<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:18
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-02-26)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:19
Meeting started at 2025-02-26 18:00:18 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:19
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-02-26)'
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:25
!topic aloha
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:25
!meetingname epel
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:26
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:00:28
!hi
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:00:29
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:00:29
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:00:30
Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:00:33
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:00:35
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:47
Hi Carl George Diego Herrera and Michel Lind UTC-6
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:01:07
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:08
Pablo Sebastian Greco (pgreco)
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:01:17
loiks like I'll be around today! 🥳
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:01:20
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:21
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:01:24
hey Pablo 🙂
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:01:27
welcome Pablo! long time no see
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:01:41
hallo
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:47
Hi Pablo Greco and Neil Hanlon
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:54
Hello Stephen J Smoogen
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:01:55
good morning/afternoon/etc, all
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:02:15
greetings fellow humans, bots and humanobots
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:02:16
Yeah, work has been a bit more demanding than usual ;), hopefully I'll be able to join more regularly
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:34
morning
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:23
Morning nirik
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:03:42
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:44
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:56
Hi Davide Cavalca
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:05
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:05
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:30
We have 3 meeting issues this week, but two are related. I'm going start with what I think is the shorter one.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:52
!epel 318
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:53
● **Last Updated:** 16 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:53
● **Opened:** 5 days ago by carlwgeorge
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:53
**epel #318** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/318):**epel-release-latest-10 symlink churn**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:53
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:53
● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:12
Carl George: Do you mind giving a status on this one.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:06:56
we were able to get the necessary +1s on the pr to fix it to merge in spite of the infra freeze, and it's been deployed
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:07:45
so far it seems to have worked as expected, and i haven't seen any more reports about 403 errors
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:25
Very nice. That you for the quick reponse and fix.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:45
And also thanks to those that allowed us to get it put in during a freeze.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:09:22
Anything else from this issue?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:10:31
nope, let's move on
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:14
I'm going to lump the next two together, because they have the same request.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:20
!epel 316
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:21
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:21
● **Last Updated:** a week ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:21
● **Opened:** a week ago by decathorpe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:21
**epel #316** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/316):**EPEL Updates Policy, minor branches, and source-only Rust packages**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:21
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:27
!epel 317
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:27
● **Last Updated:** 30 minutes ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:27
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:27
● **Opened:** a week ago by music
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:27
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:11:27
**epel #317** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/317):**Proposed update of uv from 0.5.31 to 0.6.x in EPEL10; proposed permanent exception**
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:12:07
uv seems to be one of those that really need permanent exceptions
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:09
We talked about this last week, and if I remember correctly, we were going to have a page written up with the policy.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:12:24
last week i said i would work up a pr of what an epel policy list would look like, but at the time i forgot about the big pending docs pr
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:24
But I didn't see a page writeup.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:45
I'm not casting blame, we all have time restraints.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:13:05
yeah i had a few days of pto and trying to play catch up
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:13:32
But I was wondering if maybe we should approve these two and let them know they are approved so they can move on.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:13:44
i'd like to wait until the big docs pr is merged before submitting this policy thing, if that's ok with everyone else
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:13:58
Or, if needed, disaprove.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:13
i'm ok with giving uv the all clear for now, and having that on the list for permanent exception
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:14:18
same
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:24
I agree with that.
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:14:50
I'm ok with uv itself, but in general, epel could be a bit more restrictive about incompatible upgrades
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:15:09
I totally get this case and I'm not against it, just worried about the precedent
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:15:14
yup, that was my thinking on having our own list, rather than just sharing one with fedora
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:00
things on the fedora exception list are certainly candidates for epel, i just don't think it should be automatic
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:04
do we expect to basically have an exception list (those in Fedora that's disallowed) or an allow list (and just seed it at the beginning by vetting everything currently allowed in Fedora)?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:11
I guess the latter
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:16:18
my thought is something like this, if there's no blanket approval from fedora, it's up to epel to say yes, if there is blanket approval from fedora, it's up to epel to say no
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:20
allow list makes more sense to me, it will be shorter
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:27
i think last week we only came up with four things
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:45
yeah and it will be independent instead of having to refer to what's in fedora proper all the time
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:17:17
I wouldn't consider for it to be a good idea to approve things on epel that are not in fedora... on disallowing i'm partial
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:17:20
I don't think the two will be different much, but whatever...
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:18:01
it makes me think about the "staging" drivers on the kernel, that get a lot more leeway wrt incompatible changes because it's not considered stable.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:18:02
oh sure, I think we should say things should be in Fedora first (except for EPEL-only packages)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:18:18
yeah i can't imagine a scenario where something is on the epel list but not on the fedora list. we could include a clause that it must be approved for exception in fedora first.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:18:19
but the list should be complete on its own so people can refer to it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:36
someone will need to udpate it anytime fedora side updates then. ;) man with one watch...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:19:45
So, I think we're all agreed somewhat ... and also agreed that we neeed to wait for the large doc change to be merged before proceeding. So, let's discuss and vote on these two specific cases.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:19:52
Let's start with UV
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:20:35
there have been several packages in the past which were EPEL only.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:20:45
but I missed my window
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:20:56
yep. for those obviously it's fine to request exemption only for EPEL :)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:21:00
I have a +1 to give them a permanent exception
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:07
some good rationale is given here https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3262#comment-926378
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:21:56
basically uv is not a build backend and has no python api, just a cli
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:22:57
i am +1 for the exception
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:23:15
there was also a caveat of revisiting the exception once uv hits 1.0, which we may want to include as a note somewhere
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:32
That sounds reasonable.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:23:42
so semi-permanent exception :P
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:24:08
+1 from me
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:24:28
yeap, that lines up with my thoughts on "staging"
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:24:40
+1, not that my vote counts anymore :D
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:26
Diego Herrera: ?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:25:38
+1 too if you want my opinion xD
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:26:19
Davide Cavalca: ?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:26:37
Sorry, got the wrong D going :) But yes, we always value your opinion.
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:26:48
+1 from me, for what it's worth 😉
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:27:03
me and diego and pablo at least make up half a vote😛
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:06
Not sure if mine has been counted yet but
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:06
+1
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:27:57
sorry had to step out for a moment
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:27:58
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:28:57
!agreed Give UV a permanent update exception, with the caviot that it will get revisited at version 1.0 - 5(+1) 0(-1) 2(absent) - +4 from community
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:27
OK, let's move on to the next one.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:55
!epel 316
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:56
**epel #316** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/316):**EPEL Updates Policy, minor branches, and source-only Rust packages**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:56
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:56
● **Opened:** a week ago by decathorpe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:56
● **Last Updated:** a week ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:56
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:14
The one problem I have with this one, is it's not ... specific.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:49
Is this for only "library-only Rust packages"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:30:50
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:30:51
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:58
Hi Conan Kudo
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:31:12
source-only means only `-devel` packages
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:31:17
i'm ok with this one in the leading epel10 branch, but i'm not convinced we should extend it to trailing branches like epel10.0
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:18
Is this for "library-only Rust packages" only ?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:32:00
basically i'd prefer Fabio Valentini's original plan of "only merge library updates to epel10.x branches as needed"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:14
it doesn't apply to any rust packages that produce executables or shared objects
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:33:19
I was pretty sure that's what it was about, I just wanted to make sure what I thought it was, and what it was, were the same.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:33:48
so - leading branch, same exception as Fedora; trailing branches - only as needed
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:03
Do we have a link to the Fedora discussion/arguments for this?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:34:07
that seems reasonable. we don't want to overburden the builders too much after all
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:34:11
i think we should start with this on the exception list, but only for the epel10 branch. we can revisit later if the "slows down security fixes" concern actually materializes.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:34:31
I think we have enough data to prove that from fedora stable release branches
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:34:42
happily I might have a usecase for that right now (though epel10 and epel10.0 probably has not diverged that much still)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:34:52
(unhappily for me of course)
<@music:fedora.im>
18:37:07
I expect it will. It’s very common for patch releases in applications to require Semver-incompatible changes in the dependency tree.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:37:39
the fact that we almost always approve incompat update requests for difficult to backport fixes lines up pretty well with the "as needed" approach
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:38:23
So, I'm convinced. For the vote, how are we phrasing it?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:38:51
depends on which part you're convinced on, the full thing or just epel10 branch
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:39:46
Well, definitely for the epel10 branch
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:30
I just don't know how to work "epel10.x when needed" ... cuz that doesn't really sound like a blanket exception.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:40:43
we can vote for those two things separately
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:40:44
i'll also point out that rhel itself regularly defers security fixes to the next minor version, and having this only for the epel10 branch would be similar
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:41:19
updating in trailing branches is often impossible anyway because the MSRV might get bumped
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:24
Because for epel10.x ... the only reason you'd need the libraries updated is if you are updating a binary ...
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:41:36
without ugly hacks like reverting new features, at which point you might as well try to backport
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:42:24
OK, well then, let's start with the first one. A permanent exeption for library-only Rust packages in epel10, and only epel10.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:42:30
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:42:33
+1 from me
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:42:59
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:09
This isn't meaning we can't do an exception for epel10.x ... it's just that we are voting for just that one branch.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:43:17
+1
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:43:21
should our entire exception list should be epel10 branch only?
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
18:43:21
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:07
nirik: I know you are on another meeting, but we are voting on "A permanent exeption for library-only Rust packages in epel10" (epel10.x will be a different vote)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:52
Conan Kudo: and Davide Cavalca ... do you have an opinion/vote?
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:45:20
no strong opinion, but I'm fine supporting this
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:45:22
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:45:39
Do you mean, include epel9 with epel10 ?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:46:16
well i was just thinking about in the scope of epel10 overall, just the epel10 branch, but yeah epel9 would fit in with that
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:46:31
so maybe "only applies to major version branches"
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:46:31
epel9 is tricky because of epel9-next
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:46:56
hmm yeah that makes it messier to phrase
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:47:10
so I think the exception should be for those two as well, we can adopt the more strict "leading branch only" from 10 onwards?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:48:13
in theory people could (ab)use epel9-next to fake this workflow, but that's probably not a good idea
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:48:58
we can be explicit that it applies to the major version branch only for epel10+, and all branches before that
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:49:06
yeah, that sounds good
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:29
So, are we changing this to "leading branch" for the exception, instead of epel10 ?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:49:35
FWIW in practice we generally try to keep everything in epel9 up to date if the branch exists... *unless* the update does not compile. then basically those are frozen until the next point release
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:50:17
but the Rust folks generally package compat crates as long as anything needs the old version that can't be easily ported, so updating stable releases is generally not an issue
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:50:24
only 5 more of those point releases left
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:50:28
+1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:50:33
can't wait
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:48
!agreed Give a permanent exeption for library-only Rust packages in the leading branches - 5(+1) 0(-1) 3(absent) - +2 from community
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:51:06
2.5 years I guess?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:51:08
and at that point, no more epel-next
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:51:32
another "great idea" I had to pour a wine out for
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:51:32
We're starting to run out of time, and I'd like to have some discussion on the docs.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:51:49
So, moving on ...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:00
!topic Old Business
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:40
We brought this up last week, but hopefully everyone's been able to read the docs more this week. How are we feeling about the major doc redo ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:52:55
looks good to me
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:58
!link https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/315
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:53:22
I'm good with it as well.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:53:25
with my pto i haven't been able to look over it closely, but from what petr told me it is almost exclusively rearranging the content, not changing any text
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:53:48
I think there might be a thing here or there that might want a tweak, but we can do small pull requests on those.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:54:13
Yep, from what I can see, it's just re-arranging content. And making some more visible with the info tags.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:54:17
the one thing i have noticed i don't like is kinda hard to describe
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:54:28
agreed, for something like this it generally looks fine, and we can probably iterate on it via PRs
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:55:15
yea i just scanned thru real quick and it seems nominally fine and good, even! 😃
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:24
in the left sidebar, the items with triangles to expand are also pages. we have this now too, but this seems like the right time to question that with the restructure. i'd prefer the expandable items to just be containers for the pages under them, not have their own content.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:37
hopefully that makes sense
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:56:06
I've been swamped and have not had time to look or test, so I probably should sit out this vote
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:56:49
tbh I had this same thought on our old docs, but for some reason it didn't bother me with how it was restructured
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:57:05
for a concrete example, in the preview if you click "helping epel", that has content and also expands for the pages underneath that. i would like that content to be a "joining epel" page underneath the "helping epel" section
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:57:10
maybe the topics are better linked out on this one?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:57:57
for me it's a ux issue, if you're on a page, and want to expand a section to see what else there is, but it navigates you away from the page you're own before you're ready if you don't click just right (on the triangle vs on the words)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:58:26
Ah, I see what you mean.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:59:05
technically i could fix this up with a followup pr, but i wanted to at least bring it up and consider asking petr to include that in the current pr
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:07
Maybe you can bring that up as a comment. It seems like if it can be done, Petr would be the person who knows how to do it.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:59:23
i've done it before, it's certainly possible
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:33
on the other hand, I don't want this massive PR to drag out any longer
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:40
Ah ... ok. Then ya. go ahead and ask him.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:59:40
can I give somea advice on doc PRs?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:49
if we're 80% fine, let's take it and iterate on top
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:00
Stephen J Smoogen: Go for it.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
19:00:03
it's only been open 8 days. look at the age of some of our other prs.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:00:20
Which is what Conan Kudo just said. Documentation will drag out forever with lots of little things
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
19:00:27
yes
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:00:29
Get it done and get to the next issue
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:00:52
8 days becomes 800 days very easily
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:01:05
[speaking from previous doc rewrites of EPEL items]
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
19:01:22
well i don't think this one will become 800 days with one minor fixup request
<@smooge:fedora.im>
19:01:46
anyway that is my 0.2 pennies
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
19:01:51
but if everyone else wants to go ahead and merge i can do the change i'm suggesting as a separate pr
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:02:04
Go for the request, and if it's not done by next week, we can merge it and do the request ourselves with a seperate pull request.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:02:15
I'm good either way.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:02:42
But I just saw the time, and we are over.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
19:02:45
petr was pinging me about this today, he would like to merge it this week, so i'll ask if he wants to include that fixup or not
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:03:18
If you've got direct contact with him ... asking his opinion on waiting or not is best.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:03:47
Thank you all for the great discussion, for the votes, and for all that you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:03:58
Ya'll are a great bunch of people to work with.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:04:05
I'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.
<@pgreco:fedora.im>
19:04:24
See ya!
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:04:32
!endmeeting