21:00:14 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL Meeting
21:00:23 <nirik> #topic Init Process / Roll Call
21:00:30 <nirik> who all is around for an epel meeting.
21:00:35 * jds2001 
21:00:47 <itamarjp> #info
21:01:35 * nirik will wait a few more for more folks to show up.
21:01:50 <nirik> itamarjp: that just notes an information for the log... not info about the meeting. ;)
21:02:47 <smooge> here
21:03:24 <nirik> I guess we can go ahead and start in...
21:03:31 <nirik> #topic Blocking packages already in RHEL
21:03:47 <nirik> So, ricky was kind enough to run a script and find some packages in both epel and rhel. ;(
21:04:05 <jds2001> any where we'er favored?
21:04:07 <nirik> is there any reason we shouldn't just go block them all asap and remove them from epel?
21:04:20 <jds2001> i.e. our evr is higher?
21:04:45 <nirik> in rhel4 only one I see:
21:04:53 <nirik> perl-TimeDate
21:05:26 <smooge> well the issues are : were they tech-previews and now not
21:05:41 <nirik> in rhel5: perl-Net-Telnet and python-setuptools
21:05:55 <jds2001> im not entirely sure that it matters if they were tech-preview or not.
21:05:58 <nirik> looking more closely tho, some of the list doesn't seem right
21:05:59 <smooge> the script shows against RHEL5 in RHN and that will show stuff they don't support any more
21:06:00 <jds2001> or maybe still are.
21:06:32 <smooge> so the issue with tech-previews or some other items is that RHEL-5.1 might have had it but 5.2+ might not
21:06:43 <jds2001> i dont think anything has ever been dropped, has it?
21:06:57 <nirik> is there any way we can identify such things?
21:06:59 <jds2001> just moved from tech-preview to supported. or forever tech-preview.
21:07:20 <jds2001> either way, it's included in the distro.
21:07:22 <smooge> I check against CentOS myself :)
21:07:36 <smooge> if its not in 5.4 its no longer supported :)
21:08:03 <smooge> basically the usual check is release notes or looking in the .src.rpms
21:08:10 * ricky is here
21:08:19 <nirik> hey ricky. ;)
21:08:47 <nirik> ricky: I see in your version check that trowsers is listed in both, but only the rhel version is listed?
21:08:52 <ricky> Ah, so centos could be a good place to check
21:09:36 <ricky> Interesting, I must have done something wrong with the script I used
21:10:10 <nirik> I can take care of filing bugs on the 2 packages with duplicate files ownership... unless someone else would like to do that?
21:10:38 <ricky> There definitely seems to be an EL-5 branch for trousers, but now that I search for it, I only see the one from Red Hat.
21:10:46 <nirik> then for the rest we need a final list of what we are going to remove, post to the list and maintainers and watch for screams and then remove them.
21:11:21 <smooge> yes. it would be good to see if it was something like "They said they were moving it to EPEL"
21:11:33 <smooge> which in some ways is positive for EPEL :)
21:12:30 * Jeff_S pokes his head in late
21:12:36 <Jeff_S> sorry, had a phone meeting
21:12:58 <nirik> welcome Jeff_S
21:13:53 <nirik> so, does someone want to take lead on the list of packages we need to nuke?
21:15:04 <smooge> I will
21:15:18 <nirik> excellent.
21:15:36 <nirik> #action smooge will generate a list of packages that overlap that we should block/remove.
21:15:49 <smooge> I will have it by next meeting
21:15:50 <nirik> #action nirik will file bugs on the packages that have conflicts with files in rhel packages.
21:16:04 <nirik> Anything else on this? or shall we move on?
21:16:41 <nirik> #topic Incompatible version upgrades process/guidelines
21:16:44 <ricky> smooge: My (pretty simplistic) scripts are in ~ricky/epeltest on puppet1 if you're interested - we can hopefully get them in a repo somewhere and polish them up
21:17:00 <smooge> ok thanks
21:17:18 <nirik> so, we had a meeting a few weeks back where it seemed the consensus was to just announce them, try and notify people and then just do it.
21:17:22 <nirik> is that still the case?
21:17:54 <nirik> if so, I think we should come up with a guideline on how to notify people, what to do when, etc.
21:18:43 <nirik> or do we need more discussion on what we want to do?
21:18:44 <smooge> I believe so
21:18:56 <jds2001> that seems reasonable (the draft guidelines part)
21:18:58 <smooge> I believe that the method you said is what we agreed on
21:19:00 <Jeff_S> nirik: seemed to me like we're all in agreement
21:19:03 <smooge> slow typer
21:19:35 <nirik> would someone like to write that up? I had a proposed one on the mailing list.
21:19:55 <nirik> or would you like me to try and do so.
21:20:07 <jds2001> sure, i can take a stab at it
21:20:19 <nirik> cool.
21:20:30 <smooge> by the way, thankyou jds2001 for doing an epel blog
21:20:49 <nirik> #action jds2001 will write up an incompatible upgrades policy draft on the wiki
21:20:53 <jds2001> np. hope it made sense :)
21:22:00 <nirik> shall we move along then?
21:22:19 <Jeff_S> yes please :)
21:22:23 <nirik> #topic EPEL roadmap - where do we go from here?
21:22:42 <nirik> I stuck this on the list... does anyone have pie in the sky dreams for epel we could work toward?
21:22:42 <jds2001> to drink beer :)
21:22:46 <smooge> EVERY PACKAGE IN EPELE!!!!
21:22:53 <nirik> what do we want in a shiny utopia of ideal epel?
21:23:05 <nirik> jds2001: a fine plan. ;)
21:23:20 <drago01> no bugs ;)
21:23:23 <nirik> smooge: yeah, that would be cool. If might even be close to possible on rhel6 for a short time.
21:23:45 <nirik> yeah, killing all bugs would be nice too.
21:23:47 <jds2001> i somehow doubt it :)
21:23:48 <smooge> I would like EPEL to be a base set of packages outside of RHEL that sites could use to install other packages
21:23:53 <Jeff_S> better inter-op with ie. centos-extras, dag, etc. would be nice for users
21:24:41 <smooge> Jeff_S I wish for that too.. but in the end it boils down to the politics of the CLA or not
21:24:47 <nirik> BTW, we currently have 138 EPEL bugs.
21:25:10 <nirik> so, how can we move toward all or any of these goals?
21:25:28 <Jeff_S> nirik: the only one I have an easy solution for is jds2001 suggestion
21:25:29 * jds2001 was supposed to investigate using python-fedora to get viable list of bug
21:25:50 * jds2001 failed there
21:26:00 <Jeff_S> sounds like we need to start paying more attention to bugs and/or driving more people to help with them
21:26:05 <smooge> well Jeff_S's goal would probably be to keep interacting with the other groups at conferences and outside to see if there is any common ground.
21:26:38 <Jeff_S> smooge: the common ground is there, and the users typically just want things to work.  it's not easy to make that happen though if it's possible at all
21:26:40 <smooge> my goal was more of a joke, but I think that when EL-6 comes out we will be able to have a "Testing" with lots of stuff in it
21:26:41 <nirik> I see the centos folks are talking about a review/guidelines for extra packages on the devel list.
21:26:56 * jds2001 is now officially broke sense i moved to NYC :)
21:27:06 <jds2001> the conference-going budget is slashed :D
21:27:08 <Jeff_S> jds2001: eww
21:27:25 <inode0> !
21:27:27 <jds2001> Jeff_S: eww what?
21:27:31 <jds2001> @
21:27:34 <jds2001> #
21:27:35 <nirik> inode0: feel free to jump in.
21:28:01 <inode0> Is anyone from EPEL going to the Summit? If not I'd be happy to proxy for EPEL to try to gather information.
21:28:15 * jds2001 is not going :(
21:28:19 * jds2001 sad cookie.
21:28:21 <Jeff_S> jds2001: ewww not having $$
21:28:30 <Jeff_S> inode0: I'm not
21:28:30 * nirik is not gonna be there. ;(
21:29:12 <inode0> Just asking people, "do you use EPEL?" might be interesting.
21:29:41 <smooge> I won't be going to the summit
21:29:49 <nirik> yeah, that would be great if you could do some informal polling
21:30:11 <smooge> this summit seems more like a "Who is going?" versus "Who isnt"
21:30:47 <jds2001> yeah, first one in 3 years i've missed
21:31:48 <nirik> inode0: if you're willing to ask around and let us know what people say that would be great. ;)
21:32:11 <nirik> shall we move on then?
21:32:31 <dgilmore> i may go one day
21:32:39 <nirik> #action inode0 will be at the summit and ask folks about EPEL for us.
21:33:06 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
21:33:13 <nirik> any items for open floor from anyone?
21:33:48 <smooge> not for me
21:33:55 <jds2001> nor I
21:34:20 * nirik will close out the meeting in 60sec if nothing comes up.
21:35:11 <Jeff_S> thanks everyone
21:35:19 <Jeff_S> that was fast
21:35:21 <nirik> #endmeeting