2025-02-12 18:00:09 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !startmeeting EPEL (2025-02-12)
2025-02-12 18:00:10 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-02-12 18:00:09 UTC
2025-02-12 18:00:10 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-02-12)'
2025-02-12 18:00:15 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic aloha
2025-02-12 18:00:15 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !meetingname epel
2025-02-12 18:00:16 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now epel
2025-02-12 18:00:18 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !hi
2025-02-12 18:00:20 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:00:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Carl George 
2025-02-12 18:00:33 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2025-02-12 18:00:35 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:00:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Diego Herrera 
2025-02-12 18:01:48 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> !hi
2025-02-12 18:01:50 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
2025-02-12 18:02:16 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Jonathan Wright 
2025-02-12 18:02:21 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> howdy howdy
2025-02-12 18:03:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> We're a little light on people today ... maybe more will come.
2025-02-12 18:05:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
2025-02-12 18:05:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
2025-02-12 18:05:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2025-02-12 18:05:53 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:06:04 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Michel Lind 🎩 UTC-6 
2025-02-12 18:06:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> today's full of meetings left and right
2025-02-12 18:06:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> The only open issue we have marked with meeting is the DNF variable one.  Do we want to go over that right now, or wait for the EPEL10 section of the meeting?
2025-02-12 18:06:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ah, let's go over it now.
2025-02-12 18:06:40 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> every wednesday for me :(
2025-02-12 18:06:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-02-12 18:06:48 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:06:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !313
2025-02-12 18:06:54 <@davide:cavalca.name> !hi
2025-02-12 18:06:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !epel 313
2025-02-12 18:06:57 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yeah i can give a status update
2025-02-12 18:06:57 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:06:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by carlwgeorge
2025-02-12 18:06:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-02-12 18:06:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **epel #313** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/313):**EPEL 10 dnf variables problems**
2025-02-12 18:06:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 4 days ago
2025-02-12 18:06:58 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge
2025-02-12 18:07:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> my Wednesdays suck too
2025-02-12 18:07:20 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Davide Cavalca and Conan Kudo 
2025-02-12 18:08:21 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> all the dnf/libdnf prs have been merged upstream.  backports to the el10 packages have been proposed, and we're working through the process to get those merged and included.  this will be for both problems described in the issue.
2025-02-12 18:09:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sweetness
2025-02-12 18:09:24 <@salimma:fedora.im> nice
2025-02-12 18:09:51 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> oh and the necessary provides have been added to redhat-release as well, so that part is done
2025-02-12 18:10:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> woot
2025-02-12 18:10:07 <@tdawson:fedora.im> This fixes the packagekit problems too?
2025-02-12 18:10:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so we just wait now
2025-02-12 18:10:47 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes, the plan is to include that fix at the same time so they're qa tested together
2025-02-12 18:10:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Very nice
2025-02-12 18:11:10 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you, and anyone else, for pushing those through.
2025-02-12 18:12:07 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> it's still possible for the backports to be rejected, so we're not completely out of the woods, but so far it's trending in the right direction
2025-02-12 18:12:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Understood.
2025-02-12 18:12:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> we just proposed the centos fast track SIG - so if it got rejected we can always temporarily park it there
2025-02-12 18:13:58 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> one possibility is it's just declined for 10.0 and deferred to 10.1, in which case it would be good test case for the fasttrack sig
2025-02-12 18:14:08 <@tdawson:fedora.im> The people being affected are RHEL users ... I'm not sure having it in a CentOS SIG is going to really help.   But it's a thought.
2025-02-12 18:14:30 <@salimma:fedora.im> that is a good point
2025-02-12 18:14:35 <@salimma:fedora.im> well, it depends on how we set up the SIG
2025-02-12 18:14:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> if there is a need we can ask Fabian to give us the ability to build against RHEL
2025-02-12 18:14:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> What I mean, is that centos users, it's simple to install the fastrack sig repo, but for RHEL users ... not as easy.
2025-02-12 18:15:20 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> centos users are affected by the packagekit problem
2025-02-12 18:15:25 <@salimma:fedora.im> e.g. have the ability to target minor releases like epel10.Y and not just targeting centos stream + epel10
2025-02-12 18:15:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> but yeah it will make the onboarding for EPEL even more annoying
2025-02-12 18:16:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> let's cross that bridge if we have to come to it
2025-02-12 18:16:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh, I didn't realize packagekit was a problem for everyone.
2025-02-12 18:16:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and assume for now everything will land
2025-02-12 18:16:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the fact everything is done and being processed is a great sign
2025-02-12 18:16:37 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yeah the releasever_minor stuff is only a problem for rhel, but the packagekit libdnf thing affects everyone
2025-02-12 18:17:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> OK, I'll remain positive :) ... and do what I can to get things moving along.
2025-02-12 18:18:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anyway, that is great news that things are moving in the right direction.   Anything else before we move on?
2025-02-12 18:19:05 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'll take that as a no, and move on.
2025-02-12 18:19:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL 10
2025-02-12 18:19:43 <@tdawson:fedora.im> The one thing I have for this is the minor branching SOP
2025-02-12 18:19:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !epel 304
2025-02-12 18:19:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** dherrera
2025-02-12 18:19:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **epel #304** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/304):**EPEL 10.0 mass branching**
2025-02-12 18:19:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-02-12 18:19:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 months ago by carlwgeorge
2025-02-12 18:19:59 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 20 minutes ago
2025-02-12 18:20:31 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Diego Herrera: Do you have an update?
2025-02-12 18:21:30 <@dherrera:fedora.im> yeah :) kevin gave lot's of feedback on the SOP Draft yesterday, and we are working with Carl George in testing those on staging
2025-02-12 18:22:28 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> our goal is to do the mass branching in staging this week, and prod next week
2025-02-12 18:22:43 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> we've been getting lots of great feedback so far from the releng folks
2025-02-12 18:23:12 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I think that the only things that I have questions about are some ansible playbooks I need to check and see if we need to block access to infra (which might not be necesary, but we'll see), but besides that, it depends on how things behave on staging
2025-02-12 18:24:27 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I know the branching is the hardest part, and thank you all for all the work on that, but I have another tagging question.
2025-02-12 18:24:55 <@tdawson:fedora.im> When we do the tagging, will we be bringing over the packages in -testing as well as those that are released?
2025-02-12 18:25:08 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> that actually came up in the releng channel yesterday
2025-02-12 18:25:15 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I think that the only things that I have questions about are some ansible playbooks I need to check, and see if we need to block access to infra during the process (which might not be necesary since it's shorter than the fedora one, but we'll see), but besides that, it depends on how things behave on staging
2025-02-12 18:26:01 <@tdawson:fedora.im> My mind keeps going back and forth on it.
2025-02-12 18:26:05 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> my initial thought was that yes all those should be tagged over as well to ensure a proper upgrade path, but there may be some with negative karma
2025-02-12 18:26:21 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2025-02-12 18:26:23 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2025-02-12 18:26:31 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> late, sry.. double booked myself
2025-02-12 18:26:46 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Well, ya, those with negative karma, like k3b, .... hmm
2025-02-12 18:26:54 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Neil Hanlon 
2025-02-12 18:27:23 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> right now there are 98 updates in bodhi for epel 10.0 in pending or testing status
2025-02-12 18:27:47 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> fedora avoids this problem because rawhide doesn't have a testing period
2025-02-12 18:28:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> the maintainer can always push it to stable after a week right?
2025-02-12 18:28:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> But if they push it to stable, then they've missed the tagging.
2025-02-12 18:29:02 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes, but that would only go into epel10.0, and would miss epel10.1
2025-02-12 18:29:22 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i'm thinking it should be possible to write a script that uses the bodhi api to check for pending/testing updates for epel10.0, and tag the relevant koji builds to epel10.1 as long as there is no negative karma
2025-02-12 18:29:42 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> it wouldn't be foolproof, but it would probably catch most of what we want to happen
2025-02-12 18:29:46 <@salimma:fedora.im> ahh.. yeah I see the problem
2025-02-12 18:29:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Besides k3b ... how many others have negative karma?  Or is that hard to tell without going through each one?
2025-02-12 18:30:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Because I could just drop k3b if that's the only one.
2025-02-12 18:30:38 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i know of a half dozen or so
2025-02-12 18:30:51 <@dherrera:fedora.im> we could automatically drop the ones that have negative karma as part of the process...
2025-02-12 18:31:02 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> interesting idea...
2025-02-12 18:31:52 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> like unpush the ones in testing with negative karma at the time of branching, and if the maintainers submit a new build it will be for epel10.1
2025-02-12 18:32:44 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> that would also be a good periodic cleanup for updates left dangling without maintainer action
2025-02-12 18:32:50 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep, I've been thinking of doing that for k3b.
2025-02-12 18:33:24 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> now, what do we do with updates that have no karma, work fine, but just haven't been in testing for a full week?  fast track them to stable so they get tagged for 10.1?
2025-02-12 18:33:52 <@salimma:fedora.im> I think tag them into 10.1 since it's more experimental while letting them do the normal thing for 10.0?
2025-02-12 18:34:15 <@salimma:fedora.im> on the ground that 10.1 is more experimental and we care more about availability
2025-02-12 18:34:24 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yeah maybe, we could manually tag those for 10.1 but let 10.0 happen normally
2025-02-12 18:34:28 <@salimma:fedora.im> or... if you really want to be sure, auto create a new update for 10.1 that is also in testing
2025-02-12 18:34:37 <@salimma:fedora.im> match the current state. idk how hard that would be to automate
2025-02-12 18:35:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would probably just let it land in 10.0 and tag up to 10.1 later
2025-02-12 18:36:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I guess one question is if it's possible to script something that skips the negative karma packages.
2025-02-12 18:37:17 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> in theory, sure
2025-02-12 18:37:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> If it is, then I think we should skip tagging them up.  I'm not adamant about that, but it's my opinion right now.
2025-02-12 18:38:02 <@smooge:fedora.im> morning
2025-02-12 18:38:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Morning Stephen J Smoogen 
2025-02-12 18:38:22 <@salimma:fedora.im> morning
2025-02-12 18:38:30 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> we're also overdue for a policy that says maintainers are responsible for ensuring a proper upgrade path between minor versions.  that came up at connect in an audience question.  that factors into this as well.
2025-02-12 18:39:13 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> Shouldn't it be a non-issue since maintainers shouldn't be breaking things within a major EL version?
2025-02-12 18:39:42 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> it's not about breaking changes, it's about the upgrade path in general
2025-02-12 18:40:11 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I think the question at connect was about upgrading between major versions, not minors.  I could be mis-remembering
2025-02-12 18:40:18 <@tdawson:fedora.im> So, if we don't tag things in -testing correctly, it's possible that 10.0 has a higher number package than what's in 10.1
2025-02-12 18:40:23 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah. if the package is not tagged in 10.1 but is in 10.0 that breaks the upgrade path
2025-02-12 18:40:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> will 10.1 allow updates to go without karma at the beginning? or will we turn on gating from the get go
2025-02-12 18:41:02 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> the way it came up at connect was what if a maintainer did a change in the epel10.0 branch, but didn't also build it in the epel10 branch.  that could result in say foo-1.0-5.el10_0 that is higher than foo-1.0-4.el10_1
2025-02-12 18:41:15 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> Oh, I'm definitely mis-remembering.  ignore me.
2025-02-12 18:41:19 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> Was conflating it with a different question
2025-02-12 18:41:24 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> same thing would happen in fedora if a maintainer applied a change to f41 but didn't do it in rawhide/f42
2025-02-12 18:41:25 <@salimma:fedora.im> right. we should probably just adopt Fedora's policy here
2025-02-12 18:41:51 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yeah modeled after fedora's policy for sure, probably with some wording tweaks
2025-02-12 18:41:54 <@salimma:fedora.im> we see that even in Fedora sometimes - maintainers might want to push updates to stable before working out how to deal with F42/Rawhide FTBFSes
2025-02-12 18:42:17 <@salimma:fedora.im> even with a policy in  place. so without a policy I could imagine it being the wild west. no bueno for an EL repo :)
2025-02-12 18:42:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I think this needs an issue plus email and/or discourse
2025-02-12 18:43:09 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i can start that thread today
2025-02-12 18:43:14 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I have to step out, y'all have a good rest of the week!
2025-02-12 18:43:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you Carl George 
2025-02-12 18:43:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Looking at the time, I think I need to timebox this topic and move it to the issue.
2025-02-12 18:44:19 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Now that Smooge is here, I feel it's time to move on to the next topic
2025-02-12 18:44:27 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic Old Business
2025-02-12 18:45:19 <@salimma:fedora.im> I see smooge immediately has something to say
2025-02-12 18:45:35 <@smooge:fedora.im> and forgets everyone can see him typing
2025-02-12 18:45:52 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other old business?   
2025-02-12 18:46:03 <@smooge:fedora.im> not from me.
2025-02-12 18:46:18 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i see an old issue hanging around
2025-02-12 18:46:23 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !epel 303
2025-02-12 18:46:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 4 months ago by fmaurer
2025-02-12 18:46:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-02-12 18:46:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2025-02-12 18:46:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 3 months ago
2025-02-12 18:46:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **epel #303** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/303):**Can stgit be updated in epel9**
2025-02-12 18:47:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It seems like they were going to do more investigation, and then replied back.
2025-02-12 18:47:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Or have you heard or seen anything else from them?
2025-02-12 18:47:42 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> looks like it's still an issue in git
2025-02-12 18:47:51 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i haven't seen anything outside of this ticket
2025-02-12 18:48:08 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It seems like they were going to do more investigation, and then haven't replied back.
2025-02-12 18:48:15 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> nothing on the list either
2025-02-12 18:48:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Maybe we can give them a ping, see what they decided.
2025-02-12 18:48:39 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yeah i'll update the ticket
2025-02-12 18:48:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you.
2025-02-12 18:48:50 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anything else?
2025-02-12 18:49:46 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic General Issues / Open Floor
2025-02-12 18:49:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone have anything for Open Floor?
2025-02-12 18:51:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> If not, I'm ok ending the meeting a little early.
2025-02-12 18:51:58 <@salimma:fedora.im> I'm ok having lunch a bit less late :)
2025-02-12 18:52:18 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Then let's call this a meeting. :)
2025-02-12 18:52:41 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you everyone for the good discussions.  And thank you very much for your work on EPEL and all you do for it's community.
2025-02-12 18:52:52 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.
2025-02-12 18:53:09 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil has already given cookies to tdawson during the F41 timeframe
2025-02-12 18:53:30 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !endmeeting