16:33:50 #startmeeting RELENG (2015-03-09) 16:33:50 Meeting started Mon Mar 9 16:33:50 2015 UTC. The chair is dgilmore. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:33:50 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:33:56 #meetingname releng 16:33:56 The meeting name has been set to 'releng' 16:33:56 #chair dgilmore nirik tyll sharkcz bochecha masta pbrobinson pingou 16:33:56 Current chairs: bochecha dgilmore masta nirik pbrobinson pingou sharkcz tyll 16:33:58 #topic init process 16:34:23 morning 16:34:40 Hi 16:36:40 lets ping people in #fedora-releng 16:37:54 * jreznik is here 16:38:32 #topic #6016 Use fedpkg-minimal in Fedora buildroots 16:38:37 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6016 16:38:53 #action dgilmore to make this change everywhere this week 16:39:04 pbabinca: has built it everywhere 16:39:18 #topic #5963 Orphaned vulnerable packages in EPEL 16:39:23 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5963 16:39:38 tyll: I will let you know when I have made the srpm buildroot change 16:39:44 dgilmore: ok 16:40:06 #topic #5775 switch to partitioned image for EC2; remove editing of menu.lst from image processing 16:40:10 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5775 16:40:16 I am going to close this 16:40:24 * pbrobinson is here 16:40:28 afaik it is what we have done with the upload service 16:40:31 * threebean is here 16:42:38 #topic #5870 rawhide signing 16:42:44 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5870 16:43:18 I really am not sure how much we should pursue this until we get sigul sorted 16:43:21 I think we are stalled until sigul is sored 16:43:22 * roshi is here as well 16:43:23 sorted 16:43:36 nirik: :) 16:43:46 I can start the autosigner again and we can see how good it works nowadays 16:43:48 sigul is just a bit too fragile 16:44:16 I did a run yesterday and this morning and just started another one 16:44:17 tyll: realistically its only going to be reliable with a batch size of 1 16:44:20 tyll: it does not. 16:44:33 I tried various things yesterday and it always locked unless you use a batch size of 1 16:44:47 batch size of 1 has never locked up 16:44:53 I see, I can also start it with a batch size of 1 and we can see if it ever catches up 16:44:54 but uses a different code path in sigul 16:44:58 right, I thik thats a different path 16:44:59 ha. 16:45:07 * nirik is really on the same page with dgilmore today. :0 16:45:13 nirik: seems so :) 16:45:40 it uses a receiver and sender thread for a batch size > 1 16:45:53 longer term, should we look at patching sigul to get larger batch sizes working? (forgive me if this has already been discussed) 16:46:00 btw. there are some GSoC applicants that might help fixing sigul 16:46:12 threebean: it works its just not stable 16:46:21 there seems to be some race conditions 16:46:21 s/working/working all the time/ 16:46:36 yeah, fixing it for batches would be lovely. 16:46:42 it can go much much faster with them 16:46:51 tyll: hopefully one of them gets accepted and can get it working 16:47:04 tyll: are you managing that gsoc application process? or.. who is? 16:47:46 Miloslav was not so happy about having to review patches btw because of missing time, I hope we can support him much there 16:48:19 threebean: dgilmore and me are currently the mentors/contacts on the wiki page, so we get most mails 16:48:57 threebean: afaik they will have to apply via the google app and then every (possible) mentor will review applicants together - this is how I understood the process 16:49:05 * threebean nods 16:49:11 threebean: would you like to co-mentor? 16:49:25 yeah, typically the people who work with the applicants ahead of time will have the best idea about whether or not someone could really pull it off. 16:49:57 tyll: but yeah, sign me up. I'd be glad to help review patches too, but after a quick search around the sigul trac I'm not sure where to do that. 16:50:32 threebean: the patches will still have to be written, afaik since rel-eng is the only sigul consumer, there were not many bug reports 16:51:24 sigul is pretty complex code... hopefully someone can find the race condition. 16:52:35 threebean: sigul is complex and not actively developed 16:53:06 I understand. we should establish a place for development discussion and code review to happen, then. 16:53:15 perhaps the releng list? 16:54:13 threebean: yeah that would be fine 16:55:47 The GSoC project idea description is here btw: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Summer_coding_ideas_for_2015#Improve_Sigul_Signing_Server 16:57:13 #topic Secondary Architectures updates 16:57:14 #topic Secondary Architectures update - ppc 16:57:24 preparing for a RC1 16:57:26 pbrobinson: how is ppc this week? 16:57:31 cool 16:57:50 so just dealing with all the various bits and pieces surrounding that 16:57:52 #topic Secondary Architectures update - s390 16:57:58 Dan is on holidays afaik 16:58:04 yep, he is 16:58:06 yup 16:58:08 #topic Secondary Architectures update - arm 16:58:15 how is aarch64? 16:58:21 preparing for a RC1, basically the same as ppc 16:58:39 awesome 16:58:55 #topic Open Floor 16:59:01 I have a quick item 16:59:14 initial for both aarch64/ppc will be similar to F-21, and we'll be adding extra bits probably post alpha 16:59:17 I had a few too. ;) 16:59:22 with DST in the US starting yesterday do we want to follow DST or stay at 16:40UTC 16:59:24 2 mass rebuilds 16:59:51 16:30UTC that is 16:59:54 dgilmore: I am fine with either time. 17:00:06 okay. lets stick with UTC for now 17:00:23 nirik: what is your items? 17:00:38 In Europe DST starts on the last Sunday this month 17:00:50 tyll: right 17:00:55 1. I commented on and closed a bunch of tickets. Please feel free to reopen or add comments to anything anyone disagrees with or has more info on. 17:01:20 2. I had a few tickets I was unsure of. do we want to quickly go over them? or next week? 17:01:37 nirik: we can quickly go over them 17:01:54 3. pbrobinson: can you let me know when you are done with secondary sigul for rc's? I hope to find time to reinstall secondary sigul, but don't want to interfere with secondary releases. 17:02:10 was https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6119 not in the queue? 17:02:10 ok. 17:02:17 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6008 <- is this done? 17:02:38 maybe it needs a meeting keyword? /me adds 17:02:45 nirik: sure, how long does it take for reinstall? 17:02:45 walters: yeah, meeting keyword... 17:02:54 walters: It was not but I do need to follow up on it 17:03:00 pbrobinson: I will be moving them to ansible/rhel7, so probibly a few hours? 17:03:13 nirik: it is not done, I need to build a pungi update first 17:03:22 ok, cool. 17:03:25 I have a couple of other pungi patches I need to get in 17:03:39 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5866 <- anything left to do here? 17:04:12 not really, I was waiting on feedback that never came 17:04:12 oh, and that reminds me, we are getting 10ssd's for armv7 builders. I was going to stick 8 or 9 in builders and perhaps releng00? 17:04:32 nirik: sure. though I am not sure they will help much 17:04:48 but it would let us put more in the channel for eclipse 17:04:50 finally there is: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5665 I can do this as I update those images. Does anyone object to me doing so? 17:05:07 dgilmore: I was hoping we could put a few more things in there... gcc in particular. 17:05:34 nirik: I am still not really sure what it is that they want there 17:06:02 dgilmore: they want a single signed file with all the checksums from http://boot.fedoraproject.org/download 17:06:17 right now that just in the web content 17:07:14 thats all I had off hand. 17:07:25 would it be possible for 2 mass rebuilds for rawhide? One right away, and another after a month or so when gcc5 becomes more stable? 17:07:25 okay. I do not read the request as that 17:07:31 moezroy: Please wait 17:07:35 sorry 17:08:00 moezroy: nirik put his hand up first you are next 17:08:21 nirik: I would like a clearer request on that one 17:08:22 dgilmore: I can try and ask for more info. the link in the request is not at all right. 17:08:49 nirik: we would want to update the process that makes the composes to creat the file they need 17:08:58 so we need more info 17:09:51 dgilmore: the process is me. I build those when requested or once a cycle. 17:09:57 we don't have any formal build setup for it. 17:10:01 we should. 17:10:16 moezroy: 2 mass rebuilds not likely. we have been waiting on jakub to say that gcc is ready for the massrebuild. we need to come up with a new process as mass rebuilds are not ordered and because of the c++ abi change they need to be ordered 17:10:41 nirik: okay. we should be making the content as part of a compose 17:10:56 dgilmore: sure, should I file a new ticket on that? 17:11:08 * nirik isn't sure how it would work out, but we could. 17:12:10 nirik: yeah 17:12:18 dgilmore, hmm ok 17:12:27 moezroy: why do you want 2 mass rebuilds? 17:13:00 there are some PIE patches landing right now in gcc5 17:13:07 which improves their performance 17:13:26 okay 17:13:36 moezroy: it's quite a bit of effort so the plan was to rebuild once gcc5 was stable 17:13:36 if a rebuild is done now, we would know the scope of the hardening change 17:13:38 not really a reason to do two builds 17:14:19 the gcc developers will ask for a mass rebuild when gcc is ready for it 17:14:46 I am thinking many of the hardening problems may get fixed automagically after everything is rebuild ;) 17:15:33 IMO the terms "think" and "automagically" are mutually exclusive, I tend to prefer to deal in facts, not theory 17:15:33 which hardening problems? I'm aware of a few, but those packages just disabled it while it was being looked at. 17:15:50 pbrobinson, I assumed it was a just a script which interfaces with koji for the mass rebuild? 17:16:06 moezroy: it's but one component 17:17:10 disabling is a workaround until everything can be fixed, the earlier the rebuild the better it is known how many/which packages can be fixed as part of a GSoC project 17:17:33 moezroy: its a script that interfaces with git and koji, but the cost of a mass rebuild is high 17:17:39 it takes time, has fall out 17:17:41 tyll: is there a tracking bug to track the packages that have been disabled? 17:17:45 its not something done lightly 17:17:52 it creates churn on the mirrors 17:18:09 it creates churn on secondary arches too 17:18:10 pbrobinson, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199775 17:19:01 moezroy: that BZ appears to be missing some eg all of xorg 17:19:13 the script doesn't update the buildroot it does it in a side tag... 17:19:24 pbrobinson: I think it's just server. but I could be mistaken 17:19:28 nirik: we are going to have to change that for the ABI bump 17:19:40 nirik: they went through and disabled it on all the drivers too 17:19:59 pbrobinson: yes, there is tooling planned to automatically check all pkgs for disabled hardening flags 17:20:26 pbrobinson: the hardening should only affect binaries/tools, so disabling on the drivers should not matter 17:20:54 pbrobinson: ok. 17:20:57 nirik, why do you do the rebuild on a sidetag? instead of the real rawhide -- i.e. in real time? 17:21:12 moezroy: to avoid buildroot churn 17:21:30 what is buildroot churn? 17:21:33 moezroy: as it is expensive and slows the process down 17:21:55 moezroy: when you do a build the contents that is available to populate the buildroot changes 17:22:02 moezroy: because there's no script that can figure out the exact build order. And there's circular deps too. 17:22:13 moezroy: when you rebuild 17k packages you would get massive churn in the packages 17:22:33 each time a build completes we would get 2 newRepo tasks 17:22:45 though ieach one would include multiple builds 17:22:53 FYI: for the hardening change, we only need to rebuild arch packages that contain programs and not just libs 17:22:55 it consumes a lot of resources needlessly 17:23:17 tyll: the cflags will be changed on the libs also 17:23:23 well, it would take a lot longer to do a mass rebuild if we tried to update the buildroot for each set of packages. 17:24:05 dgilmore, nirik, ok 17:24:15 dgilmore: afaik only the binaries need to be compiled differently, not the libs, as they are position independent already 17:24:19 if we can make a script that can figure this out it would be handy in this case (abi change in gcc)... but it's not going to be easy at all. 17:24:20 nirik: we would need to do it only for the c++ builds 17:24:29 nirik: since there is an ABI change 17:24:42 its not going to be easy or simple 17:24:52 dgilmore: sure. Ideally it would be nice to have a script that rebuild (with new buildroots) everything in order that it needs. 17:24:59 but circular deps... 17:25:09 there's probably reasons in gcc5 to rebuild standard C stuff too 17:25:11 circular buildrequires rather 17:25:13 tyll, the libs are getting z now? 17:26:09 I mean we could just use mockchain. ;) 17:26:11 * nirik runs 17:26:15 nirik: :P 17:26:54 moezroy: so the answer to your initial question is we will not do 2 mass rebuilds. but as soon as the gcc devs say gcc is ready there will be one 17:26:56 in fact... I wonder... 17:27:19 if we could beef up copr-dev on the new cloud and try a mass rebuild of rawhide. 17:27:30 probibly take it a good while, but might be useful 17:28:14 moezroy: but afaik this is not needed at least for ASLR 17:29:23 nirik: maybe do a matt domsch style FTBFS check 17:29:51 dgilmore: yeah, the nice thing about copr is that it does use mockchain... so it would rebuild and rebuild until the same set of things failed. 17:30:54 anyone have anything else for open floor? 17:32:12 #endmeeting