14:30:42 <bookwar> #startmeeting Fedora CI SIG
14:30:42 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 25 14:30:42 2019 UTC.
14:30:42 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
14:30:42 <zodbot> The chair is bookwar. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:30:42 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:30:42 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_ci_sig'
14:30:54 <bookwar> .hello2
14:30:55 <zodbot> bookwar: bookwar 'Aleksandra Fedorova' <alpha@bookwar.info>
14:31:42 <bookwar> anyone?
14:31:50 <bgoncalv> .hello2
14:31:51 <zodbot> bgoncalv: bgoncalv 'Bruno Goncalves' <bgoncalv@redhat.com>
14:32:16 <fbo> .hello2
14:32:17 <zodbot> fbo: fbo 'Fabien Boucher' <fboucher@redhat.com>
14:33:02 <bookwar> cool, not alone
14:33:25 <bookwar> let;s go through the status updates and news,
14:33:44 <bookwar> #topic status from Zuul team
14:33:52 <bookwar> fbo: floor is yours
14:34:24 <fbo> thanks
14:34:39 <fbo> I have been working on a rpminspect job for Zuul
14:35:14 <fbo> The role is there on zuul-distro-jobs library https://pagure.io/zuul-distro-jobs/pull-request/16
14:35:41 <bookwar> #link https://pagure.io/zuul-distro-jobs/pull-request/16
14:35:43 <fbo> It has been tested on python-gear as an open PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-gear/pull-request/8
14:36:09 <fbo> you'll see an artifacts-rpminspect jobs as last comment in the PR
14:36:32 <bookwar> #info PoC rpminspect job is running on python-gear pull-request via Zuul
14:36:43 <fbo> Here is the json result from rpminspect https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/logs/8/8/8ac634d66b7e756e2e4c3711717a7a7d0563385e/check/artifact-rpminspect/588ae1b/result.json
14:37:03 <fbo> and I worked on a json2html converter to get a retty output
14:37:09 <fbo> s/retty/pretty/
14:37:22 <fbo> https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/logs/8/8/8ac634d66b7e756e2e4c3711717a7a7d0563385e/check/artifact-rpminspect/588ae1b/rpminspect.html
14:37:52 <fbo> and we see that there is an issue with the license in the package ...
14:38:00 <bookwar> nice, would you suggest this html formatting script to rpminspect upstream?
14:38:14 <fbo> bookwar: yes it has been merge into rpminspect
14:38:23 <bookwar> cool
14:38:45 <fbo> also the role look at the last build in koji to do the compare stuff like new/removed files
14:39:00 <bookwar> last build for the same target?
14:39:18 <fbo> yes
14:40:00 <fbo> so that's all from my side
14:40:24 <bookwar> ok, any news from the infra side? afaik you wanted to migrate to s-f.org infra?
14:41:43 <fbo> we did some tests but we haven't take the final decision ... I need to ask again my team it is not clear now
14:42:03 <bookwar> ok, thanks
14:42:18 <bookwar> any other items from Zuul?
14:42:57 <bookwar> ok
14:42:58 <fbo> I miss-understood sorry the migration to sf-project.io is in progress
14:43:17 <bookwar> moving on
14:43:19 <fbo> I though you talk about our move to fedora taiga instance
14:43:27 <fbo> so not the same :p
14:43:30 <bookwar> :)
14:43:48 <bookwar> #topic Resultsdb and messaging
14:43:56 <bookwar> bgoncalv: any status updates?
14:44:33 <bookwar> #link https://pagure.io/ci-resultsdb-listener/pull-request/13
14:44:38 <bgoncalv> Fedora CI pipeline already publishes the results using the new message format, but they are not stored in resultsdb
14:44:54 <bgoncalv> yes, I think we just need https://pagure.io/ci-resultsdb-listener/pull-request/13 to be reviewed
14:45:08 <bookwar> #info the pull request for resultsdb is pending on review
14:45:25 <bookwar> bgoncalv: have we versioned the messaging format?
14:45:41 <bgoncalv> yes, 2.1.0
14:46:17 <bookwar> #info We have versions in Fedora Messaging schema, current version we comply with is 2.1.0
14:46:31 <bookwar> anything else you'd like to highlight?
14:46:54 <bgoncalv> no, I think that's all
14:47:00 <bookwar> thanks
14:47:14 <bookwar> #topic TFT and Packit update
14:47:31 <bookwar> i have it passed to me from mvadkert, so i am going to copy-paste a bit
14:47:47 <bookwar> #link https://packit.dev/testing-farm/
14:48:08 <bookwar> there is now a doc on how testing-farm is enabled in packit service
14:48:50 <bookwar> The base image used for packit tests is not the latest rawhide image, rather a qualified one
14:49:10 <bookwar> because we hit issues with a broken qcow in rawhide
14:49:37 <bookwar> there is a work in progress to onboard tuned, systemd and hopefully few more components
14:50:21 <bookwar> ok, anyone wants to share, ask smth?
14:51:00 <bookwar> dcantrell maybe?
14:51:11 <bookwar> any news from rpminspect?
14:51:47 <dcantrell> bookwar: I was in the middle of working on the integration test suite and fixing return values
14:52:20 <bookwar> sorry for interruption :)
14:52:25 <bookwar> good to know though
14:52:34 <dcantrell> bookwar: I've got a fair amount of email questions to go through today about rpminspect.  zuul (???) is working on integration it for pagure pull requests, so getting some good feedback there
14:52:48 <dcantrell> bookwar: I intend to do another release this week of it and the rpminspect-data-fedora package
14:53:05 <dcantrell> bookwar: one thing that we need and maybe the SIG is a good place to start is ownership of the data in rpminspect-data-fedora
14:53:25 <bookwar> #topic Ownership for rpminspect-data-fedora
14:53:26 <dcantrell> there is data that the program uses to validate things in builds and that data is not currently owned by a single team or entity or whatever
14:53:47 <dcantrell> probably the first piece is ownership of the license database
14:53:51 <dcantrell> https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect-data-fedora
14:54:01 <bookwar> Is it smth Fedora QA should look into? Or closer to Fedora Packaging?
14:54:15 <dcantrell> FWIW, this is not specific to rpminspect, this is also a longstanding problem with rpmdiff
14:54:20 <dcantrell> by making rpminspect-data-fedora, I am trying to address it
14:54:50 <dcantrell> maybe, but the main thing is that changes that need to be made to the data files in this package should not be filed as bugs in rpminspect
14:55:04 <dcantrell> the whole point is that the vendor can modify these data files independent of software releases
14:55:11 <dcantrell> but we need an owner or owners  :)
14:55:43 <dcantrell> I think perhaps having it upstream here, tie it in to packit for automatic builds, and then having different groups (QA, Packaging, etc) file PRs to make changes is probably the best way
14:55:53 <dcantrell> but that still means it needs an upstream owner to merge and tag
14:56:31 <dcantrell> the team that owns and updates this:
14:56:33 <dcantrell> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Software_License_List
14:56:38 <dcantrell> should also be putting changes in to this:
14:56:52 <dcantrell> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rpminspect/rpminspect-data-fedora/master/licenses/fedora.json
14:59:39 <bookwar> ok, thank you
15:00:21 <bookwar> #info changes that need to be made to the data files in this package should not be filed as bugs in rpminspect
15:00:38 <bookwar> so we highlight it in meeting notes
15:01:39 <bookwar> but you probably need to describe it in more details in a mail
15:01:54 <bookwar> ok, so i think half an hour is good for today
15:03:07 <bookwar> thanks everyone for parrticipating
15:03:13 <dcantrell> thanks
15:03:13 <jbair> this format is interesting :)
15:03:22 <bookwar> #endmeeting