#meeting-1:fedoraproject.org log

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:04

!startmeeting EPEL (2024-11-20)

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:05

Meeting started at 2024-11-20 18:00:04 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:06

The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2024-11-20)'

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:11

!topic aloha

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:11

!meetingname epel

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:12

The Meeting Name is now epel

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:00:17

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:00:20

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:00:27

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:00:28

Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:36

Hi Michel Lind 🎩 UTC-6 and Carl George

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:00:45

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:00:46

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:01:13

hello

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:33

Hello Stephen J Smoogen and Diego Herrera

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:01:49

I am here until lunch is put on table :)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:02:06

an army marches on its stomach :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:03:20

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:03:21

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:03:53

Hi Conan Kudo

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:04:13

morning (but in another meeting)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:04:27

Morning nirik

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:12

!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:12

!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:31

Looks like we only have the epel10 issue ... so I'm going to switch topics first.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:38

!topic EPEL 10

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:44

!epel 300

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:45

● **Last Updated:** a week ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:45

● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:45

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:45

● **Opened:** 4 weeks ago by carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:45

**epel #300** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/300):**EPEL 10 launch**

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:07:04

as folks may have noticed, we did not launch on our original target date (yesterday). we're moving the target forward two weeks to hopefully get a few things resolved, including centos secureboot, the centos website, and the epel docs.

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:07:33

that means the new target date is december 3rd

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:35

All three of those things are worth cheering for when they get done.

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:08:21

that's all i have for the epel10 launch itself, but there is another epel10 thing i need to bring up

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:08:39

!link https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-68034

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:09:57

while working on the text for the release announcement, i tried to use epel-release in the rhel 10 beta. i expected it to fail and i wanted to capture the exact error message, but to my surprise it worked. rhel 10 is not setting releasever_minor, which we depend on for pointing rhel to a separate repo from centos.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:10:04

it just means that kde will be fully available at launch :D

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:10:32

rhel 10 beta you mean or rhel 10 ?

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:11:16

both, the rhel 10 beta is not setting the variable, and unless something changes then it will be the same way in rhel 10 ga

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:11:44

ah ok. I have a hazy memory that something like that happened every beta

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:12:14

yeah it's always a little goofy at beta

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:12:26

it went back to when RHL had 5.99.1 for the beta before 6 and 6.99.1 before 7

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:12:28

option 1 is changing the main releasever to match the logic that was added to dnf to split it into major/minor, which is itself simple but could have major ripple effects

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:12:47

option 2 is changing the dnf logic, which is more complex but more compatible coming from rhel 9

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:12:52

and was a point of arguments in RHEL because it wasn't "0" until we release "0" or even ".1"

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:14:14

hopefully we can get one or the other done, we have a little time but it does need to happen before rhel 10 ga. if it doesn't, we're looking at significant rework of epel10 repo structure and the release package.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:14:38

I would prefer option 1, it would also make sense to ask the folks managing the rhel docs to add some notes in the considerations for rhel 10 doc about the new releasever vars

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:15:18

yup, there is a section in the considerations doc for dnf changes, and even now it's missing mention of the addition of releasever_major

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:15:26

and releasever_minor

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:15:45

I could see it being useful for cases like content that is only supported for EUS releases

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:15:46

https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/10-beta/html/considerations_in_adopting_rhel_10/software-management#notable-changes-to-dnf

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:16:16

if there was somewhere for me to submit a doc, I'd do it :P

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:16:21

well currently releasever_minor is an empty string, so not really worth mentioning in the current state, but yes we want that to also get set appropriately and mentioned in the doc

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:17:09

option 1 does seem less of a tech debt going forward

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:17:31

at this point we're waiting on feedback from the dnf and subman teams

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:17:36

right, it makes it unlikely that releasever will change structure in the future, and maps cleanly to how RHEL is maintained/released

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:17:51

i would also prefer option 1, it's just a bit of a harder sell post-beta

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:18:21

tbh, option 1 is the outcome I originally expected and planned for

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:19:28

yeah it's what i expected too, and if you read the code releasever does get set to 10.0 (the version of the redhat-release package), but then it gets overwritten to the provided value of `system-release(releasever)`, which is just 10

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:19:45

yeah, I had assumed that rhel would have fixed it for redhat-release

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:20:01

we obviously want it to be just 10 for centos-stream-release

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:20:09

exactly

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:21:45

At this point, is there anything we (the EPEL committee) can do? Or are we just waiting for a decision from someone?

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:22:14

the latter, just wait for now. mainly bringing it up for awareness.

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:22:33

one more epel10 thing, we need to start thinking ahead to the epel10.0 mass branching. it will happen around the same time as the f42 mass branching, but we should be nice to releng and not try to do both in the same exact week.

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:23:19

f42 mass branching is currently scheduled for the week of 2025-02-04, so i'm thinking we start epel10.0 mass branching the week after that

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:23:40

does that still ensure we're before the window of c10s switching to 10.1 content?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:23:48

when epel10.0 mass branching happens, I'll help fix `fedrq` to understand how to query it

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:23:50

mass branching as in epel10.0->epel10.1 or something else?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:23:59

probably can't happen sooner than that I guess

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:24:01

epel10->epel10.0

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:24:07

what Neal said

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:24:15

ah got it

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:24:30

epel10 is now epel10-stream

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:24:36

there's no mass rebuild involved right? we just do targeted rebuilds of whatever is reported as not working

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:24:46

there shouldn't be any, yeah

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:24:54

but that's why I'm asking about the content shift window

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:25:28

yes, that timing is intentional to match that. after the mass branching, we'll create a c10 snapshot in batcave, change the 10.0 stuff to use it until rhel 10.0 comes out, and also create the 10.1 stuff for the epel10 branch to switch to.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:25:47

cool

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:26:40

the comparison will be branching epel10.0 from epel10, like we branch f42 from rawhide

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:27:27

This is exciting, our first real branch. So much to work ... such possibility of failure ... exciting.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:27:44

ideally it's not that special :P

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:27:46

correct, no mass rebuild, the new epel10.1 tag will be created as a copy of the epel10.0 tag, so existing builds with epel10.0 will then have both epel10.0 and epel10.1 tags

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:27:53

"may you live in interesting times"

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:28:11

you mean the new epel10.0 is a copy of epel10 :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:28:12

Not that I think it will fail ... but ... there is always something that get's forgotten.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:28:31

Or maybe it's just me that that happens to. :)

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:29:29

nope, i meant what i said, specific to the koji tags. i'll literally be running `koji clone-tag --all --latest-only epel10.0 epel10.1`.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:29:53

and then repointing the alias to epel10.1

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:29:56

ah. yeah but that's later right

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:30:02

not for the 10->10.0 branch

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:30:44

I might have missed when we started talking about 10.1

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:30:54

to be clear, there is no such thing as an alias, but there is an epel10 build target that will get changed from a build tag of epel10.0-build to epel10.1-build

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:31:10

oooh. now this makes sense

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:32:13

several things happen around the same time, we basically need the 10.1 tags right after we do the 10.0 branching

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:32:46

if anyone wants a refresher, check out the tables in this slide deck https://carlwgeorge.fedorapeople.org/presentations/epel-10-hackfest-2024-flock.pdf

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:32:50

so you'd probably do the tags first, then the branch, no?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:32:50

yeah. it's just like Fedora branching, when f41 is branched rawhide is f42

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:33:34

the exact sop and order of operations is still being worked out, as we've never done this before

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:33:49

fair

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:34:00

you've got five months to figure it out :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:08

Are there any other epel10 stuff before we move on?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:34:09

oh actually no

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:34:12

only three

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:34:19

i think that covers it all for now

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:24

Is there any other epel10 stuff before we move on?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:35

Ok, I'm going to move on to old business

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:44

!topic Old Business

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:34:47

I have an old business

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:34:55

unless Stephen J Smoogen wants to go first :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:57

Michel Lind 🎩 UTC-6: go for it.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:35:20

https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/307 - thanks for the feedback re: revising our stalled request procedure. I'll take another pass Thursday or Friday

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:35:29

so if anyone wants to give extra feedback please do so today

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:35:55

as I noted in a comment, FESCo will also be adopting some form of this, but the consensus there seems to be that we can get by with only 7+3 days so you can get access in 10 days (which will be wild)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:36:13

there's likely going to be a .. spirited.. discussion in devel@ before that is finalized though

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:36:24

It's my birthday today so I need to wait until Older Business

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:36:38

(everyone seems sick and tired of some package maintainers developing a sense of proprietariness over 'their' packages)

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:36:42

oof, i thought fesco was making it longer at four weeks, not shorter

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:36:53

Happy birthday smooge!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:37:04

Oohh ... if we can drop the time ... that would be nice.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:37:10

Happy Birthday Stephen J Smoogen 🎂

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:37:12

last week I was asked to make it 4 weeks, then when people saw the draft they seem to think that's too long :P

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:37:32

It's waaayyyy to long.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:37:39

that would make it longer than our other processes

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:37:40

while i don't personally mind it being shorter, i know we got negative feedback when we had it at two weeks, hence extending it to three

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:37:41

the barrier of entry for the fesco flow will be higher though e.g. you'll need a PR that works and the fesco member approving should check that PR first

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:37:54

I did mention that :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:38:01

I've noticed that if it isn't responded to after the second ping, it sits there forever, months.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:38:11

yeah, it's not great

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:38:16

yeah, and the requester will probably forget too if the flow is too long

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:38:27

anyway.. just to mention. it's still worth revising ours for the time being anyway

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:38:39

i definitely like that this will make the policy not epel specific, and be for all of fedora

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:38:40

Yep ... I just found one of mine from epel9 while I was doing some digging.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:39:04

yeah. we should throw a graduation party when that fesco policy is adopted :)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:39:17

so.. let's do Older Business unless someone else has an old biz

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:39:36

Michel Lind 🎩 UTC-6: Thank you for updating this. I know I haven't commented, but I have read it several times.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:41:14

Did we want to talk about the EPEL Packagers SIG, I think that's old business, or should we just put a link in to the discussion ?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:42:01

!link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/deprecating-the-epel-packagers-sig/137923

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:42:37

yes, please send your feedback there

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:42:54

i also linked it from the mailing list, but i'm not closely watching for replies there

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:42:57

I'm fine with the discussion being there, I just wanted to make sure people saw where last weeks discussion went to.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:43:04

ooh fun

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:43:19

There haven't been any replies on the mailling list, I think everyone did what you said.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:43:37

it will be interesting if EPEL discussion is more active on discourse, even though we should be the more conservative group

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:43:57

our mailing list is so inactive I admit I only check it every few days

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:44:59

there was a recent fedora thread that did the same, asked to focus the discussion in discourse, and then the replies to the email thread outnumbered the discourse thread like 4 to 1

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:45:16

I'm going to move to the open floor ...

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:45:19

!topic General Issues / Open Floor

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:45:26

Does anyone have anything for Open Floor?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:46:00

the 42 one huh

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:46:08

Sorry for cutting the discussion off, but it was more of a discussion of email/discord so I figured open floor was better.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:46:20

yeah. and we should get to Older Business :)

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:46:43

well the people old enough to remember the Hitchhikers Guide are all going to be using email versus discourse </hot take to get in trouble>

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:47:24

Which Hitchhikers Guide? The radio show, book, tv-series or movie?

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:47:43

Even the movie is over 20 years old

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:00

I feel old now

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:48:02

*laughs* ... ok ... I admit it. I remember them all, and I do use email.

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:48:03

Bilbo Baggins looks so young in it

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:27

I think I knew h2g2 first from the book then from watching the radio recordings... on CD

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:48:27

i hate realizing something i remember as being more recent is decades old

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:59

instead of Hope it says No Hope

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:49:04

hmm I wonder if I still have it

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:49:29

Well I think its time to end this meeting. I have a couple more million years to wait here in this car park

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:49:49

and my pizza birthday meal is here.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:50:05

🍕

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:50:07

have a good day and thanks for the fish

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:50:12

Happy Birthday!!

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:50:29

Happy Birthday :)!

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:50:30

I will get a pizza in your honor :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:50:34

Any other Open Floor items?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:52:02

I'm good ending the meeting a bit early if others are ok with it.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:52:16

salimma has already given cookies to tdawson during the F41 timeframe

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:52:20

dherrera gave a cookie to tdawson. They now have 80 cookies, 3 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:52:42

Thank you all for coming and for the good discussions. And thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:52:57

ngompa gave a cookie to tdawson. They now have 81 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:53:03

Oh ... and with that, I rememberd one thing. I will not be available next week.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:53:20

we can just cancel next week since that's Thanksgiving week anyway

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:53:24

It is the day beofore a U.S. holiday, and I will be traveling.

<@carlwgeorge:matrix.org>

18:53:35

yeah lets cancel it

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:53:36

Yep. Are we ok canceling next week?

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:54:16

sure ^^

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:36

I'll be oncall for both work and the kid so I don't mind not having meetings :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:54:45

Sounds like an agreement. We'll cancel next weeks meeting.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:55:07

I'll talk to ya'll in two weeks ... Dec 4th.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:55:28

For those having a holiday, have a great holiday. For those that aren't ... have a good week with one less meeting.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:55:39

!endmeeting