17:01:07 <geppetto> #startmeeting fpc
17:01:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 14 17:01:07 2016 UTC.  The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:01:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:01:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:01:07 <geppetto> #meetingname fpc
17:01:07 <geppetto> #topic Roll Call
17:01:07 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fpc'
17:01:14 <tibbs|w> Howdy.
17:01:16 <geppetto> Hey
17:01:18 <geppetto> #chair tibbs
17:01:19 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto tibbs
17:01:21 <orionp> morning
17:01:25 <geppetto> #chair orionp
17:01:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto orionp tibbs
17:01:38 <geppetto> orionp: Where are you?
17:01:46 <geppetto> west coast?
17:02:17 <orionp> Boulder Colorado
17:02:36 <mbooth> Hi
17:02:48 <geppetto> #chair mbooth
17:02:48 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp tibbs
17:02:58 * racor is here
17:03:06 <geppetto> #chair racor
17:03:06 <zodbot> Current chairs: geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs
17:03:14 <geppetto> And then there were five ;)
17:04:09 <geppetto> orionp: Nice
17:04:38 <orionp> I like it here...
17:05:19 * geppetto nods
17:05:36 <geppetto> West, but not too west … and pot ;)
17:06:01 <geppetto> #topic Schedule
17:06:11 <Rathann> hi
17:06:16 <geppetto> #chair Rathann
17:06:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann geppetto mbooth orionp racor tibbs
17:06:27 <geppetto> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging%40lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JIHUTVVX4FRAXUGJGQB7Q3TU2UMQHDNO/
17:06:36 <geppetto> #topic #587 Node.js Guideline ExclusiveArch incorrect
17:06:39 <geppetto> .fpc 587
17:06:41 <zodbot> geppetto: #587 (Node.js Guideline ExclusiveArch incorrect) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/587
17:07:07 <geppetto> I think this is pretty simple?
17:07:27 <geppetto> Does anyone remember/know why noarch was added there in the first place?
17:07:51 <orionp> I think the whole thing is broken...
17:08:17 <orionp> The nodejs recommendations go against the main guidelines
17:08:33 <orionp> that say that ExclusiveArch is just broken
17:08:55 <tibbs|w> Well, we approved them.....
17:09:13 <orionp> You can't build locally without noarch listed, I'd be surprised if it built on koji without it
17:10:11 <dgilmore> orionp: did anyone test?
17:10:22 <Rathann> I found this in Toshio's wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Noarch_with_unported_dependencies
17:10:40 <dgilmore> koji will look at noarch in ExclusiveArch and say it can be built on any arch
17:10:41 <geppetto> I think that's because of portability of node.js is long term. problem, and unlikely to be fixed.
17:10:55 <geppetto> So any new arches added aren't going to work, etc.
17:11:40 <dgilmore> orionp: there is other packages that have ExclusiveArch and BuildArch: noarch
17:12:34 <dgilmore> the compose toolses use ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch in those cases to filter what repos the packages get shipped in
17:13:00 <orionp> I don't understand why rpmbuild fails locally without noarch  but not in the builders...
17:13:07 <orionp> if that is indeed the case
17:13:10 <dgilmore> though it may be that we say you use ExcludeArch with BuildArch: noarch
17:13:24 <dgilmore> but a side effect is you play koji roulette
17:13:29 <tibbs|w> We had to do this exact same thing with Java.
17:13:36 <dgilmore> if it needs to build on a specifc arch
17:13:40 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: right
17:13:57 <dgilmore> koji has no way to say you can only build this package on this one arch
17:14:33 <tibbs|w> But the Java guidelines no longer have any mention of *arch.
17:14:45 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: we have java everywhere now
17:14:53 <dgilmore> except ppc in el6
17:15:02 <tibbs|w> Yeah, just makes it more difficult to see what we did say to use.
17:15:19 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: pretty sure it was ExcludeArch: ppc
17:15:44 <dgilmore> I can see why you would need to add noarch to the exclusiveArch list
17:15:54 <dgilmore> rpm says its not in the list
17:16:12 <dgilmore> but it does not take away that koji will send it to any arch in teh tag
17:16:39 <dgilmore> it may just be pure luck that it has not been an issue before ppc64le was added
17:16:42 <orionp> FYI - I've filed http://rpm.org/ticket/901
17:17:11 <tibbs|w> I can't see that exclude/exclusive was ever in the java guidelines, so maybe it was just something that people did to workaround what happened when you happened to get a ppc builder.
17:17:19 <geppetto> You almost certainly want that in BZ.redhat.com
17:17:39 <dgilmore> it may just be that there is 8 ppc64le builders as opposed to 4 ppc64
17:17:49 <orionp> I think https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Noarch_with_unported_dependencies is fairly clear on the whole thing
17:17:49 <dgilmore> there used to be only 2 ppc64 builders
17:19:17 <geppetto> Ok … so can we solve this for everything?
17:19:36 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: if you got a ppc builder you just resubmit until you get a x86_64 one
17:19:38 <geppetto> Or do we have to break rpmbuild or have people randomly retry node.js packages?
17:19:39 <dgilmore> sucks
17:19:44 <dgilmore> but thats what you have to do
17:20:01 <dgilmore> geppetto: the solution is to just resubmit
17:20:07 <geppetto> Yeh
17:20:16 <geppetto> I'm guessing people don't like that though, given the ticket :)
17:20:19 <dgilmore> if they do not want to do that they have to make the packages archful
17:20:27 <orionp> Builds fail without noarch listed: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8730/12548730/build.log
17:20:48 <dgilmore> orionp: givn the use of ExclusiveArch it makes sense
17:21:00 <orionp> Nice to get a recommendation that doesn't work...
17:21:24 <tibbs|w> As far as I'm concerned, whatever works is good.
17:21:29 <geppetto> I guess this is a reject then, given their solution doesn't work.
17:21:41 <tibbs|w> Whatever doesn't work is not particularly good.
17:21:53 <orionp> You need to use excludearch, which is a pain because that changes all the time
17:22:01 <orionp> but perhaps with a macro...
17:22:05 <tibbs|w> Having to resubmit whatever portion of the billion nodejs packages which fail is not particularly good, either.
17:22:11 <tibbs|w> I thought we had a macro?
17:22:12 <dgilmore> orionp: took some extra thought
17:22:16 <geppetto> #info That's just how koji works, noarch is needed for rpmbuild removing it doesn't fix the problem. Just have to resubmit until you get a correct arch.
17:22:45 <tibbs|w> If there's something we can recommend in the guidelines, we should do that.
17:22:47 <dgilmore> orionp: there is two options, resubmit or make the packages archful
17:23:02 <tibbs|w> Is it really a problem to have them archful?
17:23:02 <geppetto> dgilmore: So excludearch also doesn't do anything?
17:23:04 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: there is nothing really. other than expect pain
17:23:09 <orionp> or use ExcludeArch, right?
17:23:12 <dgilmore> geppetto: nope
17:23:19 <geppetto> ok
17:23:21 <tibbs|w> Besides duplication of, what, a thousand packages?
17:23:44 <geppetto> #info ExcludeArch also doesn't do anything. FWIW. The only other option is to make the packages arch.
17:23:56 <dgilmore> geppetto: koji looks at the "BuildArch: noarch" and says we can send this to any bulder and get a noarch rpm out
17:24:07 <geppetto> ok
17:24:08 <dgilmore> noarch == anyarch in this case
17:24:13 * geppetto nods
17:24:26 <dgilmore> that people disagree on what noarch actually means does not help
17:24:27 <geppetto> I'm guessing that's not easy to fix?
17:24:35 <dgilmore> not sure
17:25:10 <tibbs|w> I'm sure koji could be taught to have some extra per-package config, but that seems inefficient in any case as you'd have to do it for every nodejs package.
17:25:34 <tibbs|w> And I don't know how we can export any useful information from the srpm that koji could use.
17:25:55 <tibbs|w> It would be a horrible hack to reuse some other tag.
17:26:21 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: koji would probably need to do extra processing on the spec/srpm and figure out that it has the ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch list and send the build to one of the arches
17:26:35 <dgilmore> and in the ExclusiveArch case filter out noarch
17:26:38 <orionp> It really seems like koji should handle this better...
17:26:58 <tibbs|w> orionp: That may be the case, but we deal with the tools we have.
17:27:07 <orionp> forever?
17:27:17 <dgilmore> orionp: its not going to any time soon. I know when I brought it up with the mikes for java they felt that what was being done was wrong
17:27:29 <dgilmore> maybe now the response would be different
17:27:35 <tibbs|w> Sure, unless someone from the committee actually is going to do the coding work _and_ that actually gets accepted and rolled out.
17:27:35 <dgilmore> and we can get something in
17:27:41 <geppetto> In what way was it wrong, and what should it be?
17:27:41 <dgilmore> but it will need a koji RFE
17:27:48 <geppetto> I'm guessing they thought it should be arched?
17:27:53 <dgilmore> geppetto: that noarch == anyarch
17:27:59 <dgilmore> so there should be no filtering on it
17:28:04 * geppetto nods
17:28:18 <tibbs|w> But, really, from our perspective, can't we just say that the packages should be archful and leave it at that?
17:28:29 <geppetto> tibbs: I once tried to setup a koji instance, that one time was once enough
17:28:30 <tibbs|w> I mean, file RFEs, sure.
17:28:54 <tibbs|w> But right now today, the nodejs maintainers seem to have two choices:
17:29:01 <geppetto> Yeh, archful or play the resubmit game
17:29:05 <tibbs|w> Right.
17:29:11 <dgilmore> tibbs|w: I would suggest that a RFE be filed, but that in the interim if you do not want to play koji roulette you make the packages archful
17:29:14 <geppetto> And the later seems to have got a lot less fun
17:29:22 <tibbs|w> And the latter just isn't reasonable for the amount of packages and churn they have.
17:29:31 <tibbs|w> Their choice, I guess.
17:29:35 * geppetto nods
17:29:39 <tibbs|w> But nothing we can really do.
17:29:47 <dgilmore> nada
17:29:48 <tibbs|w> Except edit the guidelines page.
17:30:13 <orionp> https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/210
17:32:20 <geppetto> Ok
17:32:26 <geppetto> I guess that's it then
17:32:33 <geppetto> #topic #567 Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+
17:32:38 <dgilmore> orionp: so thats a rpm bug not koji
17:32:38 <geppetto> .fpc 567
17:32:39 <zodbot> geppetto: #567 (Packaging Python 3 applications and modules for EPEL 7+) – fpc - https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567
17:32:44 <geppetto> Not sure we have anything to discuss here?
17:34:27 <orionp> I think we still have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Python that adds the link to the EPEL7 guidelines
17:34:28 <tibbs|w> Don't think so.  There is a python-macros package now
17:34:57 * geppetto nods … so We can close the ticket?
17:35:02 <tibbs|w> Is that in a ticket?  I thought I wrote up everything that was pending.  Though I still need to announce something.
17:35:34 <orionp> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/567#comment:10
17:35:45 <geppetto> wow, comment 10 was a long time ago :)
17:35:53 <tibbs|w> Oh, sorry, it's not in writeup state so I didn't see it.
17:36:56 <geppetto> orionp: Is that diff still everything we want: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=PackagingDrafts%3APython&diff=cur&oldid=422445 ?
17:37:09 <dgilmore> orionp: https://pagure.io/koji/issue/19
17:37:09 <tibbs|w> I sure hope not.
17:38:00 <orionp> no, really just the last EPEL7+ section
17:38:08 <tibbs|w> I don't think that corresponds with the macros we have currently in development in any case.
17:38:16 <geppetto> Ok, that seems trivial
17:38:33 <orionp> which I guess still is a draft...
17:38:43 <tibbs|w> I'd probably just put it way up front or something.
17:38:53 * geppetto nods
17:38:53 <tibbs|w> orionp: Yeah, we all need to come together on that.
17:39:07 <tibbs|w> We're not going to know how well it works until we can actually convert something.
17:39:15 <geppetto> #action Incorporate the EPEL7 section of the draft from orionp
17:39:41 <tibbs|w> The macros shouldn't conflict, though, so it should be possible to add them to your macros package and work from there.  If we wanted to do that.
17:42:08 * geppetto nods
17:42:11 <geppetto> $topic Open Floor
17:42:15 <geppetto> #topic Open Floor
17:42:25 <tibbs|w> That was easy.
17:42:27 <geppetto> Ok, anything anybody wants to bring up?
17:42:47 <tibbs|w> One thing to write up, and then I can press send on this announcement and close a bunch of tickets.
17:42:49 <orionp> Any general thoughts/comments on the BLAS/LAPACK stuff?
17:42:57 <geppetto> One minor thing is that devconf is in a couple of weeks, so I'll miss at least one Thursday for that.
17:43:08 <mbooth> Also Fosdem
17:43:09 <tibbs|w> orionp: That ticket is kind of beyond me.
17:43:41 <mbooth> I will not be present for the meeting in the week before fosdem due to traveling
17:43:42 <geppetto> orionp: The only other suggestion I have is to maybe talk to the MPI people … as they had to go through similar things.
17:44:08 <orionp> Yeah, I'm pretty much one of the MPI people too... :)
17:44:14 <geppetto> mbooth: Is FOSDEM at least somewhere nice and warm?
17:44:22 <geppetto> orionp: Ahh … you so LUCKY!
17:44:44 <tibbs|w> On a related subject, I note that Intel has their own distro which handles the per-cpu-family optimizations for this kind of library.
17:44:52 <mbooth> geppetto: Brussels, so only marginally further South than where I am now
17:44:53 <tibbs|w> I wonder how they do that, and why we can't do the same.
17:45:21 <geppetto> tibbs: Does it do it how glibc does it?
17:45:38 <tibbs|w> "function multiversioning"
17:45:42 <tibbs|w> https://clearlinux.org/
17:45:49 <geppetto> Yeh, I'd assume so then
17:46:06 <geppetto> Although those two words could mean anything ;)
17:46:14 <tibbs|w> https://clearlinux.org/features/function-multiversioning-fmv
17:46:30 <tibbs|w> I think it's something their compiler does.
17:46:34 <Rathann> orionp: what blas/lapack stuff?
17:46:44 <tibbs|w> Which probably bones AMD just for fun.
17:46:51 <orionp> Rathann: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/588
17:46:59 <geppetto> Oh that seems to be an icc features
17:47:25 <geppetto> Yeh, not like what glibc does at all then
17:47:26 <geppetto> Oh well.
17:47:34 <Rathann> oh, it looks like I missed this one
17:48:06 <Rathann> I wish we could have drop-in blas/lapack implementations
17:48:58 * orionp still waiting for hdf5 to finish on arm....
17:49:16 <Rathann> but yeah, I agree with deciding on one canonical implementation
17:49:24 <Rathann> is openblas available everywhere now?
17:50:41 <Rathann> looks like it is
17:50:42 <Rathann> nice
17:50:43 <tibbs|w> There are a couple of other random things we could talk about.
17:50:54 <tibbs|w> One is file triggers.
17:50:58 <tibbs|w> The other is that %license thing.
17:51:47 <orionp> Rathann: still no ppc64
17:51:57 <orionp> just ppc64le
17:52:12 <Rathann> ah
17:52:59 <Rathann> and no aarch64
17:53:58 <geppetto> tibbs: file triggers, still waiting on me to do a proposal … and rpm bugs to get fixed.
17:54:22 <tibbs|w> Do we know how those rpm bugs actually block the file triggers we want to use?
17:54:59 <tibbs|w> Or, are there any we could implement without having to worry about those bugs?  And if not, what about the current uses of file triggers already in the distro?
17:55:05 <geppetto> AIUI … you move from scriptlets to file triggers and rpm doesn't call the file triggers when it should … then people get annoyed because you went from working to not working.
17:55:45 <geppetto> Yeh, I did wonder about the current users … if they'd just assumed they worked, and were used in cases where it wasn't obvious if the triggers weren't always called
17:55:47 <tibbs|w> You'd think that if they were that broken, the rpm folks would either be telling us not to use them, or working like crazy on fixes.
17:56:08 <tibbs|w> I don't even know how to debug them if they aren't working.  I'm not sure rpm even tells you when they run.
17:56:19 <geppetto> rpm guys are busy on the rpmdb format change.
17:57:10 <geppetto> The rpm verbosity levels might tell you, but it didn't inspire confidence that the systemd guys were putting echo statements everywhere.
17:57:21 <tibbs|w> Right.
17:57:40 <geppetto> I did think the 1284645 bug would have been fixed by now though
17:57:47 <tibbs|w> Though not to be a dick, but maybe the rpm folks could debug one feature before getting super busy with another.
17:57:55 <geppetto> :)
17:58:16 <tibbs|w> Also, I was in a discussion somewhere about systemd never being able to use file triggers because they won't have enough information to do what is necessary.
17:58:38 <geppetto> huh … that's interesting … you know where it happened?
17:59:02 <tibbs|w> I think on one of the mailing lists.
17:59:06 <geppetto> :)
17:59:13 <Rathann> sorry, guys, but I have to drop off now
17:59:22 <geppetto> Rathann: no problem … almost done anyway, I think
17:59:26 <geppetto> See you next week.
17:59:28 <Rathann> take care, bye
17:59:44 <tibbs|w> It was on fedora-devel; "no systemd in containers: Requires -> Recommends"
17:59:55 <tibbs|w> December 17 or thereabouts.
18:00:03 <geppetto> #action geppetto Look for systemd can't use file triggers discussion.
18:00:15 <geppetto> #action geppetto Ping rpm people about 1284645.
18:00:23 <geppetto> tibbs: Thanks
18:00:49 <tibbs|w> Good luck finding that in the new archives.
18:02:36 <tibbs|w> I just want a subject list, not a highly paginated forum.
18:03:08 <geppetto> I email archive devel list locally
18:03:29 <geppetto> In theory I read it too … but usually only when someone points to something.
18:03:54 <tibbs|w> "Only the package scriptlets know whether some service is installed or upgraded and have enough information to properly support presets and restarts."
18:04:26 <geppetto> Ahh
18:04:34 <tibbs|w> Anyway, I guess the whole is too complicated to really do much work before F24 branches.
18:04:53 <geppetto> Well, yeh, given it still has bugs
18:05:38 <tibbs|w> I had hoped that there were at least some simple cases where it could be used.
18:05:47 * geppetto nods
18:05:54 <tibbs|w> I mean, ldconfig is about the simplest scriptlet of all.
18:05:57 <geppetto> As you said, we already have a few users
18:06:11 <tibbs|w> And the most used (besides probably the texlive scriptlet, because texlive).
18:06:55 <geppetto> Yeh, ldconfig could probably be converted anyway … even with the bugs
18:08:00 <tibbs|w> It's something that needs experimentation, I guess.
18:08:05 * geppetto nods
18:08:24 <geppetto> Anyway … anything else, or I'll close in a minute or so and let everyone get some lunch.
18:08:33 <tibbs|w> And the %license thing, can we just not deal with it until we see if I can get epel-rpm-macros in?
18:08:54 <tibbs|w> It's in EL6 stable now; I just need to file a ticket to get it in the buildroot.
18:09:10 <tibbs|w> I am doing mass rebuilds for testing, but I keep running into unrelated bugs.
18:09:28 <tibbs|w> Like I can kill the kernel keyring with all of my kerberos tickets from running builds on a pile of hosts.
18:09:47 <tibbs|w> Once that gets sorted, I can build EPEL6 in about an hour.
18:10:20 <geppetto> yeh, seems fine to me
18:18:42 <tibbs|w> Sorry, someone was at the door.
18:18:58 <geppetto> no problem … busy reading devel threads anyway
18:19:06 <tibbs|w> Anyway, any macro change has the potential to break something so that's why I'm testing.
18:19:11 <geppetto> Anyway … I think we are done here, right?
18:20:02 <tibbs|w> But since no mass builds are done, EPEL6 is in worse state than I'd hoped.
18:20:15 * geppetto nods
18:20:27 <tibbs|w> Anyway, yeah, I'm done.  I really want to get the mass build and final analysis of EPEL6 done today.
18:20:34 <geppetto> Cool
18:21:56 <geppetto> #endmeeting