21:00:07 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL
21:00:07 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Nov 13 21:00:07 2009 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:07 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:20 <nirik> #topic Init process.
21:01:35 <nirik> who all is around for meeting today?
21:03:02 <nirik> might be a short meeting if I'm the only one around. ;)
21:03:08 <daemoen> hehe
21:03:21 * dgilmore is here
21:04:26 <nirik> I didn't have much today anyhow...
21:04:43 <nirik> #topic Status update on action items
21:05:04 <nirik> smooge: any update on blocking those el5 packages? Or dgilmore?
21:05:13 <dgilmore> crap
21:05:20 <dgilmore> we need to just do it already
21:05:21 <nirik> rayvd: any new info on fuse?
21:05:25 <nirik> dgilmore: yep. ;(
21:06:20 <nirik> those are really the only items I had. ;)
21:06:26 <smooge> nirik, my fault I forgot til I saw the email this mroning
21:06:32 <smooge> so no update.
21:06:39 <smooge> will put in a fesco ticket to get er done
21:06:51 <smooge> would that be the right procedure dgilmore ?
21:06:54 <nirik> smooge: just get them to dgilmore, and he can block them...
21:07:33 <dgilmore> i just need the list of packag names
21:07:44 <dgilmore> ait will take probably 5 minutes to do
21:08:11 <nirik> dgilmore: if you could post to the epel-devel list once they are blocked and the final list that would be lovely.
21:08:35 <rayvd> nirik: nothing exciting.  i'll run another pass and see what new packages have been branched and post to the list.
21:09:05 <nirik> rayvd: excellent.
21:09:26 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
21:09:34 <nirik> anything for open floor? thats really all I had.
21:10:13 <smooge> mediawiki
21:10:32 <smooge> the devil of FESCO meetings today it would seem
21:10:41 <nirik> ah yes, that fun.
21:11:05 <smooge> I am making my way through the fesco ticket and wondering what the hell I got into when I said I would support the damn package a year ago
21:11:09 <nirik> on one hand, it's bad to diverge between epel and fedora. On the other, it would be nice to have it packaged sanely in epel.
21:11:22 <daemoen> i have a question for you guys.  it seems like *alot* of the packages that have been avail in rpmforge are starting to make their way into epel.  is the goal to have everything from rpmforge rebuilt in a *safe* manner and extend the availability of packages for epel, or is that just a coincidence?
21:11:41 <smooge> coincidence.
21:11:46 <rayvd> my guess is coincidence
21:11:54 <nirik> daemoen: there is no specific goal to repackage anything from rpmfforge
21:11:55 <rayvd> if something isn't in epel that i need, i package it...
21:12:07 <smooge> there is little overlap in packaging methods from rpmforge to epel
21:12:28 <daemoen> smooge: i realize that, thats why i was curious when i found perl-Net-SNMP and XMPP in epel
21:12:32 <rayvd> probably more accurate to say a loose goal is to have all from fedora in epel (where possible) :)
21:12:39 <nirik> yep.
21:12:40 <smooge> basically people ask for something and we take what passed fedora review and repackage to EPEL
21:12:47 <smooge> s/repackage/recompile/
21:12:48 <daemoen> ahh, kk
21:13:23 <smooge> so eventually the two may be complete copies of each other in non-compatible ways :)
21:13:52 <smooge> but thats sort of what happens with multi-repo environments.
21:13:55 <nirik> any other items for open floor?
21:14:21 <smooge> and to put it in the record, we aren't officially or unofficially trying to take out rpmforge .
21:15:10 <daemoen> smooge: wether or not its official or not, or even being attempted, the fact of the matter is that epel and rpmfusion are safer repositories than rpmforge, and alot of us that use the repos are aware of that ;)
21:15:40 <daemoen> but not trying to start a flame or dissing war either
21:15:49 <daemoen> rpmforge served many people for quite a long time :)
21:16:02 <daemoen> are you guys still looking for more packagers?
21:17:27 <nirik> always. ;)
21:17:59 <daemoen> still using the guidelines from fedora packagers?
21:18:43 <nirik> yes
21:19:45 <daemoen> one of the things i have not seen covered in the guidelines is how to properly handle building for multiple archtypes
21:19:59 <daemoen> do you prefer independent build machines for each archtype, or just flagging the archtype for the build?
21:21:03 <daemoen> im guessing that since ive seen most official packages released from koji that you just pass the arch flag
21:22:14 <dgilmore> daemoen: we use mock
21:22:45 <dgilmore> daemoen: we have x86_64 and ppc64 builders
21:22:57 <daemoen> so they are all independent
21:23:00 <daemoen> k
21:23:01 <dgilmore> we build 32 bit and 64 bit on them
21:23:15 <daemoen> ok, so they arent independent...  they are using the arch flag.  thats what i wasnt sure of
21:23:19 <dgilmore> mock creates 32 bit or 64 bit chroots and we build in it
21:23:23 <daemoen> ahh, nice
21:23:27 <daemoen> didnt know mock supported that
21:24:04 <dgilmore> everything is built natively
21:24:18 <dgilmore> we dont suuport or allow cross compilaiton
21:24:26 <nirik> daemoen: if you are a fedora packager you can start in maintaining right away. If not, you will need to get sponsored, but then can start helping...
21:25:21 <daemoen> not a maintainer yet
21:25:27 <daemoen> and still trying to get better with my spec file writing :)
21:25:46 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join has the process... (I know it's long, but its not really that bad)
21:25:55 <daemoen> one of the only reasons i havent tried to get involved yet
21:28:54 <nirik> well, happy to answer questions on the process... just hit up #epel or #fedora-devel. ;)
21:29:06 * nirik will close out the meeting in a few here if there are no further topics.
21:30:29 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone!
21:31:08 <nirik> #endmeeting