licensing issues involved: The license of 
the packaged software and the work done by the maintainer.
After a short discussions, common agreement was that this issue should be 
adressed in front of TB.

2) sistpoty mentioned two outstanding todo-points:
packages still depending on libstdc++5 and packages that didn't get rebuilt 
for the libstdc++ allocator change.
doko prepared two lists of packages which still depended on libstdc++5 and 
which didn't get rebuilt for the libstdc++ allocator change. These packages 
were already uploaded to be rebuilt, but FTBFS'd. siretart said, that the 
libstdc++5 depending packages might be the result of gcc-transition with some 
of these packages not build-depending on a particular gcc-version. sistpoty 
stated, that we need to build these packages at least with gcc-3.4. raphing 
wanted to know, what should be done with these packages: We should try to 
make them build again, either fix the issues or try new upstream versions. 
\sh pointed out, that some weren't properly maintained any longer; dholbach 
stated, that for some upstream stopped working as well. In a small 
side-discussion, it was asked what exactly will be frozen on UVF. [editors 
note: dholbach made that clear in a mail to ubuntu-motu, so I will skip that 
part]. Later during the meeting, doko stated, that his lists are regenerated 
on demand.

3) UVF and packages on revu
There was some discussion how to handle UVF-exceptions. [editor's note: I will 
skip this part. See].
The item packages on revu was deferred as well, since we have time until 
FeatureFreeze to get these in.

4) What's next todo?
\sh summarized our priorities quite good: "prio 1) bugs, prio 2) unmet deps 
prio 3) poke buildd when it's necessary to rebuild universe?". siretart 
pointed out, that 3) should be done ASAP, since it doesn't need direct human 
interaction. sistpoty pointed out, that reviewing packages on revu should 
also get a high priority. dholbach stated, that a review day might get many 
new packages reviewed. It was shortly discussed to have some automation for 
unmet dependency checking.

5) lucas made a proposal to reorganize motu-teams of LP, to make it easier to 
understand the team structure:
Unfortunately no other MOTU seemed to have reviewed his proposal properly, so 
the discussion about this topic was a little bit confusing. lucas finally 
made the proposal to remove relationships between team, which nobody objected 

6) lucas stated that packages gone through revu might not be proper 
maintained, once the person who uploaded a package to revu which was accepted 
ceased to work on it any longer. He pointed out, that there might be security 
related problems with these packages. Almost everyone held the opinion, that 
it is better to have possibly unmaintained packages than to drop those. Apart 
from that, it's MOTU work to fix these packages. ogra_ibook pointed out, that 
it was sabdfl's declared target to have everything in.

7) siretart proposed to maintain ubuntu specific packages via svn on tiber.
The goal of the proposal was to have a central place where MOTU's and MOTU 
hopefuls can work on packages. There was a short discussion between the usage 
of svn or bzr. It was also mentioned, that buxy had setup svn on to handle collaborative maintenance, including work from 
MOTU's. However the common feeling was, that cooperative work that can be 
done between debian and ubuntu should not be discussed at a motu-meeting. 
Generelly the present MOTU's didn't express a need for svn on tiber.

8) siretart wanted to gather ideas how to handle the divergence between debian 
and ubuntu
siretart noted, lucas' rocking MultiDistriTools which has a note for 
individual packages that can be edited via the wiki. siretart proposed to 
write a web-interface that is able to categorize the type of difference 
between debian and ubuntu on a per-package basis. An agreement was made, that 
this webtool (with some mode of authentication) would be our tool of choice.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the Ubuntu-motu mailing list