20:59:26 <smooge> #startmeeting EPEL (2022-12-14)
20:59:26 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Dec 14 20:59:26 2022 UTC.
20:59:26 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
20:59:26 <zodbot> The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
20:59:26 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:59:26 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2022-12-14)'
20:59:32 <smooge> #meetingname epel
20:59:32 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
20:59:32 <rcallicotte> .hi
20:59:33 <zodbot> rcallicotte: rcallicotte 'Robby Callicotte' <rcallicotte@mailbox.org>
20:59:35 <jonathanspw> .hi
20:59:37 <zodbot> jonathanspw: jonathanspw 'Jonathan Wright' <jonathan@almalinux.org>
20:59:42 <smooge> #chair nirik tdawson pgreco carlwgeorge salimma dcavalca dherrera gotmax[m] smooge
20:59:42 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax[m] nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
20:59:48 <smooge> #topic aloha
20:59:50 <pgreco> .hi
20:59:51 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
21:00:13 <gotmax[m]> I thought this was cancelled?
21:00:22 <pgreco> looks like smooge is in a hurry today starting a few seconds before
21:00:38 <rcallicotte> no. tdawson is sick so smooge was gonna run it
21:00:59 <carlwgeorge> .hi
21:01:00 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
21:01:03 <smooge> tdawson, asked someone to run it because he was sick.
21:01:48 <yselkowitz[m]> .hello yselkowitz
21:01:49 <zodbot> yselkowitz[m]: yselkowitz 'Yaakov Selkowitz' <yselkowi@redhat.com>
21:02:07 <smooge> hello everyone and I hope you are having a good day
21:02:20 <smooge> this will be a fairly short meeting I think
21:02:26 <smooge> #topic End Of Life (EOL)
21:02:27 <carlwgeorge> i can fix that
21:02:34 <smooge> RHEL 7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
21:02:40 <smooge> CentOS Stream 8 goes EOL in 2024-05-31
21:02:42 <rcallicotte> ruh roh
21:02:47 <smooge> CentOS Stream 9 goes EOL in 2027-05-31
21:03:12 <jonathanspw> carl has to go and ruin everyone's day
21:03:19 <smooge> #info RHEL 7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
21:03:27 <smooge> #info CentOS Stream 8 goes EOL in 2024-05-31
21:03:33 <smooge> #info CentOS Stream 9 goes EOL in 2027-05-31
21:03:40 <smooge> #topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
21:04:05 <smooge> the only item I see for this meeting is https://pagure.io/epel/issue/212
21:04:53 <smooge> jonathanspw, your ticket, your time
21:05:14 <jonathanspw> Hmm, first time in this process.  Should I have something to say?
21:05:35 <carlwgeorge> i think the ticket covers it
21:06:03 <carlwgeorge> +1 from me, seems straightforward
21:06:05 <smooge> is there anything outside of the ticket that came up
21:06:05 <jonathanspw> FWIW there's also a BZ requesting an update because the old version in EPEL7 is from the very early days of novnc and the old version is basically unusable anyway.
21:06:07 <Eighth_Doctor> .hello ngompa
21:06:07 <zodbot> Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
21:06:21 <Eighth_Doctor> +1 from me, super straightforward
21:06:27 <jonathanspw> old, prerelease version I might add.
21:06:42 <smooge> are there any members in disagreement with jonathanspw's proposal?
21:07:25 <smooge> gotmax[m], pgreco salimma
21:07:39 <smooge> michel-slm ?
21:07:58 <smooge> ok going once..
21:08:08 <smooge> going twice..
21:08:35 <smooge> approved by the old man in the chair
21:09:58 <smooge> any other issues for this meeting?
21:10:01 <carlwgeorge> i just opened an issue tagged as meeting for my thing, but we can save it for the open floor
21:10:08 <smooge> #topic Old Business
21:10:32 <smooge> any old business for this week? it was epel-10 last week
21:11:04 <pgreco> smooge: sorry work call got in the way, +1
21:12:01 <smooge> no problem
21:12:04 <smooge> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
21:12:21 <smooge> ok anything for open floor ?
21:12:29 <carlwgeorge> https://pagure.io/epel/issue/214
21:12:42 <carlwgeorge> apologies for getting this in so late
21:13:31 <carlwgeorge> i don't believe there is any kind of waiting period involved, so if possible it would be nice to vote on it today to put it behind us before the holidays
21:13:36 <jonathanspw> It makes the most sense for neither apptainer or singularity-ce to "Provides: singularity".  apptainer has had 9+ months to rename (done improperly) and he's basically trying to squat on the "singularity" name forever.  Let the users choose is my view.
21:14:11 <carlwgeorge> i know jonathanspw is already familiar but i'll give everyone else a moment or two to read over the issue
21:14:27 <jonathanspw> For transparency, I'm the reviewer of singularity-ce and carl and I have been emailing off-list with the apptainer and singularity-ce maintainers for a couple of weeks now.
21:14:29 <smooge> i thought that items need a week
21:14:31 <yselkowitz[m]> if this isn't EPEL specific then shouldn't it go to FPC?
21:14:56 <carlwgeorge> the apptainer maintainer agreed to do this change for fedora branches, but doesn't want to for epel
21:15:22 <carlwgeorge> my original feeling was that it would result in a fesco escalation, but he specifically asked for the epel steering committee to vote on it
21:15:35 <carlwgeorge> if we want to pass the buck i'm ok starting a fesco issue instead
21:16:25 <smooge> ok my understanding from fpc and fesco, things which need a vote need at least a couple of days before they can be voted on
21:17:51 <carlwgeorge> I'm trying to remember if we had specific rules for a waiting period
21:18:08 <carlwgeorge> we do for incompatible upgrades
21:18:49 <smooge> this to me is an incompatible upgrade inside of an enigma wrapped inside of other things
21:19:04 <carlwgeorge> yeah it's messy
21:19:28 <smooge> I would like to get tdawson and nirik to look at it but they are both out
21:19:34 <carlwgeorge> as long as we don't cancel next week for the holidays I'm ok waiting a week to vote
21:20:01 <smooge> I don't think there is a problem with voting for/against it in the ticket and getting a majority there
21:20:28 <smooge> of course what is a majority for this group I don't know
21:20:50 <smooge> so I have some questions on this
21:20:58 <jonathanspw> shoot
21:21:15 <smooge> is the removal of the provides for just EPEL7 or all releases or all releases after EPEL7?
21:21:29 <carlwgeorge> shoot
21:22:07 <carlwgeorge> I would like to see all releases, and the maintainer has agreed to do it in fedora releases
21:22:18 <smooge> does the lack of provides potentially break anything in scientific linux
21:23:00 <smooge> this is more of a 'smooge can answer this at 0520 when CERN people go OMG'
21:23:05 <carlwgeorge> the only thing that no longer works would be `dnf install singularity`, which would be intentional
21:23:45 <Eighth_Doctor> ugh this is such a mess
21:24:00 <Eighth_Doctor> but yeah, I agree not having either be "singularity" is a good outcome
21:24:03 <carlwgeorge> `dnf search singularity` will show both options
21:24:03 <smooge> understood but I would like to make sure that a super collider doesn't explode because it can't find a singularity
21:24:22 <Eighth_Doctor> my read of the situation is that both solutions are incompatible with the package known as "singularity"
21:24:26 <jonathanspw> smooge: the upgrade path is taken care of by a (proper) obsoletes that will remain in apptainer
21:24:28 <smooge> ... cymbal ...
21:24:38 <Eighth_Doctor> so even worse situations would come up if someone upgraded into it
21:25:26 <carlwgeorge> singularity-ce is actually more compatible than apptainer
21:25:54 <carlwgeorge> but they don't want to fight over the provides
21:26:38 <carlwgeorge> Eighth_Doctor: we're already there with users upset over the apptainer replacement
21:26:47 <Eighth_Doctor> ffff
21:27:20 <jonathanspw> I don't think apptainer dropping the obsoletes would be so bad either at this point.  What's done is done for a lot of folk but why continue letting the breaking change exist against policy?
21:27:52 <carlwgeorge> I feel like if this had followed the incompat process we would have declined the obsoletes
21:28:10 <Eighth_Doctor> I think we should request the obsoletes+provides be removed entirely
21:28:16 <Eighth_Doctor> stem the bleeding
21:28:54 <jonathanspw> yep that's what makes the most sense to me
21:29:00 <smooge> ok could i get a clear proposal in the ticket of what is being asked for? Add it below the main wall of text
21:29:46 <carlwgeorge> the goal of the ticket is to remove the provides, but i can add on the stretch goal of removing the obsoletes too.  be aware that would mean people that haven't upgraded yet stay on the singularity package unmaintained.
21:30:29 <smooge> Proposal: apptainer is to remove the Provides: singularity from its EPEL packages. or something else.
21:30:46 <carlwgeorge> that is what it currently says, yes
21:30:55 <smooge> I would prefer that if there is a stretch goal it is for EPEL and Fedora and not just EPEL
21:31:11 <Eighth_Doctor> I believe this is already resolved for Fedora isn't it?
21:31:15 <carlwgeorge> yes i'm not keen on doing a different solution in different branches
21:31:20 <Eighth_Doctor> the maintainer just wants us to force the matter for EPEL
21:31:37 <Eighth_Doctor> (he won't do it unless we say he should)
21:31:44 <jonathanspw> Eighth_Doctor: he agreed to drop the provides, not the obsoletes for fedora.
21:31:44 <carlwgeorge> Eighth_Doctor: not merged yet https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apptainer/pull-request/1
21:32:13 <carlwgeorge> oh goody, new commits, i need to rebase
21:32:14 * Eighth_Doctor sighs
21:33:03 <carlwgeorge> is everyone ok with leaving the discussion in the issue and not introducing it on list, as only steering committee maintainers votes count for this?
21:33:13 <Eighth_Doctor> oh wow, this thing is a messy spec file
21:33:14 <smooge> yes. I am
21:33:19 <rcallicotte> yes
21:33:28 <jonathanspw> The apptainer spec violates about 10 packaging guidelines.
21:33:36 * Eighth_Doctor headdesks
21:33:47 <carlwgeorge> we should really document our exact voting timeline
21:34:04 <carlwgeorge> what does fesco do, a week with no -1 and at least x number of +1s?
21:34:26 <rcallicotte> I think that sounds right
21:34:34 <carlwgeorge> no wait i think that's for becoming a package sponsor
21:34:36 <Eighth_Doctor> at least 2 +1s
21:34:41 <Eighth_Doctor> and 0 -1s
21:34:44 <Eighth_Doctor> after one week
21:34:48 <rcallicotte> ^
21:34:57 <Eighth_Doctor> if there's only 1 +1, extend another week
21:35:11 <smooge> I would like to say no -1's and 3 +1, as we do not vote for members like FESCO
21:35:12 <Eighth_Doctor> if it stays there after another week, accept
21:35:22 <carlwgeorge> ok so we technically don't need next week's meeting then, just vote in the ticket
21:35:40 <carlwgeorge> obviously if anyone -1s it then we can discuss further or outright decline it
21:35:44 <smooge> if there are -1's in the ticket on next Wednesday, it would be moved ot the next meeting
21:36:09 <carlwgeorge> i'm saving most of my pto for january, so i'll be around next week
21:36:13 <smooge> otherwise it is considered approved and will be 'formal' when the next meeting occurs
21:37:35 <smooge> is that ok for everyone?
21:37:38 <carlwgeorge> should i file a separate issue for the obsoletes removal?  or tack it onto this one?
21:37:59 <carlwgeorge> i kinda like the idea of separate votes to make everyone's intentions clear
21:38:21 <smooge> I would prefer seperate votes AND I would prefer if it was clear why we were differing from FESCO
21:38:52 <Eighth_Doctor> are we differing from FESCo?
21:39:01 <smooge> it wasn't a problem in Fedora
21:39:03 <Eighth_Doctor> nobody brought it up to FESCo, the packager agreed on his own for Fedora
21:39:05 <Eighth_Doctor> just not EPEL
21:39:08 <smooge> ah ok
21:39:14 <carlwgeorge> the maintainer is willing to make the change in fedora branches, but doesn't want to in epel branches
21:39:33 <pgreco> any justification for not doing it in epel?
21:39:37 <Eighth_Doctor> this is purely to recommend the maintainer to do the same in EPEL that he's doing in Fedora
21:39:59 <carlwgeorge> "If you wanted to do it only on Fedora, that's fine with me; it's EPEL that I care the most about."
21:40:23 <carlwgeorge> so no actual justification to diverge
21:40:23 <smooge> ha finally a real packager
21:40:32 <Eighth_Doctor> blech
21:40:34 <Eighth_Doctor> ruuuude
21:40:38 <rcallicotte> hmm
21:40:56 <carlwgeorge> i'll avoid commenting further on that part to not taint the vote
21:41:32 <smooge> anyway.. I am going to ask that people read, and possibly explain why they think it is a good idea for this in the ticket
21:42:03 <carlwgeorge> sounds like a plan
21:42:24 <carlwgeorge> thanks everyone for your input
21:42:32 <smooge> beyond that is there any other New Business?
21:43:54 <smooge> #topic Next Meeting?
21:44:28 <smooge> OK we can have the next meeting on 2022-12-21 or 2023-01-04
21:45:08 <carlwgeorge> i'll be around on both those dates
21:45:11 <Eighth_Doctor> same
21:45:31 <pgreco> yeap, same here
21:45:44 <pgreco> not the "middle" week though
21:45:48 <smooge> ok I am going to say next meeting for 2022-12-21 but it may be a very short one
21:46:07 <carlwgeorge> i can also run the meeting if troy or smooge aren't here
21:46:09 <smooge> #info Next meeting will be 2022-12-21 but may be limited
21:46:12 <rcallicotte> sounds good to me
21:46:34 <smooge> #info carlwgeorge may run if troy is not available
21:47:06 <smooge> ok thank you all for coming to this weeks meeting.
21:47:14 <smooge> #endmeeting