21:00:02 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL SIG
21:00:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep 11 21:00:02 2009 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:09 <nirik> #topic roll call
21:00:55 <derks> here
21:01:00 <derks> for epel meeting
21:01:04 <nirik> welcome. :)
21:01:13 * stahnma is in
21:01:41 * mmcgrath is here
21:01:53 <nirik> smooge / jds2001 / rayvd ? you guys around?
21:03:14 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and get started I guess... .
21:03:20 <nirik> #topic Status update on action items
21:03:36 <nirik> stahnma: anything to report from the summit? and/or inode0?
21:04:05 * warren watching
21:04:40 <stahnma> not a whole lot
21:05:00 <stahnma> from the few I spoke to about EPEL, most don't use it much
21:05:05 <stahnma> they grab RPMs from wherever
21:05:21 <stahnma> and mostly deal with things like oracle, db2, weblogic and crap like that
21:05:24 * mmcgrath thinks we need marketing :)
21:05:24 <stahnma> :)
21:05:41 * stahnma thinks we need solid practices, oh and the packages people need
21:05:43 <nirik> yeah, marketing would be nice.
21:05:56 <nirik> that too.
21:05:58 <mmcgrath> stahnma: ubuntu has proven we don't need that to be successful :-P
21:06:20 <maxamillion> sorry I'm late
21:06:27 <nirik> no worries... welcome maxamillion
21:07:00 <nirik> should we look at doing talks/something at summits?
21:07:22 <maxamillion> nirik: talking about FUDCon or $other?
21:07:26 <mmcgrath> nirik: maybe, but so few people actually end up going to the summit
21:07:33 <rayvd> i am here.
21:07:35 <mmcgrath> and the FUDCon people know about it
21:07:37 <rayvd> sorta.  while at work. :)
21:07:38 <nirik> maxamillion: Red Hat summit
21:07:43 <mmcgrath> no need to advertise to ourselves :)
21:07:47 <stahnma> good point :)
21:07:57 <maxamillion> nirik: ah ... yeah, wanna go to the next one ... I'd love to give a talk if they'd let us
21:08:34 <nirik> yeah, I don't know what kind of crowd is at the summits... the only one I went to was the one with a fudcon attached.
21:09:07 <stahnma> I would have liked fudcon to be attached
21:09:11 <derks> any idea how many epel users there are out there?
21:09:23 <stahnma> preaching community without Fedora there kind of defeats itself
21:09:30 <nirik> derks: no idea. ;) we could ask mmcgrath to look at some mirror stats for us or something...
21:09:32 <mmcgrath> 'users' is a tough thing to track if it means the number of humans that use it
21:09:54 <derks> i guess i mean boxes subscribed...  which is hard to pull from yum
21:10:00 <derks> and a hundred mirrors
21:10:27 <derks> maybe if you look at the stats for mirrormanager | grep epel
21:10:52 <derks> err mirrorlist
21:11:15 <nirik> there are not nearly as many epel mirrors as fedora mirrors...
21:11:32 <nirik> but it's still really hard to say how many end machines/users there are.
21:11:50 <nirik> anything more on the summit? or shall we move along?
21:11:57 <mmcgrath> looking at just yesterday we had 49,184 unique IP's and 163,220 individual hits.
21:12:04 <mmcgrath> which to me implies lots of nat'ing
21:12:30 <maxamillion> I think that's a decent number of users
21:12:36 <stahnma> and there are several internal mirror of epel
21:12:37 <smooge> nirik sorry was in another meeting
21:12:39 <nirik> yeah, I would expect more in the epel world of that than in the fedora world.
21:13:16 <mmcgrath> no doubt, I'd say we're healthy if nothing else.
21:14:03 <maxamillion> so I guess the question is, would the Summit be accepting of EPEL talks?
21:14:22 <derks> its definitely growing via our customer base, but there is still a stigma around using non rhel repos
21:14:28 <smooge> maxamillion, thats up to people outside of our control :)
21:14:41 <mmcgrath> nirik: it was roughly 15% of the total unique IP's that hit our mirrorlist yesterday
21:14:54 <nirik> cool.
21:14:54 <stahnma> wow, that's pretty good
21:15:01 <maxamillion> smooge: right, which is kinda of my point .... do we want to discuss topics and points of interest before we have a "yes" or "no"?
21:15:13 <smooge> yes
21:15:32 <mmcgrath> closer to 17.5% of the total hits to the site.  Further evidence of more nat in EPEL then Fedora :)
21:15:51 <smooge> because you have to have topics of interest before you can find out what will be accepted
21:16:01 <maxamillion> smooge: fair enough
21:16:55 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: i expect that epel mirror stats are heavily underestimating useage
21:17:17 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: since most people using rhel/CentOs are like to have multiple machines behind nat
21:17:23 <mmcgrath> dgilmore: me too, I bet there's lots of people using EPEL that have resources (and reason) to run their own mirrors as well.
21:17:32 <dgilmore> mmcgrath: right
21:18:37 <rayvd> good topic for a potential talk would be telling people how to pull epel in as a custom channel to their satellite server
21:18:54 <stahnma> I think the spacewalk list has a script for that
21:19:05 <maxamillion> rayvd++
21:19:05 <stahnma> if not, they have something very similar
21:19:16 <rayvd> perfect.
21:19:24 <derks> that would be great (rh satellite admin here)
21:19:35 <rayvd> or convince RH to make it available in RHN :P
21:19:57 <jds2001> nirik: im semihere
21:19:58 <maxamillion> rayvd: that would be amazing ... though I imagine highly unlikely
21:20:14 <rayvd> yeah, probably. :)
21:20:23 <stahnma> in spacewalk (currently) you can import a yum repo
21:20:26 <stahnma> and it reposyncs it
21:20:35 <stahnma> satellite 5.3 might have that (not sure)
21:20:36 <jds2001> stahnma: i was just gonna say that :)
21:20:43 <jds2001> if not, 5.4 maybe :)
21:20:48 <rayvd> nice.  i know our version of sat doesn't do that, but you can do other things to pull the rpm's in :)
21:21:23 <dgilmore> stahnma: i dont think its in satellite 5.3  it was new in spacewalk 0.6
21:21:36 <dgilmore> stahnma: and satellite 5.3 is based on spacewalk 0.5
21:21:52 <stahnma> ah, ok
21:22:28 <nirik> something explaining how to do that on the wiki would be cool.
21:23:26 <nirik> anything more on the summit? or shall we move on to other action items?
21:23:34 <stahnma> nothing really more from me
21:24:14 <nirik> Next item: jds2001: Incompatible version upgrades process/guidelines
21:24:18 <nirik> any news on that?
21:24:52 * jds2001 sucks.
21:24:58 <rayvd> :D
21:25:13 <nirik> no worries... we can revisit later.
21:25:13 <maxamillion> swing and a miss?
21:25:16 <maxamillion> :P
21:25:19 <jds2001> lol
21:25:27 <nirik> rayvd: any news on the fuse stuff?
21:26:04 <rayvd> nirik: should have an email sent out to everyone this weekend.
21:26:11 <rayvd> worked out the fu to get the list of all the packages and owners.
21:26:17 <rayvd> thanks to mailing list
21:26:21 <nirik> cool. Excellent. Yeah, I saw that on the list...
21:27:12 <nirik> ok, moving on then.
21:27:17 <nirik> #topic RHEL 5.4
21:27:27 <maxamillion> mmmmm RHEL5.4
21:27:35 <nirik> smooge wanted to mention to folks to help out with CentOS'es QA efforts.
21:27:44 <maxamillion> I'm in
21:27:54 <nirik> I don't know how to contact them about helping, but I suspect the tester list or devel list there would know.
21:28:14 <dgilmore> you could ask in #centos-devel
21:28:14 <maxamillion> I tried to "apply" as a helper a while back on the centos-devel list and was basically told "support people in irc and write crap on the wiki, now go the hell away"
21:28:36 <rayvd> yeah, becoming involved in centos takes a lot of persistence :)
21:28:43 <rayvd> they want you to fix bugs on the bugs site first.
21:29:01 <stahnma> if they have bugs, doesn't that mean upstream has bugs?
21:29:11 <stahnma> I mean, fixing that would require RH to accept the patches we turn in :)
21:29:30 <rayvd> sometimes they have bugs unique to centos though...
21:29:31 <nirik> in any case, if anyone reading wants to help contact the centos folks for details. ;)
21:29:32 <rayvd> but yeah :)
21:29:56 <nirik> Is there anything else with 5.4 we need to do?
21:29:56 <maxamillion> stahnma: more or less, yeah ... but I've heard rumors of the CentOS guys sending patches up to redhat
21:30:08 <nirik> maxamillion: did you ever find out if iotop can come into epel now?
21:30:18 <maxamillion> nirik: it would require a port to python 2.4
21:30:27 <maxamillion> nirik: it currently requires python 2.5 or newer
21:30:31 <nirik> ah, I thought it was just a kernel support issue...
21:30:38 <maxamillion> it was that too
21:30:41 <nirik> and they added the needed counters.
21:30:43 <maxamillion> but now the python problem has come to light
21:31:07 <nirik> ah well. Does anyone seem willing to do that porting?
21:31:20 <maxamillion> nirik: I plan to look at it
21:31:28 <maxamillion> I'd really like to have it in EPEL
21:31:38 <nirik> yeah, it's handy.
21:32:15 <maxamillion> I plan to ping the upstream developer and see what exactly is being used that doesn't have a python 2.4 equivalent/work-around
21:32:22 <maxamillion> actually ... lemme do that righ tnow
21:32:24 <maxamillion> right now*
21:32:50 <nirik> ok, if no other 5.4 business we can move on I guess.
21:32:55 <nirik> maxamillion: thanks.
21:33:07 <derks> maxamillion: time permitting I can help look into that as well
21:33:34 <nirik> #topic newer packages brainstorming
21:33:47 <nirik> so, mmcgrath brought up the idea of doing some newer packages repo on the list.
21:33:49 <maxamillion> derks: sweet! help is more than welcome, free time is hard to come by :/
21:34:17 <nirik> Is that something we want to discuss? There was another repo doing this that announced on list...
21:34:33 <derks> nirik: that's me...  IUS Community
21:34:38 <nirik> so, this might be just something epel isn't interested in doing. How do folks feel about the basic idea?
21:34:49 <nirik> derks: ah ha. ;)
21:34:51 <derks> http://iuscommunity.org
21:35:06 <maxamillion> derks: oh man, that's right! you're the man, I didn't know about that and now I've already got it in use :)
21:35:24 <stahnma> we struggle for volunteers/contributors now.  I honestly don't know if we could sustain another repo.
21:35:27 <derks> I started the IUS project due to the demand that our customers have for the latest and greatest versions of only a small set of packages: PHP/MySQL/python.. etc
21:35:36 <maxamillion> I think we should contribute to IUS in the event someone wants something of that sort
21:36:10 <maxamillion> I know its not open to new developers, but people could file tickets and such in the lp.net instance
21:36:12 <nirik> yeah, one thing I like about epel is that it's very clear and easy to understand that we never replace rhel packages... doing something like this would confuse that message.
21:36:31 <maxamillion> nirik: completely agreed
21:36:38 <nirik> and there isn't likely any way to do parallel installable all the time for things people need.
21:36:56 <derks> I agree.. EPEL should not be replacing RHEL packages..
21:36:58 <nirik> derks: what packages do you have currently? also, note that there is centos plus for some things.
21:37:02 <stahnma> there are a few things I clobber in my rhel instances, but I like that it's my choice, not a third party repo's.
21:37:26 <derks> php52, php53, mysql50, mysql51, python26 (plus a few supporting python26 packages)
21:37:32 <derks> all following upstream stable
21:37:41 <derks> postgresql84 is in the works
21:37:47 <nirik> and those are parallel installable? or conflict?
21:38:20 <derks> nirik: well..  both.  everything conflicts except python26
21:38:28 <derks> it was a hot debate on how best to do it
21:38:50 <derks> but i've found that if you are wanting PHP 5.2 at the latest... you want everything to work as if you upgraded PHP
21:38:54 <derks> and not parrallel
21:39:15 <nirik> right. conflicts also can prevent the two from confusing where a bug is.
21:39:21 <derks> right
21:39:32 <derks> personally i think it needs to be decided on a per package basis
21:39:38 <nirik> mmcgrath: you still around? want to chime in from your point of view?
21:39:47 <derks> python obviously has to be parallel... but mysql?
21:40:04 <mmcgrath> nirik: I'm really just in the boat where I want the packages and wanted to hear what others thought about it.
21:40:12 <mmcgrath> I'm a bit conflicted as to whether or not EPEl should get into it or not
21:40:33 <mmcgrath> Though I agree if we did do it, it would probably conflict with EPELs stated goals
21:40:43 <derks> I'm completely open to discussion on the direction of IUS
21:40:54 * nirik also thinks quaid's post on the list was right... it would need a new brand/name.
21:41:05 <inode0> why postgresql84 when https://projects.commandprompt.com/public/pgcore ?
21:41:36 <derks> :inode0: one repo, one source
21:41:55 <derks> inode0: one person or group to yell at when it breaks
21:42:16 <nirik> derks: are you open to making the repo more community/open? ie, would you be interested in making a new fedora related project like EPEL for this?
21:42:27 <derks> that and IUS generally tries to follow fedora/rhel packaging standards... making for smooth transition
21:42:43 <mmcgrath> nirik: no doubt
21:43:03 <derks> only reason the ius project isn't 'open' to developers now is because I wanted to get everything ironed out
21:43:13 <derks> and set a standard for the project
21:43:24 <nirik> derks: fair enough.
21:43:58 <nirik> one nice thing about epel is that we can say 'you must meet all the fedora guidelines' and we have all the nice Fedora Infrastructure/accounts/builders/etc... (thanks mmcgrath ! :)
21:44:05 <maxamillion> just sent the email to the iotop upstream developer :)
21:44:07 <derks> we've been maintaining these packages internally (rackspace) for 3 years now...  can't just drop it out there without a bit of care
21:44:37 <nirik> derks: sure, understandable.
21:45:06 <derks> nirik: I think epel is great.  and mmgrath I'd be open to discussing a fedora related project like epel
21:45:39 <maxamillion> I'd participate, we've been maintaining our own php5.x on RHEL4 for a couple years now
21:45:48 <nirik> derks: yeah, might be worth thinking about... it could share a lot of the epel setup, but have a different brand/name...
21:45:57 <maxamillion> might as well allow others to enjoy the benefits
21:45:58 <nirik> just brainstorming. ;)
21:46:12 <derks> nirik: that is another reason that packaging is closed... we have an internal build system
21:46:31 <derks> and offloading that to a process that is already setup would be ideal
21:46:37 * quaid comes in late and reads buffer
21:46:49 <derks> *still shakes head at the koji setup*
21:46:52 <mmcgrath> quaid: we all decided you'd buy us dinner at the next FUDCon :)
21:47:10 * stahnma hums some Rush tunes
21:47:13 <nirik> derks: yeah... our setup works. ;)
21:47:32 <nirik> anyhow, I guess we can continue to discuss on list/irc and see what we can make of things...
21:47:41 <derks> nirik: I'm still yet to take on any packaging duties as I haven't quite gotten to spend enough time learning it all
21:47:59 <derks> that said, our internal build system is built around mock and very similar to koji
21:48:07 <nirik> thats good.
21:48:38 <nirik> anything else on newer packages topic?
21:48:50 * nirik should perhaps wait for quaid to read backscroll.
21:48:52 <derks> i'm interested to see what you'r alls ideas are for maintaining newer packages
21:49:08 <quaid> +1 to us looking at Fedora collaborating on a different, compatible EL packaging solution.
21:49:09 <dgilmore> derks: koji is pretty easy  to setup
21:49:18 <stahnma> are newer packages for EL and Fedora Legacy or LTS roughly the same ?
21:49:40 <quaid> stahnma: pieces of a related puzzle?
21:49:54 <stahnma> well, either way, I get newer stuff, more often...I think
21:50:00 <quaid> nirik: thanks, done reading
21:50:16 <maxamillion> dgilmore: good, we're going to have to setup our own build system here at work ... more and more custom packages are being requested
21:50:24 <maxamillion> :/
21:50:38 <quaid> I would say we should even see if we can contribute Fedora Infrastructure bits, but have a third-party branded hosting experience.
21:50:46 <nirik> maxamillion: just get a form email that says 'no'. ;)
21:50:54 <quaid> i.e., do what we say we can do -- recreated, derive from the Fedora + EPEL tools and processes
21:51:11 <quaid> for seeding a new project, with Fedora as an organizational collaborator.
21:51:20 <quaid> <eoreaction>
21:52:56 <nirik> well, If we had enough people interested I could see us adding another project not named EPEL that does this. I'm not sure we have enough folks interested, so I would say for now lets point at derks repo and see if we can gather enough to make doing something in FI worthwhile.
21:53:35 <nirik> I think there are a lot of consumers interested, but not sure how that translates into maintainers maintaining. ;)
21:53:35 <derks> nirik: I'm totally open to the idea of possibly eventually merging IUS over to a collaborative effort
21:53:55 <nirik> derks: cool. How much interest have you had so far? lots?
21:54:10 <derks> nirik: the one thing i think has to be set is...  not maintaining newer versions of everything...  keep it small
21:54:32 <quaid> derks +1 to keep it small :)
21:54:41 <maxamillion> nirik: $boss seems to say otherwise
21:54:44 <nirik> yeah, thats hard to do sometimes too... some random person may really want some niche thing.
21:54:45 <derks> well.. within the last week just a few subscribers.  but like i said we've been doing this internally at rackspace for our customers for years
21:55:00 <derks> thousands of customers using latest PHP and MySQL
21:55:30 <derks> latest as in php-5.2.10, and mysql-5.0.84 (soon to be 85)
21:55:34 <nirik> perhaps a 'only stable upstream releases' would cut it down some... depending on the package.
21:56:01 <derks> nirik: that's the direction of IUS...
21:56:16 <nirik> anyhow, I think we can discuss more on this on list/in #epel and see what we can do. ;)
21:56:28 <derks> upstream releases plus fixes when possible
21:56:30 * nirik is going to move on to open floor unless someone has something else for this.
21:56:49 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
21:56:55 <nirik> anyone have anything for open floor?
21:57:03 <maxamillion> neg
21:57:13 <nirik> dgilmore: I have a quick question if you are still around... did the builders get updated for 4.8 ?
21:57:31 <dgilmore> nirik: happens automatically
21:57:54 <nirik> cool. I didn't know if it did as infrastructure doesn't have any 4.x machines that I know of
21:58:00 <dgilmore> nirik: the job the mirrors rhn is tagged to the regullar release
21:58:07 <dgilmore> no zstream anything
21:58:14 <nirik> ok, good to know.
21:58:15 <dgilmore> so when rhel bumps we bunp
21:58:47 <dgilmore> nirik: there is not 4.x boxes in infra anymore
21:59:00 <nirik> ok, anything else for open floor from anyone? or shall we close out the meeting?
21:59:04 <maxamillion> gotta run
21:59:09 <derks> not for me
21:59:18 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone.
21:59:30 <nirik> #endmeeting