MOTU Meeting Minutes from 12 Jan 2006 (finally)
sistpoty at ubuntu.com
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)
* http://people.ubuntu.com/~doko/libstdc++5-deps.txt - Packages still
depending on libstdc++5
* http://people.ubuntu.com/~doko/libstdc++-allocator-change.txt - 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
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: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTUMeetingTeamReorg
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
alioth.debian.org 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
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
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20060205/11cfbf73/attachment.pgp
More information about the Ubuntu-motu