19:34:27 <smooge> #startmeeting EPEL
19:34:27 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 20 19:34:27 2010 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:34:27 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:34:39 <smooge> #meetingname EPEL 2010-09-20
19:34:39 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_2010-09-20'
19:34:49 <smooge> #chairs tremble stahnma nirik
19:34:57 <smooge> #chair tremble stahnma nirik
19:34:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: nirik smooge stahnma tremble
19:35:09 * nirik is around.
19:35:15 * tremble is here
19:35:24 <stahnma> check
19:35:26 <smooge> is sort of here.. has to deal with some issues
19:35:31 <smooge> #topic
19:35:40 <smooge> #topic Broken Deps
19:36:02 <smooge> stahnma has a list of broken deps that I think we should remove from epel
19:36:05 <stahnma> well, I didn't send out a new report
19:36:06 <stahnma> yet...
19:36:14 <smooge> dgilmore, ping
19:36:25 <stahnma> yes, I think we need a procedure for pulling packages from stable and putting them back in testing
19:36:39 <stahnma> the list is getting smaller, which is good
19:36:48 <stahnma> but there are some that just won't be fixed anytime in the near future
19:37:02 <smooge> I think some things are just going to be out period. asterisk is really an EL-6 tool not EL-5
19:37:39 * stahnma kicks off the dep script...
19:38:49 <tremble> git-bugzilla isn't going to be fixed any time soon.
19:39:06 <stahnma> nor ruby-dbus
19:39:38 <smooge> so I think we mark them dead and have dgilmore remove
19:39:49 <smooge> ok anything else?
19:39:54 <stahnma> I was thikning that moving them to testing might work
19:40:08 <stahnma> i mean, some organizations might have the deps built in their own repo or something
19:40:10 <nirik> if they are broken, why not drop them?
19:40:15 <nirik> why back to testing?
19:40:27 <nirik> then they could also have that package in their repos?
19:40:32 * tremble nods
19:40:50 <dgilmore> smooge: pong
19:40:52 <stahnma> ok, so if we mark them dead, and then one day we get the deps, do we marked them undead ??? Zombies!
19:41:26 <tremble> I think they should possibly get tagged all the way back to candidate...
19:41:28 <smooge> dgilmore, stahnma is making a list of broken deps in EPEL. We would like to get them removed
19:41:34 <dgilmore> smooge: ok
19:41:45 <stahnma> smooge: some of them we might be able to get the deps for without much hassle
19:41:53 <stahnma> I haven't looked into all of them yet
19:42:06 <tremble> The ones talking about libevent just need a bump and build.
19:42:23 <tremble> Which really just needs a prooven packager.
19:42:38 <stahnma> tremble: if you send me which ones they are, I can do them
19:42:50 <tremble> Ok will do
19:43:59 <stahnma> for most of the ruby deps I am waiting on a single bug to be fixed
19:44:02 <stahnma> then I can fix them
19:44:15 <stahnma> and the fix was built over the weekend
19:46:16 <smooge> stahnma, ok how about this. Lets get a list of stuff that has been broken for a while to the list. Next week we vote on what stays and what is sent off the island.
19:46:28 <stahnma> sounds good
19:46:37 <stahnma> I mean, there is plenty of stuff that is in that camp, just not all of it
19:47:23 <stahnma> I'll try to get a list sent out today/tomorrow
19:47:34 <stahnma> when do you want to start running these again EL6?
19:47:43 <stahnma> and I suppose I should do el4 also...
19:48:19 <tremble> I suggest we wait for the decision on what RHEL6 is going to look like before running them for 6
19:48:25 <stahnma> good plan
19:49:01 <stahnma> next topic?
19:49:36 <tremble> Bugz
19:49:42 <smooge> #topic Bugz?
19:50:09 <tremble> #info http://tr.im/epelbugs
19:50:22 <stahnma> I think the count is down this week
19:50:25 <stahnma> by about 15
19:50:28 <stahnma> maybe 20
19:50:35 <stahnma> nice job tremble
19:50:44 <stahnma> I closed 1, but then opened 1
19:51:06 * nirik didn't specifically close any. I suck.
19:51:07 <stahnma> anybody else do any bug work over the last week?
19:51:27 <smooge> heheh I love Urgent Low bugs
19:51:55 <stahnma> tremble: did you whiteboard any of the bugs?
19:52:04 <tremble> A few
19:52:15 <stahnma> ok
19:52:40 <stahnma> I wish I had a bit more time to spend on bugs, but alas I don't
19:52:49 <tremble> I may try whiteboarding a few more over the next week or so
19:53:06 <smooge> who is going to FudCon NA this year?
19:53:18 <stahnma> I am going to try
19:53:27 <mdomsch> smooge: highly likely I will
19:53:34 <stahnma> AZ in Jan sounds a lot better than BOS in Jan
19:53:39 <smooge> bah
19:53:56 <Oxf13> smooge: i got funding approval, haven't booked flight
19:54:10 <smooge> the reason is that we may just pencil in a half-day on bug removal
19:54:17 * nirik hopes to. Work is on no travel right now, but might be different in jan.
19:54:31 <smooge> ah I understand
19:54:48 * stahnma assumes that if he is going, he is paying himself.  Business doesn't like to help :(
19:55:54 * stahnma still likes the idea of people trying to close 1 EPEL bug a week
19:56:03 * stahnma votes to continue with the practice/goal
19:56:15 * tremble agrees
19:56:20 <nirik> yeah.
19:56:39 <tremble> would be nice if we could keep the bug count dropping for a little while.
19:56:53 <stahnma> sadly, several of them are probably WONTFIX
19:56:55 <smooge> ok
19:57:23 <smooge> #topic Yum Repo Weight
19:58:06 <nirik> I'm fine with doing that if folks want...
19:58:07 <stahnma> I don't have a big opinion on this one.  It seems to be an edge case where it helps
19:58:15 <nirik> yeah.
19:58:16 <stahnma> and it feels repotaggish to me
19:58:26 <smooge> alright from my discussions with CentOS, they have no concerns about it because as far as several are concerned it is a RH owned/operated group so its internal to RH :) [And repotags]
19:58:33 <nirik> well, it specifically helps us in 6
19:58:46 <nirik> we could only do it there for now?
19:59:00 <smooge> well the builders Oxf13 brought up why its not a good idea
19:59:11 <tremble> I'm all for setting a weighting I keep being bugged to update cairomm
19:59:30 <smooge> I mean we are looking at doing this because why?
20:00:00 <nirik> because we are shipping some packages that are only in x86_64 in rhel6 in all branches... we would prefer that people get theirs over the epel one...
20:00:02 <stahnma> It only helps if there are two third-party repos with the same NEVR right?
20:00:07 <nirik> at least thats what I thought it was for.
20:00:13 <nirik> stahnma: right
20:00:15 <Oxf13> yes
20:00:22 <Oxf13> to yum's POV they have to be identical
20:00:30 <stahnma> are we shipping things in i386/ppc that RHEL isn't but they do ship in x86_64?
20:00:48 <smooge> and excludearch is a problem for those packages?
20:01:00 <smooge> cairomm I guess
20:01:26 <nirik> because if we add excludearch it is more of a pain to maintain and more chance for error.
20:01:41 <nirik> if we just say: 'import the rhel version exactly into epel as it is in rhel'
20:01:50 <nirik> there's much less likely to be mistakes with versions or the like.
20:02:14 <tremble> cairomm should just go, it's available for all arches
20:02:23 <nirik> so, I think this is worthwhile for el6, but nothing else...
20:02:30 <nirik> tremble: agreed.
20:02:32 <stahnma> I'm fine with it.
20:02:39 <stahnma> I just don't see a ton of point in it
20:02:53 <smooge> Oxf13, does that answer you question from list?
20:03:21 <smooge> tremble, so you need to have cairomm removed from EL-6?
20:03:33 <smooge> I am confused from earlier sentence
20:03:47 <tremble> smooge, I so no reason for cairomm being in the EPEL-6 repo
20:04:07 <smooge> so it is currently and we need to remove it
20:04:43 * tremble nods
20:05:05 <nirik> note that Oxf13's post was in reply to Paul Howarth's post about a completely different issue.
20:05:18 <smooge> nirik, ok sorry
20:05:23 <nirik> well, perhaps related, but not the same.
20:05:33 <nirik> He wants us to import packages that are only in workstation into epel
20:05:42 <tremble> The Workstation vs Server one? rather than arch one...
20:05:46 <nirik> right.
20:05:52 <smooge> I thought that it was similar because we would be rebuilding things in epel that woudl be in some RHEL repos
20:05:59 <smooge> oh
20:06:02 <smooge> got it
20:06:08 <smooge> we are going to have that problem too
20:06:10 <nirik> right, so yeah, a weight here would also help that case if we allowed it.
20:06:38 <stahnma> weight helps, but we also have to 100% sure that we don't move versions of packages faster/higher than RHEL
20:06:55 <nirik> also, this would get into us bypassing rhel entitlements, which I think is a bad idea.
20:07:19 <tremble> But then most of the point of RhEL entitlements is the support you get...
20:07:23 <nirik> so, on this case I would say we continue to wait for a productivity channel and press for one being made.
20:07:56 <smooge> yeah
20:08:15 <tremble> notting might know more about the current plans, but I suspect they're under wraps until GA...
20:08:29 <schlobinux_> isn't that a temporary issue only ?
20:08:44 <smooge> who knows
20:08:44 <schlobinux_> I mean Centos 6 will likely include the workstation channel
20:09:05 <tremble> z00dax suggested he'd try and split them too...
20:09:23 <nirik> schlobinux_: dunno for sure what they will do.
20:09:50 * schlobinux_ finds to have all Client/Server/VT packages in one repo to be very convenient
20:10:02 <nirik> yeah, I wish rhel would just do that too...
20:10:07 <nirik> sadly, doesn't seem so.
20:10:38 <smooge> I am expecting CentOS6 to slice, dice, and make jullian fries..
20:10:48 <stahnma> ha
20:11:44 <smooge> z00dax probably also has ways  to make it run cyborg armies
20:12:15 <smooge> ok so on this topic. I would like to say hold off on adding a weight until GA
20:12:30 <stahnma> I think that makes sense
20:12:49 <tremble> The other advantage of adding a weight comes when RHEL adopts EPEL pkgs...
20:13:19 <smooge> not sure about that.. they usually adopt them after we have upgraded ours
20:13:22 <smooge> :)
20:13:22 <dgilmore> tremble: thats no advantage at all
20:13:36 <nirik> yeah, they are often times behind... ;(
20:13:46 <dgilmore> tremble: a few times they have updated to a older version
20:13:51 <tremble> eek
20:13:56 <dgilmore> and even if the use the same
20:14:07 <dgilmore> people already have epels installed
20:14:09 <smooge> actually most times because they fork off from us at the beginning of a cycle :)
20:14:17 <dgilmore> smooge: right
20:14:28 <dgilmore> but its older than epels when they release
20:15:18 <smooge> ok so anyway, I would like to put this on hold til GA.. which my crystal ball says occurs before the Rapture and Apocalypse
20:15:24 <smooge> but could be wrong
20:15:28 <stahnma> ok
20:16:16 * tremble can live with that
20:16:36 <smooge> second on putting packages into EPEL that are in Workstation etc .. we will put that off until GA hoping there is a productivity channel or a CentOS shaming solution
20:16:48 <nirik> right.
20:17:08 <nirik> Paul is antsi about it since there are broken deps due to it...
20:17:09 <stahnma> back to the deps conversation (sorry):  We can totally pull asterisk now...
20:17:36 <stahnma> I don't think we need a week to vote on that one
20:18:07 <smooge> +1
20:18:08 <nirik> stahnma: just the base asterisk package? or ?
20:18:10 <dgilmore> stahnma: right
20:18:11 <nirik> and for which branches?
20:18:18 <smooge> EL5
20:18:19 <stahnma> for el5 certainly
20:18:20 <dgilmore> core parts of rhel5 are just to old for asterisk
20:18:35 <tremble> EL5 the asterisk pkgs with knackered deps
20:18:44 <dgilmore> el6 asterisk should be complete and working
20:18:46 <nirik> ok.
20:18:46 <stahnma> asterisk-sounds-*
20:19:08 <stahnma> dgilmore: do you want a rel-eng ticket for that?
20:19:10 <nirik> so, summary: cairomm blocked/untagged in el6, asterisk* untagged/blocked in el5?
20:19:21 <dgilmore> stahnma: please
20:19:25 <stahnma> dgilmore: ok
20:19:25 <dgilmore> just to document it
20:19:30 <stahnma> no worries
20:21:10 <nirik> ok, where are we then?
20:21:24 <stahnma> open discussion?
20:23:02 <stahnma> lively group today ;)
20:24:01 <schlobinux_> I have a question more or less related to packages that have been included in RHEL6
20:24:18 <schlobinux_> do we have to keep the version in EL5 lower than what('s in EL6
20:24:50 <schlobinux_> I know there's no supported upgrade path from 5 to 6
20:24:56 <stahnma> schlobinux_: that's a good question. And I don't know the answer
20:25:39 <schlobinux_> any opinion anyone ?
20:25:47 <smooge> I wonder if el5 < el6 in NEVR
20:26:15 <nirik> schlobinux_: no
20:26:18 <nirik> no need.
20:26:19 * stahnma has to bail for the next meeting of the day
20:26:23 <stahnma> thanks all
20:26:28 <smooge> ok
20:26:31 <smooge> thanks stahnma
20:26:32 <nirik> major version upgrades are not supported as far as I know.
20:26:42 <smooge> #topic Open Discussion
20:27:47 <tremble> oh do we want to decide  what to do with regards packages not yet built for el6...
20:28:07 <tremble> (probably for next week but worth thinking about)
20:28:20 <schlobinux_> tremble: could you run your script again ?
20:28:28 <nirik> yeah, see how many we have off hand?
20:29:14 <tremble> Sure, although I'll need to figure out how to cope with the Server/Workstation spilt...
20:30:32 <tremble> Do we want the mass mails to go out, or shall I just send the list to the mailing list
20:30:36 <smooge> EPEL5 Lua problems (with an update request from 5.1.2-1 to 5.1.4-2+)
20:31:31 <nirik> tremble: when was the last mass email? probibly could do another I guess.
20:31:32 <smooge> what needs to be done to get a newer lua in EL-5?
20:31:45 <tremble> nirik Month or two ago
20:33:28 <smooge> ok sorry I need to bring this up
20:34:01 <smooge> Jose Pedro Oliveira brought this up last week and I was wondering what we could do about it
20:34:22 <nirik> is that in epel or rhel? or ?
20:34:26 <tremble> epel
20:34:42 <nirik> and whats the background here?
20:35:11 <tremble> The lib appears to be liblua-5.1.so so you might even get away with just updating it...
20:36:12 <smooge> nirik https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2010-September/msg00044.html
20:36:13 <nirik> yeah, if it causes no issues or interface/abi changes I don't see a problem.
20:36:34 <nirik> .whoowns lua
20:36:34 <zodbot> nirik: timn (rmyers in Fedora EPEL)
20:36:45 <nirik> so rmyers is not updating?
20:38:12 <tremble> Aparrenly not..
20:39:14 <tremble> Assuming some **** hasn't done an ABI update without an so name bump...
20:39:38 <smooge> nirik, yes it looks like the ticket has been open since 20 with no reply
20:40:01 <nirik> yeah, so we need a provenpackager to do it, or get a hold of rmeyers
20:41:13 <smooge> ok I need to head out
20:41:21 <smooge> could one of you guys close for the day?
20:41:38 <nirik> sure, are we done? anyone want to step up to work on lua?
20:41:51 * tremble knows nothing about lua
20:44:46 <nirik> ok, lets close for today and try and see if we can get a hold of them over the coming week.
20:44:52 <nirik> any further items?
20:45:12 * nirik will close in a minute here.
20:53:37 * tremble assumes nirik got sidetracked.
20:53:42 <tremble> #endmeeting