20:00:24 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2021-09-22)
20:00:24 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 22 20:00:24 2021 UTC.
20:00:24 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
20:00:24 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
20:00:24 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:24 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2021-09-22)'
20:00:25 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
20:00:25 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
20:00:25 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson pgreco carlwgeorge michel dcavalca
20:00:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: bstinson carlwgeorge dcavalca michel nirik pgreco tdawson
20:00:25 <tdawson> #topic aloha
20:00:39 <dcavalca> .hi
20:00:40 <zodbot> dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <dcavalca@fb.com>
20:00:42 <pgreco> .hi
20:00:44 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
20:00:46 <rsc> .hello robert
20:00:47 <zodbot> rsc: robert 'Robert Scheck' <redhat@linuxnetz.de>
20:00:53 <tdawson> Hi dcavalca
20:00:56 <tdawson> Hi pgreco
20:01:01 <tdawson> Hi rsc
20:01:28 <nirik> hello
20:01:33 <nirik> and good morning to all
20:01:48 <tdawson> Hi nirik
20:01:50 <ssmoogen> ekko
20:02:07 <tdawson> Hi ssmoogen
20:02:15 * tdawson looks up what ekko means ...
20:03:02 <ssmoogen> it is where my right hand is one key to the left
20:03:16 <ssmoogen> and gnome keeps eating my first keystroke when I switch windows
20:03:25 <tdawson> Ha!!
20:03:25 <ssmoogen> so it should have been gekko
20:03:34 <ssmoogen> but ended up ekko
20:04:00 <tdawson> I've done that ... without the missing first letter, but it never looks that good.
20:05:31 <tdawson> Hmm ... I wonder if carlwgeorge is showing up.
20:05:43 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
20:06:13 <tdawson> nirik do you know what's been happening with epel9-next?  Or should I hold off on that until carlwgeorge get's here?
20:06:48 <nirik> I think the only thing off hand was that carlwgeorge submitted a pr for fedscm-admin and it was merged. Not sure when the next release is.
20:06:55 <carlwgeorge> .hi
20:06:56 <nirik> or was it fedpkg...
20:06:56 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
20:07:01 <nirik> now I am not sure. ;)
20:07:08 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
20:07:26 <tdawson> I figured if I'd said your name three times you'd show up. :)
20:07:48 <carlwgeorge> not merged yet https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/pull-request/72
20:08:06 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Do you know what the next steps are for epel9-next?
20:08:06 <carlwgeorge> would be swell if you wanted to go ahead and merge it, then i think we can request epel9-next branches for things
20:08:34 <nirik> sure, needs a release and scm admins updating first tho. ;)
20:09:46 <carlwgeorge> after that i need to send a pr to update the infra ansible playbook to tell it which key to sign epel9-next packages with
20:10:22 <carlwgeorge> i remember we discussed tagging fedpkg-minimal over, did that already happen?
20:11:35 <tdawson> Nope, not according to a scratch build, still missing it.
20:11:46 <tdawson> Although packages build pretty good without it.
20:11:47 <nirik> nope. I can do it now tho. Just tag it into epel9-next-build as an override right?
20:12:46 <carlwgeorge> tdawson: so do we not actually need it?
20:13:00 <tdawson> I don't know - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76128168
20:13:24 <nirik> odd. it should be needed.
20:13:36 <tdawson> Although ... s390x keeps failling with "Fatal glibc error: CPU lacks VXE support (z14 or later required)"   but I think that's a different problem.
20:13:46 <nirik> oh not scratch builds tho
20:13:57 <nirik> scratch builds you bring your own src.rpm
20:14:00 <carlwgeorge> ahhh
20:14:10 <nirik> real builds need fedpkg to make the src.rpm from git/lookaside
20:14:38 <nirik> I tagged it in, but really it needs to be the first thing requesting a branch...
20:14:48 <nirik> (once we can)
20:15:05 <carlwgeorge> so we can use the tagged one to do a proper build of itself, then go from there
20:15:12 <nirik> yep
20:15:58 <tdawson> Yep, fedpkg-minimal then epel-rpm-macros and epel-release
20:16:09 <nirik> on the s390x issue... we have requested a move to newer hardware. Hopefully that will happen in the next few months.
20:16:45 <ssmoogen> :wineglass:
20:16:56 <carlwgeorge> so in summary, slow but steady progress on epel9-next, lining up all the pieces
20:17:24 <tdawson> cool.  Thank you carlwgeorge, nirik, and any others working on that.
20:17:44 <tdawson> Moving on to the new logo
20:17:54 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/design/issue/770
20:18:27 <tdawson> Has everyone been able to look at the latest variation, #7 ?
20:18:43 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/design/issue/770#comment-751994
20:19:23 <carlwgeorge> https://pagure.io/design/issue/raw/files/8a58846d84fd29567f1f6db4d48b7af81f4e673137a60c0f084831fd445c4547-rotate-07-wbackground.png
20:19:42 <carlwgeorge> get that image preview going for us irccloud users :D
20:20:20 <dcavalca> I think I like the previous one better, but this is also fine
20:20:40 <pgreco> for me, without the bolt looks strange
20:20:45 <tdawson> The previous one is here - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/_images/epel-logo.svg
20:20:45 <nirik> I'm fine with either. whats the other one?
20:21:15 <pgreco> I prefer the original 4
20:21:24 <tdawson> I just noticed that I only have it up in the docs in SVG format, sorry about that.
20:21:37 <carlwgeorge> my thinking in asking for without the center section was that this i see it as epel extending rhel.  in that metaphor, what does the center piece represent?
20:21:50 <carlwgeorge> https://pagure.io/design/issue/raw/files/a27322181216d5f7d26ba571280138496f59598d93321857464aa2459391c5e3-Screenshot_from_2021-07-20_14-16-54.png rotate 4 here
20:22:30 <carlwgeorge> visually i also like 7 being more square than tall for the overall logo
20:23:45 <ssmoogen> I like dbl notch the most if it mattered
20:23:49 <tdawson> I'm preferring 4, although I do like the square overall logo of #7.
20:24:17 <ssmoogen> time for a ranked voting election
20:24:36 <ssmoogen> which one does everyone hate the least?!?!
20:24:43 <carlwgeorge> for those that do prefer 4 over 7, what would you say the center piece represents?
20:24:57 <ssmoogen> I don't care if it represents anything.
20:25:17 <tdawson> To me, I see the top piece being Fedora, and the middle piece being EPEL.
20:25:31 <ssmoogen> but we could say "modularity" and get a badum-ching
20:25:39 <pgreco> I think we had a clear direction last time we voted "informally" right
20:25:55 <tdawson> So we're attaching some package/widget onto RHEL with a wrench.
20:26:36 <tdawson> But with #7, I see a socket wrench attaching ... well ... nothing ... to RHEL.
20:26:39 <carlwgeorge> tdawson: so in that sense it would be sort of bridging the gap between fedora and epel, rather than "extending rhel"
20:27:21 <tdawson> In a sense ya.  Because a vast majority of the packages are in Fedora, and we're putting them on RHEL.
20:27:51 <tdawson> Thus the two blues
20:28:22 <dcavalca> tbh I haven't thought about the metaphor all that much, I just find the rotate 4 one more aesthetically pleasing
20:29:09 <carlwgeorge> 7 is still my first preference, but i'll take 4 over all those other ones
20:30:24 <tdawson> Should we do a ranked vote, as ssmoogen suggested?  I'm ok with doing that for the final vote.
20:30:31 <carlwgeorge> i like the metaphor of extending rhel, and in that metaphor having two blue pieces doesn't really make sense.  also epel doesn't allow you to install fedora packages onto rhel, they are epel packages.  but epel is part of fedora, and thus it's blue.
20:30:39 <tdawson> But just your top 2.
20:31:10 <ssmoogen> if I were going for feedback I would make the middle piece on 3 or 4 purple
20:31:27 <ssmoogen> but I am going to stop ratholing
20:31:54 <carlwgeorge> ranked choice voting is great, we should do it in more places
20:31:54 <rsc> Purple might be interesting for the middle piece.
20:32:24 <tdawson> ssmoogen: We did try different colors, we ended up with this - https://pagure.io/design/issue/raw/files/c193c3984d9ec379541e8f674d363ed56959d1ea1312b6e81a5b5eb30e387e5b-epel-test4.png
20:32:44 <tdawson> Purple was tried, but it looked rather horrible.
20:32:52 <rsc> Even a dark purple?
20:32:55 <carlwgeorge> any have a suggestion for a simple ranked choice voting site?
20:32:58 <carlwgeorge> *anyone
20:33:31 <tdawson> I think last time we did ranked voting, it was pretty obvious.
20:34:32 <nirik> we can use the elections app... but that might be a bit heavy. ;)
20:34:49 <dcavalca> https://www.rcv123.org doesn't look too sketchy
20:34:55 <dcavalca> I've never actually used it though
20:35:49 <nirik> the elections app only does range voting tho I guess...
20:37:44 <tdawson> https://www.rcv123.org/ballot/b756b8501be411ec8ee48181c4ba8e02
20:38:39 <tdawson> Oh, shoot, I forgot there was a (0)  ... anyway, the pictures are here - https://pagure.io/design/issue/raw/files/a27322181216d5f7d26ba571280138496f59598d93321857464aa2459391c5e3-Screenshot_from_2021-07-20_14-16-54.png and this is 7 - https://pagure.io/design/issue/raw/files/8a58846d84fd29567f1f6db4d48b7af81f4e673137a60c0f084831fd445c4547-rotate-07-wbackground.png
20:39:28 <carlwgeorge> just two, right?
20:39:38 <pgreco> I was just about to mention the 0 :D
20:39:50 <tdawson> Well, looks like you can do as many as you want ... but I just did three.
20:40:09 <rsc> 0-6 maps onto 1-7?
20:40:30 <tdawson> But if you just want to do 2, then you can just do 2 votes.
20:40:44 <tdawson> No, just drop 0 ... nobody voted for it in the first round anyway.
20:40:51 <ssmoogen> ah ok
20:42:06 <carlwgeorge> do we have to keep refreshing the results page to see the vote total go up?
20:42:29 <tdawson> carlwgeorge ya
20:42:42 <ssmoogen> ok voted
20:43:02 <dcavalca> voted
20:43:27 <tdawson> Looks like we have 6 people voted ... is that everyone?
20:43:57 * nirik has no real preference...
20:45:13 <pgreco> I voted (mapping 0-6 to 1-7), but now I can't see the results
20:45:20 <tdawson> So, if we go by that, #4 won, although not by a landslide.
20:45:36 <pgreco> I think that's what happened last time
20:45:48 <pgreco> everybody chose something, and then 4
20:46:07 <tdawson> Yup.
20:46:22 <tdawson> Are we all ok if #4 is the winner?
20:47:02 <tdawson> It's sounding like it's the one with the least "I don't like it cuz ..."
20:47:23 <dcavalca> kind of the point of RCV after all :)
20:47:28 <tdawson> :)
20:47:43 <ssmoogen> i think that is the general thing with all logos
20:47:53 <ssmoogen> the old EPEL logo took years
20:48:29 <pgreco> I'm ok with 4 as the winner +1
20:49:12 <carlwgeorge> so we get the choice to accept the election results or not?  :P
20:49:53 <tdawson> I'm going to use my chairman privilege, and declare #4 the winner.  I don't like doing that for most things, but I think for this, I'm going to.
20:50:21 <dcavalca> +1
20:53:26 <tdawson> #info After RCV voting, it was determined that EPEL Logo #4 is to be the EPEL Logo.  The votes were #4 3(1) 2(2), #7 2(2) 2(2) 2(3), #3 1(1) 1(3), #6 1(3).
20:54:11 <tdawson> Let's give it at least one year.  And if we find that we don't like something about the logo after a year, we'll try again.
20:54:55 <tdawson> But for now, we needed a new logo, and now we have one.
20:55:19 <tdawson> ugg ... we took almost all the time on that :(
20:55:48 <tdawson> Is there anything else that needed to come up this week?
20:56:00 <dcavalca> I spent some time looking at openssl3
20:56:12 <dcavalca> making a dedicated package in epel for it should be technically feasible
20:56:43 <tdawson> Does it looks like something that can be sustainable?  meaning is it a pain in the rear each time we need an update?
20:56:52 <dcavalca> but the specfile is... complicated, and some of the subpackages will almost certainly have to conflict with their stock counterparts
20:56:56 <dcavalca> that is my worry
20:57:23 <dcavalca> I think this could be maintainable with a somewhat major refactoring of the rawhide specfile, if the maintainers were onboard with that
20:57:56 <pgreco> dcavalca: yeah, I think that's the place to start, get a feeling on how onboard they would be
20:58:18 <tdawson> Has anyone asked RHEL/ Red Hat if they are going to try to get openssl3 in RHEL8 ?
20:58:32 <dcavalca> I have way too much crap on my plate right now, but as soon as things clear up a bit I'll try engaging with the maintainers and see what they think
20:58:52 <pgreco> .whoowns openssl
20:58:53 <zodbot> pgreco: owner: saprasad; admin: tmraz; commit: jorton
20:58:54 <dcavalca> tdawson: no, but that's an excellent idea
20:59:19 <tdawson> I'd just hate for us to go through all that work, only to find out that they were just about to get it into a beta.
20:59:23 <carlwgeorge> i have not heard anything about openssl3 in rhel8
20:59:26 <dcavalca> I don't really know who to ask for an official stance there though
20:59:37 <dcavalca> maybe y'all wanna try to poke internally and let me know?
20:59:37 <ssmoogen> well I mean it should show up in centos stream
21:00:21 <ssmoogen> if it is going to show up in EL8.6 or EL8.7 it should first show up in stream
21:00:26 <carlwgeorge> basically the way it would happen is if enough customers file support cases asking for it
21:00:56 * ssmoogen sees more customers wanting it in EL7 first :)
21:01:06 <carlwgeorge> one could ask for it as a openssl bugzilla, which would serve as a useful place to accumulate the support cases, should they exist
21:01:25 <nirik> I'd say ask the maintainers.
21:02:00 * nirik hopes the answer isn't: sure! as a module! :)
21:02:08 <tdawson> carlwgeorge Yep.  I think a bugzilla would be the best place, and it would go to the maintainers first, let them chime in.
21:03:39 <tdawson> I can (and will) do that, open a bugzilla ... I'll let ya'll know.
21:03:54 <ssmoogen> hmmm modular openssl-3.0
21:03:56 <ssmoogen> in EPEL
21:04:31 <carlwgeorge> even if someone did that in a module, it would have to be parallel installable with stock openssl, so there is no benefit
21:04:53 <dcavalca> the libs can be parallel installable
21:04:56 <dcavalca> everything else cannot
21:05:27 * ssmoogen ponders /opt/epel
21:05:33 <carlwgeorge> openssl11 in epel7 did it, right rsc?
21:06:04 <dcavalca> I suppose doing this in SCL would be another option but, ugh
21:06:51 <carlwgeorge> scl's aren't allowed in fedora or epel
21:07:22 <dcavalca> ah, right
21:07:24 <dcavalca> probably for the best
21:08:38 <tdawson> What package(s) need openssl 3.x ?  It would be good to have an example in the bugzilla
21:09:16 <rsc> carlwgeorge: openssl11 is parallel installable, but requires custom CFLAGS/LDFLAGS while building (only there)
21:09:19 <dcavalca> systemd
21:09:24 <dcavalca> well, not right now, but it will
21:09:32 <tdawson> OK, that's a good one.
21:09:38 <tdawson> Oh, the time.
21:09:51 <dcavalca> https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2021-September/046881.html
21:09:52 <tdawson> Thank you everyone for the discussion and the voting.
21:09:56 <dcavalca> thanks tdawson
21:10:11 <pgreco> from what I remember, both -devel versions can be made conflicting
21:10:20 <tdawson> We'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.
21:10:30 <tdawson> #endmeeting