21:00:10 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2022-01-19)
21:00:10 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Jan 19 21:00:10 2022 UTC.
21:00:10 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
21:00:10 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
21:00:10 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:10 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2022-01-19)'
21:00:11 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
21:00:11 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
21:00:11 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson pgreco carlwgeorge michel dcavalca
21:00:11 <tdawson> #topic aloha
21:00:11 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca michel nirik pgreco tdawson
21:00:18 <pgreco> .hi
21:00:19 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
21:00:19 <rcallicotte> .hi
21:00:20 <dcavalca> .hi
21:00:20 <carlwgeorge> .hi
21:00:22 <zodbot> rcallicotte: rcallicotte 'Robby Callicotte' <rcallicotte@mailbox.org>
21:00:25 <zodbot> dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <dcavalca@fb.com>
21:00:28 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
21:00:35 <tdawson> Hi pgreco
21:00:39 <dherrera> .hi
21:00:40 <tdawson> Hi rcallicotte
21:00:40 <zodbot> dherrera: dherrera 'None' <dherrera@redhat.com>
21:00:59 <tdawson> Hi dcavalca
21:01:05 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
21:01:13 * carlwgeorge waves at dherrera
21:01:19 <rsc> .hello robert
21:01:20 <zodbot> rsc: robert 'Robert Scheck' <redhat@linuxnetz.de>
21:01:21 * carlwgeorge and everyone else
21:01:23 <tdawson> Hi dherrera
21:01:26 <tdawson> Hi rsc
21:01:28 <salimma> .hi
21:01:29 <rcallicotte> :)
21:01:32 <zodbot> salimma: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
21:01:50 <tdawson> dherrera: Are you a new face?  Or just a different name?
21:02:03 <dherrera> new face
21:02:25 <salimma> welcome!
21:02:36 <pgreco> welcome!
21:02:52 <tdawson> dherrera: Cool.  Welcome.  Is there anything specific you wanted to bring up in the meeting this week?
21:02:57 <rcallicotte> hello and welcome!
21:03:44 <nirik> morning
21:03:52 <dherrera> nah, just wanted to start participating
21:04:12 <tdawson> Sounds great.
21:05:19 <tdawson> #topic EPEL Issues
21:05:19 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/issues
21:05:19 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
21:05:37 <tdawson> No issues flagged for the meeting today
21:05:48 <tdawson> Did anyone have any that they meant to flag?
21:06:28 <salimma> I have a question, but it can wait until the EPEL9 section
21:06:35 <tdawson> OK.
21:06:43 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
21:07:11 <tdawson> The only real old businiess I have is salimma's ebranch
21:07:17 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/ebranch
21:07:27 * nirik still needs to look at it.
21:07:48 <salimma> I haven't had time to work on it since last week, given LCA and the long weekend :)
21:08:19 <salimma> but to note, my talk is scheduled back to back with carlwgeorge 's hackfest so it's a good fit
21:08:19 <tdawson> salimma: OK.  Did you want me to keep it on the agenda for each week?  Or just ping like once a month?
21:08:37 <tdawson> I noticed that.  Very good fit.
21:08:38 <salimma> nah, I'll bring it up when I have updates
21:08:50 <tdawson> salimma: OK
21:09:22 <pgreco> I don't remember if my issue is old-business or not
21:09:47 <tdawson> pgreco: It is actually, but I only bring it up about once a month nowdays.
21:09:56 <tdawson> pgreco: If you want, I can ask each week.
21:10:03 <tdawson> pgreco: How are your macros doing?
21:10:17 <pgreco> ok, I have pushed both epel7 and epel8 branches that work
21:10:27 <tdawson> Cool!!!
21:10:44 <tdawson> That's exciting to hear.
21:10:47 <pgreco> tested with dnsmasq as a user suggested, and seems to be working as far as I can test
21:11:23 <pgreco> will create a pr to ask for review this week, but at least some progress
21:13:08 <tdawson> Just so I make sure I have the right thing, that's this issue - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/77   Correct?
21:13:24 <pgreco> correct
21:14:05 <tdawson> That's been alot of persistent long term work, thank you for doing that.
21:14:14 <tdawson> Anything else before we move on?
21:14:24 <pgreco> nope, thanks
21:14:42 <tdawson> As far as I know, that's all the old business, moving on ...
21:14:47 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7
21:15:28 <tdawson> One thing I saw this week is nodejs-16
21:16:02 <tdawson> Stephen is sending out the email warnings ... just letting you all know it's coming.
21:16:24 <pgreco> yeah, I don't like breaking things, but CVEs are worse
21:16:48 <pgreco> I don't think anybody is actually using node-js 6 in from epel7
21:16:48 * nirik nods
21:17:42 <salimma> ah, so this is probably relevant to what I want to ask for epel 9 - namely, are maintainers really signing up for 10 years of support when they branch for epel?
21:18:12 <salimma> and if a package becomes unmaintainable - do we need the equivalent of fedora-obsolete-packages? (to clean up the deployed versions out there)
21:18:16 <rcallicotte> I have heard that this week from someone actually
21:18:16 <tdawson> salimma: Yes and No ... it's in our docs somewhere.
21:18:19 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> so I expect there are people using it..  but they will have to move on
21:18:32 <carlwgeorge> 10 years of support but retaining the option to give up whenever
21:18:44 <tdawson> Ya, what carlwgeorge said.
21:19:03 <dcavalca> this seems fair
21:19:04 <salimma> right, so if everyone gives up, how do we clean up
21:19:11 <dcavalca> do we need to clarify it somewhere in the docs?
21:19:12 <nirik> IMHO we shouldn't...
21:19:20 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> I would say no, we aren't saying 10 years of support. We are saying we would like you to maintain it up to 10 years but you aren't paid for it so when you don't want to, please find someone else or retire it
21:19:21 <dcavalca> salimma: I think in most cases someone else would take over
21:19:22 <salimma> (this came up when I was about to branch python-hypothesis and Miro asked if I really want to support it so long)
21:19:52 <carlwgeorge> epel branches can be retired at any time https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#_epel
21:19:59 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> yes I think we do need to clarify it because that is a general comment I have heard over and over again no matter how many times I tell Miro and others something else
21:19:59 <dcavalca> has this been a problem in practice?
21:20:10 <dcavalca> (I mean people abandoning epel packages)
21:20:30 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> I would say a good portion of EPEL-7 is abandoned
21:20:31 <carlwgeorge> 10 years is the max i would say (well nearly 11 with centos stream now)
21:20:33 <nirik> I mean ideally it's 10 years... but anything can happen.
21:20:45 <salimma> carlwgeorge: right, I guess my question is if we should have our counterpart for the next section https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#obsoleting_packages
21:20:55 <salimma> since retiring doesn't affect people who already install it
21:20:59 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> I don't think we should force obsolete packages
21:21:13 <salimma> I don't expect tihs to be common, mind you
21:21:18 <nirik> I think that will be even more anoying to el users than fedora ones...
21:21:21 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> breaking someone's payroll system because we dropped nodejs-6 and told eveyr system to remove it
21:21:28 <salimma> Ebeneezer_Smooge: it should be fine if we limit it to the last N-V-R right?
21:21:34 <rcallicotte> I agree with nirik
21:21:49 <salimma> nirik: true
21:21:51 <tdawson> The thing is, that for EPEL we strive for stability.  So, not doing updates with the latest thing is not considered abandoned.  So a package could litterally sit there for 10 years, and not be abandoned.  It's the CVE's that's the real problem.
21:22:11 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> no it would not.. because I may have rolled my own and the obsoletes will remove it or not allow it to be installed
21:22:11 <carlwgeorge> also epel packages have a lot longer time period where someone could unretire them
21:22:21 <salimma> yeah, and... there are packages where I signed up because I care about epel8 and above, but the epel7 branch has CVEs :(
21:22:47 <nirik> nothing is every going to be 100%. :)
21:23:38 <pgreco> if something like that breaks, archive+downgrade should restore...
21:24:37 <nirik> sure, it can be recovered from, but it will annoy people a whole lot. ;)
21:24:44 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> a good majority of EPEL systems are people following some howto which was written years ago for some tool they need to get a job done. When we break systems it turns out some poor mom lost her wordpress blog with all her photos in it. [From a previous experience I spent a week fixing]
21:24:58 <rcallicotte> ouch
21:25:07 <pgreco> nirik: agreed
21:25:14 <salimma> ouch
21:25:32 <salimma> yeah, seems the status quo is still the best alternative for now, let's move on
21:25:38 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> and that wasn't a one-off..
21:26:00 <tdawson> Anything else EPEL7 related?
21:26:10 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> not from me.
21:26:12 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8
21:26:54 <tdawson> I don't remember seeing anything EPEL8 related this week.   Or did I miss anything?
21:27:04 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> yes there was one thing
21:27:18 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> there is a module in EPEL-8 modules which conflicts with a RHEL module
21:27:25 <tdawson> Again?
21:27:29 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> i think releng was working on it
21:27:58 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> nginx
21:28:16 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10553
21:29:23 <tdawson> It's really hard to implement anything that stops those. :(
21:29:44 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> well I think we may want to revisit for 9, modules should be named epel-
21:30:26 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> he says from the peanut gallery
21:30:31 <tdawson> The problem is that it's normally the Fedora module maintainers not realizing that they've even built an epel8 module.
21:30:42 <nirik> how many modules do we even have? perhaps we should just say... no modules?
21:30:49 <carlwgeorge> I imagine we'll eventually need to do epel-modular for 9, but I'm in no rush
21:31:08 <carlwgeorge> I've only see one person say they want it
21:31:31 <salimma> who's that person? ;)
21:31:49 <tdawson> We have 12 different modules in epel8.   And some of those (like nextcloud) have several different releases of their modules.
21:32:02 <carlwgeorge> salimma: https://pagure.io/epel/issue/135
21:32:04 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> currently in EPEL-8 modules: haskell, nextcloud, nodejs, nginx 389
21:32:17 * nirik wonders if we could convince them to move to non modular.
21:32:39 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> hahahahahah
21:33:04 * Ebeneezer_Smooge realizes nirik isn't joking
21:33:08 <carlwgeorge> rhel8 is getting ready to add bind9.16 non-modular, so even some RHEL maintainers are sick of modules
21:33:12 <salimma> ah, that's where pandoc comes from in epel8 I guess
21:33:22 <tdawson> The problem, in my opniion, is that if a Fedora module maintainer has * in their config, it builds for ALL ... if we could make it so that it just builds for Fedora, then that would solve most of the problem.
21:33:33 <nirik> tdawson: +1
21:33:42 <salimma> +1
21:33:42 <carlwgeorge> +1
21:34:15 <tdawson> I volunteer mohan to fix it :)
21:34:29 <tdawson> Sorry, just kidding, he's on vacation and I couldn't resist.
21:35:53 <tdawson> .epel 148
21:35:54 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #148: Do not have epel modules built when FEdora modules have * configed - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/148
21:36:24 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> I have no input on this. Good luck
21:36:59 <tdawson> I know that will probrubly go over to releng, and sit there for a year ... but ... at least we can write details in there.
21:37:33 <tdawson> Anything else EPEL8 related?
21:38:24 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-9
21:38:48 <tdawson> salimma: Did you have something for epel9?  Or was it what you asked about earlier?
21:39:05 <salimma> what I asked earlier
21:39:13 <tdawson> OK
21:39:18 <salimma> also my bugs are close to eligible for escalation to releng
21:39:31 <tdawson> That's an exciting feeling. :)
21:39:31 <salimma> so hopefully we'll have Django soon and ImageMagick :)
21:39:39 <rcallicotte> nice!!
21:39:49 <tdawson> Oh, you're taking imagemagick ... cool
21:39:56 <nirik> hum, I thought GraphicsMagic was the one to do there?
21:40:39 <tdawson> Well, neither is in RHEL9
21:41:18 <rsc> Yes, ImageMagick would be great.
21:41:28 <tdawson> Oh, neither is in RHEL8 either ... don't know why I didn't notice that.
21:42:03 <nirik> whatever you are willing to maintain. ;)
21:42:49 <tdawson> Anything else epel9 related?
21:43:21 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-Packaging-SIG
21:43:40 * nirik did branch and build a few epel9 packages... more on the way all the time
21:43:48 <salimma> nirik: I might be misremembering, but my branch request for libraqm got subscribed to by either IM or GM
21:43:55 <tdawson> Cool
21:44:00 <salimma> yeah, same, I have a few branch and built
21:44:10 <dcavalca> same here
21:44:18 <nirik> slowly we build away. :)
21:44:25 <tdawson> I think carlwgeorge said we had 188 new packages in epel9 just this last week.
21:44:29 <dcavalca> I'm also going over the stuff on the tracking ticket and filing stalled package requests as needed
21:44:42 <dcavalca> there's a bunch in there that had been lingering for months
21:44:48 <carlwgeorge> yup, up to 1346 source packages
21:45:04 <pgreco> I wanted to ask something epel9
21:45:17 <salimma> pgreco: shoot
21:45:21 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-9
21:45:28 <pgreco> tdawson, it's related to your will it install
21:45:38 <tdawson> pgreco: Sure
21:45:42 <pgreco> tor maintainer added the package, built, everything great
21:45:51 <pgreco> but it depends on torsocks, and that package is not available
21:45:57 <pgreco> so it fails to install...
21:46:30 <pgreco> do we have a check related to that?
21:46:34 <pgreco> .whoowns torsocks
21:46:35 <zodbot> pgreco: owner: maha; admin: pwouters
21:46:51 <pgreco> oh, same owner...
21:46:56 <salimma> so if this happens in Rawhide, an FTI bug will eventually get created
21:47:12 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> so one thing I realized when looking at packages. I don't think RHEL-9 ships tftp
21:47:13 <salimma> we should aim for the same I guess?
21:47:18 <pgreco> rawhide f* and epel* (other than 9) are fine
21:47:34 <tdawson> Yes, and in future versions of will-it-install will be filing bugs.
21:47:38 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> .whoowns tftpd
21:47:39 <zodbot> Ebeneezer_Smooge: Package tftpd not found.
21:47:41 <pgreco> great
21:47:41 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> .whoowns tftp
21:47:42 <zodbot> Ebeneezer_Smooge: owner: rathann
21:48:11 <salimma> huh, it's not in core RHEL? interesting
21:48:28 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> at the moment, it doesn't seem to be
21:48:32 <rcallicotte> that sounds odd.
21:48:32 <tdawson> Currently I'm the winner of most packages that won't install in epel9 - https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/epel/willit/epel9/status-wont-install.html
21:48:42 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> so tftp-server and client aren't there
21:49:48 <salimma> tdawson: small feature request, make it list the maintainers and also have a listing by maintainer, like Miro's orphan reports
21:50:02 * salimma just realizes that might be a tad bit larger than small
21:50:11 <tdawson> Ha! :)
21:50:46 <tdawson> Although ... I can check.  If the information is available with a standard dnf repo, I can grab it fairly easily.
21:51:16 <tdawson> salimma: but, I'll put it on the list of requests, cuz that is a good request.
21:51:55 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
21:52:18 <tdawson> Anything else anyone wants to bring up?
21:52:41 <carlwgeorge> yes i had one thing
21:52:45 <tdawson> pgreco: Ya, I've had a few packages I've had to request due to runtime dependencies.
21:52:58 <dcavalca> in case anyone here uses fish, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fish/pull-request/10 brings the epel8 version up to date
21:53:10 <tdawson> carlwgeorge go for it.
21:53:54 <carlwgeorge> i'm looking to start an "epel office hours" session.  i would definitely be there to run it, probably dherrera too.  anyone else is welcome to attend to ask/answer questions.
21:54:19 <rcallicotte> I like that
21:54:25 * nirik can attend time permitting
21:54:33 <carlwgeorge> i mainly wanted feedback on timing and frequency, my initial thought was once a month
21:55:06 <rcallicotte> +1 to monthly office hours
21:55:14 <pgreco> once a month sounds good
21:55:16 <tdawson> Once a month sounds good to me
21:55:21 <nirik> sure, can always adjust
21:55:26 <carlwgeorge> the whole steering committee is either north or south america i think, so doing it at this time of day wouldn't be friendly to europeans.  but we could also rotate the time.
21:55:54 <rcallicotte> would it be hosted via zoom or similar?
21:56:02 <carlwgeorge> probably google meet
21:56:15 * rcallicotte nods
21:56:26 <carlwgeorge> anyone feel strongly on day of the week?
21:56:52 <dcavalca> not monday
21:57:21 <rcallicotte> thursday or tuesday?
21:57:22 <carlwgeorge> i kinda like the idea of "epel wednesday", say the office hours in the morning, and then steering committee in the afternoon
21:57:31 <tdawson> +1 not monday
21:58:09 <pgreco> carlwgeorge, I don't know how often I'll be able to attend, but epel Wednesdays sounds good
21:58:24 <pgreco> specially to address quickly things that might come up in the meetings
21:58:33 <rcallicotte> wed works for me.
21:58:34 <carlwgeorge> if no one is opposed to wednesdays we can start with that and adjust if necessary
21:58:37 <tdawson> I'm ok with Wednesday ... Wednesday ends up being sorta my epel day anyway.
21:58:41 <dherrera> wed sounds ok
21:59:28 <carlwgeorge> i'll make noise in the usual places when we're doing the first session
21:59:33 <carlwgeorge> mailing list, irc, etc
21:59:50 <tdawson> Sounds good.  Thank you carlwgeorge and dherrera
22:00:25 <tdawson> Looks like our time is up.  Thank you all for coming and having a good discussion.  And thank ya'll for all the work you do on epel.
22:00:30 <tdawson> Talk to you next week.
22:00:32 <Ebeneezer_Smooge> thanks everyone
22:00:42 <tdawson> #endmeeting