22:00:59 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2020-12-04)
22:00:59 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Dec  4 22:00:59 2020 UTC.
22:00:59 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
22:00:59 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
22:00:59 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
22:00:59 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2020-12-04)'
22:01:00 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
22:01:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
22:01:02 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson pgreco carlwgeorge
22:01:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: bstinson carlwgeorge nirik pgreco tdawson
22:01:03 <tdawson> #topic aloha
22:01:15 <tdawson> michel_slm: Hi
22:01:46 <pgreco> hi, I'm here, sort of
22:01:47 <michel_slm> .hello salimma
22:01:48 <zodbot> michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
22:01:53 <pgreco> I guess at 20% attention
22:01:55 <nirik> morning
22:02:13 <tdawson> 20% of a Hi  to pgreco
22:02:17 <tdawson> Hi nirik
22:03:28 <carlwgeorge> howdy yall
22:03:47 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
22:04:59 <tdawson> Has anyone seen smooge today?  He had a topic he wanted to talk about.
22:05:27 <michel_slm> tdawson: you might have to give a 500% hi to make sure pgreco notices :)
22:05:38 <tdawson> :)
22:05:59 <tdawson> I'm sorta surprised pgreco is here, he told me earlier he probrbuly wouldn't make it.
22:06:16 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
22:06:19 <pgreco> yeah, I'm here, fighting fires in the other monitor
22:06:26 <tdawson> epel8-playground / fedpkg
22:06:40 <michel_slm> #info fedpkg 1.40 is in Bodhi
22:06:41 <tdawson> It looks like fedpkg has been updated
22:06:42 <nirik> I think the fedpkg updates finally went out
22:06:48 <tdawson> Ya!!
22:06:52 <michel_slm> ah, I can't do info
22:07:06 <tdawson> #info fedpkg 1.40 is in Bodhi
22:07:09 <nirik> you can, it doesn't output anything
22:07:20 <nirik> except to the report/summary it sends/creates
22:07:28 <michel_slm> my bugzilla entry didn't get linked to the update though - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1900134
22:07:49 <michel_slm> not sure if we should just close it as Rawhide unless Ondrej edits the bodhi update
22:08:34 <nirik> I can go add it
22:09:14 <michel_slm> nirik has special power
22:09:46 <nirik> any provenpackager can I think
22:10:22 <michel_slm> odd, I can't
22:10:31 <michel_slm> my bad, I can
22:11:18 <michel_slm> ok, going to find a package I want branched for epel8 and give that a spin after this meeting
22:12:01 <tdawson> michel_slm: Thank you very much for getting fedpkg changed.
22:12:23 <michel_slm> no problem. Ondrej ended up fixing my botched attempt, hope he got his beer
22:12:45 * michel_slm wondering why there's a mystery delivery from RH coming on Monday
22:13:08 <tdawson> It's your fed pkg :)
22:13:15 <nirik> ha
22:13:35 <tdawson> Anything else for playground before we move on?
22:14:10 <tdawson> Next on agenda ... epel8-next
22:14:36 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: What's the progress?  And what help do you need?
22:15:07 <carlwgeorge> smooge was able to get cs8 mirrored into fedora infra (releng#9850).  now we're waiting on grobisplitting the modules (releng#9851).
22:15:28 <carlwgeorge> it's blocked on that
22:15:37 <tdawson> Cool ... sounds like good progress.
22:15:49 <tdawson> I know it's blocked, but it's still one step closeer.
22:16:23 * carlwgeorge queues up johnny cash one piece at a time on spotify
22:16:35 <tdawson> :)
22:17:06 <tdawson> Outside of grobisplitting is there anything else you need help with?
22:17:50 <carlwgeorge> i don't believe so, onces that's done we can complete the draft implementation in staging, make sure it works as expected, then repeat it in prod
22:18:27 <tdawson> That's still going to be some work, but it's getting closer.
22:18:42 <pgreco> any known package failing right now in 8.x as a good candidate to start testing?
22:21:38 <tdawson> Since it sounds like things are moving along, I'm going to go to the next topic.
22:21:50 <tdawson> EPEL-Packaging-SIG
22:22:01 <tdawson> What are the next steps?
22:22:32 <michel_slm> #info I've updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Packagers with some tentative joining instructions
22:22:54 <michel_slm> TL;DR simplified from the provenpackagers one, if you want the commit bit you file a ticket but only need one sponsor unless anyone object
22:23:47 <michel_slm> and we need to figure out a way to evaluate stalled branch requests. I added an initial query that seems to work for finding requests over a week old. two questions though
22:23:59 <michel_slm> 1. would it make sense to have a template and make it easy to find (where?)
22:24:21 <michel_slm> 2. would it make sense to have a tracking bug, and if so how do we get an alias for it
22:24:45 <tdawson> Tracking bug is easy
22:25:25 <tdawson> I don't think I have any special privilidges, but to make an alias, you just fill out the alias part of the bugzilla
22:26:05 <tdawson> but what do you mean about a template?  A template that people fill out when they want a package in epel8?
22:26:20 <michel_slm> the infra we need to get collaborators branching ability is not available yet, https://pagure.io/epel/issue/106. once that's done we can move on to figuring out a way of expediting packages we care about without invoking the non-responsive maintainer policy
22:26:58 <michel_slm> yeah, a template to standardize what such requests look like and automatically block on the tracking bug. in practice it seems that searching Fedora and Fedora EPEL for bugs with summaries that mention epel work well enough
22:27:50 <nirik> or even just a standard whiteboard word would be nice...
22:27:57 <tdawson> Here's an example EPEL tracking bug, it's what I use for EPEL7 "won't install" bugs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647564
22:27:57 <nirik> but you will never get 100% of people using it. ;(
22:28:37 <michel_slm> so re: process -- two things we can decide now (or in the next week to give people more time). is the joining instruction reasonable, and also, should we triage the EPEL branch requests and decide which ones the packagers SIG should take on? (unless we assume we automatically claim any package nobody wants to support, but that seems unrealistic)
22:30:20 <nirik> might be good to look over the list before commiting to anything?
22:30:23 <michel_slm> tdawson: thanks. I'll create a tracking bug once we figure out how to decide what package we care about. maybe some rough guideline e.g. 1) the package is useful on its own, in which case we vote to decide if it is, and 2) the package is a dependency, in which case if the Fedora maintainer doesn't care we have no choice
22:30:26 <tdawson> I'd like to read the instructions a few times to make sure I'm udnerstanding them ... so how about we give that part another week.
22:30:39 * nirik nods.
22:30:58 <michel_slm> yup. I'll add the criteria for 'adopting' a package today so it can be evaluated next week too
22:31:40 <michel_slm> one last thing: since we agreed to use the epel Pagure tracker, would it make sense to add a tag for epel-packagers-sig?
22:31:51 <michel_slm> so we can easily find the issues we're tracking
22:31:57 <nirik> sure.
22:32:12 <tdawson> Sounds like a good idea
22:32:35 <michel_slm> if one of the 5 members want to do that, that'd be great
22:32:48 <michel_slm> ok, I think that's all I have for now
22:33:10 <nirik> we could add more folks to that too...
22:33:19 * michel_slm puts his hand up
22:33:36 <tdawson> I agree with nirik ... let's add a few more people there.
22:34:27 <tdawson> What do you want the tag to be?
22:34:59 <michel_slm> do we have existing tags? if not, off the top of my head epel-packagers or epel-packagers-sig
22:36:00 <tdawson> OK, tag added
22:36:02 <michel_slm> I see at least one existing tag (qa) but can't see the settings
22:36:13 <nirik> michel_slm: whats your fas account again?
22:36:52 <tdawson> I'll let nirik setup the user account ... I'm going to move onto the next subject
22:36:58 <michel_slm> nirik: salimma
22:37:05 <tdawson> #info EPEL-6 is EOL and archived
22:37:17 <michel_slm> hooray
22:37:48 <michel_slm> any major complaints out there?
22:38:00 <nirik> a few on the centos-devel list...
22:38:24 <tdawson> Ya ... I wanna comment on those ... and yet ... I won't
22:39:11 <nirik> probibly best :)
22:39:41 <tdawson> There was a couple comments on the Scientific Linux list as well ... but it's from the same guy(s) who complain at each EOL ... as well as each new release.
22:40:00 <cyberpear> my only complaint is that the mirrorlist for CentOS 6 was broken on purpose... you must hard code the archive URL for yum to work
22:40:41 <cyberpear> but same happened for 5.  EPEL doesn't do that breakage, thankfully, IIRC
22:41:44 <michel_slm> is the archive mirrored? if not, probably doesn't make sense to have a mirrorlist (but that's not an EPEL issue I suppose)
22:41:57 <pgreco> it is not mirrored
22:42:19 <pgreco> I mean, there are a couple of servers, but not distributed or anything like the real mirrors
22:42:28 <carlwgeorge> and having the mirrorlist return vault urls would overload it with traffic from what i'm told
22:42:30 <michel_slm> ah. so.. having some friction is probably a good thing anyway. if you admin a server that's running an EOL release you should have to do something
22:42:57 <tdawson> Ya, through all of those, I didn't hear any complaints about EPEL6 ... just CentOS6 and the general Scientific Linux
22:42:57 <pgreco> up until not long ago, vault was only 1 server
22:43:02 <cyberpear> right  like "make a local mirror"
22:44:11 <cyberpear> guaranteed folks on RHEL 6 will continue using EPEL for 3.5 more years, even in its archived state
22:44:31 <tdawson> Thanks to smooge who did the archiving.  Everything seemed to go smooth.
22:45:06 <tdawson> OK, I'm assuming it was smooge ... if it was someone else, let me know so my thanks go to them.
22:45:27 <tdawson> And ... moving on before we run out of time.
22:45:35 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7
22:46:28 <tdawson> I'm basically done with my RHEL7.9 "does it install" campain.  Most everything was removed ore rebuilt.
22:47:13 <tdawson> But ... just found out today that we have over 150 old bodhi packages ... packages that have been in epel-testing for over a year.
22:48:13 <michel_slm> ah, are these before packages got auto-promoted unless they have negative karma?
22:48:22 <tdawson> Most of them, yes
22:48:32 <tdawson> I was just surprised at the number of them.
22:48:55 <tdawson> I haven't done any checks to see if any of them have negative karma or something like that.
22:49:05 <pgreco> tdawson: what state were tose in? they weren't in the mails
22:49:13 <pgreco> *those
22:49:41 <tdawson> Well ... the first one I looked at is just in testing ... nothing negative or anything - https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-abb5b76382
22:50:13 <tdawson> But, I think that one was before we did the auto karma
22:51:18 <tdawson> I'm going to go through them this week, probrubly send out an email with numbers and stats, and have a plan by next week.
22:52:36 <tdawson> At the very least, I'm going to do a comment on them all telling the owners to merge or they will be dropped.
22:53:01 <nirik> yeah, that one I looked at... it just had no autopush set...
22:53:08 <nirik> so it needs the maintainer to do something.
22:53:41 <tdawson> Yep
22:53:50 <tdawson> OK, moving on
22:53:52 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8
22:54:01 <tdawson> Anything for epel8 specifically?
22:54:20 * nirik can't think of anything
22:54:33 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
22:55:08 <tdawson> smooge wanted to bring up the "Retire python34 proposal" for EPEL7
22:55:13 <tdawson> .epel 70
22:55:14 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #70: Retire python34 proposal - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/70
22:55:28 <tdawson> Oh ... I guess that would have been for EPEL7 section. :)
22:55:55 <tdawson> I don't know if he was planning on helping with that, or if he was looking for volunteers
22:56:23 <michel_slm> queuing up one sort of topic but maybe for when epel9 is branched
22:56:59 * nirik can help, but doesn't want to drive it.
22:57:09 <tdawson> michel_slm: Which topic is that?
22:57:34 <tdawson> nirik: Ya, I really wish the python group had the cycles to do more.
22:58:08 <michel_slm> once we have epel9, would it make sense to have fedora-review available on it? (right now it's impossible because it has many dependencies that depend on newer RPM versions or Python versions)
22:58:39 <tdawson> michel_slm: definatly
22:59:07 <tdawson> Get it in early before the dependencies change, so we have at least some version of it in EPEL9
22:59:22 <michel_slm> I cross-posted to epel-devel and python-devel so I'll see if Miro has any objections
23:00:33 <tdawson> Looks like our time is up.  I'll put the retire python34 proposal on next weeks agenda.
23:00:51 <tdawson> Thanks to everyone for coming, contributing, and helping.
23:00:56 <michel_slm> thanks tdawson
23:00:58 <tdawson> Talk to you next week.
23:01:05 <tdawson> #endmeeting