2025-05-07 17:34:57 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Text Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-05-07/fedora-coreos-meeting.2025-05-07-16.30.txt
2025-05-07 18:01:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !startmeeting EPEL (2025-05-07)
2025-05-07 18:01:54 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-05-07 18:01:53 UTC
2025-05-07 18:01:54 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-05-07)'
2025-05-07 18:01:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !meetingname epel
2025-05-07 18:01:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic aloha
2025-05-07 18:02:00 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now epel
2025-05-07 18:02:03 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2025-05-07 18:02:04 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:02:05 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> !hi
2025-05-07 18:02:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:02:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-05-07 18:02:10 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:02:28 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Diego Herrera Robby Callicotte and Conan Kudo 
2025-05-07 18:02:42 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I feel like I just saw ya'll. :)
2025-05-07 18:03:18 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !hi
2025-05-07 18:03:19 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:03:20 <@elguero:fedora.im> !hi
2025-05-07 18:03:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> None (elguero)
2025-05-07 18:03:41 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Carl George and Michael L. Young 
2025-05-07 18:03:43 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2025-05-07 18:03:44 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:04:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Michel Lind UTC-6 
2025-05-07 18:05:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> I'm going through the list of orphaned packages to pick things up so slightly not paying attention
2025-05-07 18:05:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
2025-05-07 18:05:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
2025-05-07 18:06:05 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-05-07 18:06:12 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm going to go "newest first" for no other reason than ... cuz.
2025-05-07 18:06:18 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Morning nirik 
2025-05-07 18:06:28 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !epel 330
2025-05-07 18:06:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** ngompa
2025-05-07 18:06:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **epel #330** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/330):**switch EPEL 10 to zstd repodata**
2025-05-07 18:06:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-05-07 18:06:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 4 days ago by carlwgeorge
2025-05-07 18:06:30 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** Never
2025-05-07 18:06:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I did the stuff for this
2025-05-07 18:06:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh ... it's already done?
2025-05-07 18:07:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> just waiting for nirik to merge it
2025-05-07 18:07:06 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> done in the plr sense
2025-05-07 18:07:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> uh...
2025-05-07 18:07:11 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> done in the pr sense
2025-05-07 18:07:34 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i created the issue so we could talk about it here
2025-05-07 18:07:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I have had no time to get back to look, but is this only changing epel10?
2025-05-07 18:08:06 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> the decision point i guess do we want to wait until rhel 9.7 so that rhel 9 mirrors have a mergerepo_c that supports zstd
2025-05-07 18:08:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2025-05-07 18:08:34 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think so...
2025-05-07 18:09:13 <@davide:cavalca.name> !hi
2025-05-07 18:09:15 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:09:22 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i think it's fine to merge now, but also no opposed to waiting a bit longer for that rhel 9 mirror thing
2025-05-07 18:09:23 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Davide Cavalca 
2025-05-07 18:10:04 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> if we do the latter, the pr can be adjusted to have epel10.0/10.1 continue to use gzip repodata, and just use zstd repodata for 10.2 going forward
2025-05-07 18:10:36 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I thought all of 10 already had zstd ... though I could be wrong ...
2025-05-07 18:11:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> epel10 does not. ;)
2025-05-07 18:11:42 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> (yet)
2025-05-07 18:11:43 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> the version of createrepo_c in 10 does understand zstd tho...
2025-05-07 18:12:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I would rather just go ahead and land this
2025-05-07 18:12:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Yes. The problem would be people running rhel9 that want to mergerepos or the like
2025-05-07 18:12:30 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ohh ... ok.  I see the problem now.
2025-05-07 18:14:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> rhel9 from gz -> xz is probibly fine, but not sure it gets us too much
2025-05-07 18:14:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> mainly makes things consistent since right now it's mixed gz xz
2025-05-07 18:14:58 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> For reference https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-67689
2025-05-07 18:15:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, and I can't see how it would break someone... but I bet you it will break someone. ;)
2025-05-07 18:15:19 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> proposal: keep epel 10.0/10.1 on gz, use zstd for 10.2 going forward (which defers the change until roughly around when rhel9 gets a zstd-capable mergerepo_c)
2025-05-07 18:15:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> counter proposal: merge as is and offer a backport for people who need it
2025-05-07 18:15:47 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i agree about making epel9 consistent with epel8 with a switch to xz, but it should be a separate pr
2025-05-07 18:16:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't really want to do even more splitting
2025-05-07 18:16:33 <@smooge:fedora.im> i think every release should have its own compression method. it is like a wine flavour to tell which year it is
2025-05-07 18:16:44 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 Stephen J Smoogen
2025-05-07 18:16:49 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 🤬
2025-05-07 18:17:04 <@smooge:fedora.im> rhel7 should be bz2
2025-05-07 18:17:19 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ah, a nice rhel8 7z repodata...
2025-05-07 18:17:28 <@salimma:fedora.im> ahh that was a terrible vintage
2025-05-07 18:17:43 <@salimma:fedora.im> there was too much sunlight that year so the bytes were dry
2025-05-07 18:17:43 <@smooge:fedora.im> hmmm maybe make el8 bz2 then
2025-05-07 18:18:19 <@smooge:fedora.im> anyway I have dropped in my usual "wisdom" to derail a conversation.. Smoogen-Man AWAY!!!!
2025-05-07 18:18:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well I think el6 was bz2 :P
2025-05-07 18:18:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> what an upstart release
2025-05-07 18:19:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I'd prefer to keep all of 10.x the same... I think it might be confusing to split them...
2025-05-07 18:19:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> in all seriousness, I don't really think the mergerepos issue is serious enough to block my pull request, because we have solutions to give people
2025-05-07 18:20:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and it _is_ on track to be fixed in rhel 9.7 proper
2025-05-07 18:20:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> pulp ships their own createrepo for Satellite so it doesn't affect them
2025-05-07 18:20:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> What is the solution that we can give people?
2025-05-07 18:20:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> There's a copr
2025-05-07 18:20:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there's a copr with an updated createrepo for el9
2025-05-07 18:20:49 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but of course this all falls on me/infra when people complain and file tickets and email...
2025-05-07 18:21:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we can do it if everyone is fine with that, but I reserve the right to be grumpy
2025-05-07 18:22:07 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> I won't complain anymore I swear
2025-05-07 18:22:18 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> we can just backburner this issue until the fall and then switch all epel10 releases to zstd
2025-05-07 18:22:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm not feeling good about doing this right before summit, right before RHEL 10.0 is released.
2025-05-07 18:22:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ha, no it's not you... :) Your complaint was well formed and fine.
2025-05-07 18:23:54 <@tdawson:fedora.im> If there is an incoming wave of people that are going to be updating from RHEL 9 to RHEL 10 (or their clone equilvelants) and they have problems because their RHEL9 machines can't read epel10 repo's ... that concerns me.
2025-05-07 18:24:02 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that is not the issue
2025-05-07 18:24:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the only issue is if you want to mangle the repos when you mirror them
2025-05-07 18:24:21 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> every other case works fine even now going back to rhel 8
2025-05-07 18:24:42 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh ... ok.  Then I mis-understood the problem.
2025-05-07 18:24:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if you are using mergerepos to mangle and filter stuff, that's where you need at least cs9/rhel9.7 or the copr backport
2025-05-07 18:25:26 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> Can verify that createrepo 0.20.1-3 and higher in centos stream has zstd support.
2025-05-07 18:26:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> right. so if you run a rhel9 koji for example and use epel as an external repo...
2025-05-07 18:28:32 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2025-05-07 18:28:33 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2025-05-07 18:29:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Neil Hanlon 
2025-05-07 18:29:21 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> so, what do you all want to do here? ;)
2025-05-07 18:29:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I feel that we need to wait till next week, having more of a discussion during the week. ... but that's me.
2025-05-07 18:30:05 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Either way, I think we need to timebox this.
2025-05-07 18:30:05 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> sounds fine
2025-05-07 18:30:34 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> to avoid starting from ground zero next week, please leave comments on the issue if you have thoughts on this
2025-05-07 18:30:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> the issue/pr has been open a while... ;)
2025-05-07 18:31:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh ... 6 months.
2025-05-07 18:31:46 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I did this during the bringup time
2025-05-07 18:31:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and then chaotic things happened in life
2025-05-07 18:32:45 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Well, sorry, but I'm goign to timebox it.  As Carl said, please leave comments in the issue so we can start farther along next week.
2025-05-07 18:33:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !epel 328
2025-05-07 18:33:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **epel #328** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/328):**Figure out getting selinux-policy-epel autoinstalled**
2025-05-07 18:33:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-05-07 18:33:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by ngompa
2025-05-07 18:33:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 3 days ago
2025-05-07 18:33:07 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2025-05-07 18:33:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I see comments ... would someone like to summarize what has happened this past week on this issue?
2025-05-07 18:34:04 <@salimma:fedora.im> we wanted to tell the upstream to give up right
2025-05-07 18:34:06 <@salimma:fedora.im> it's cursed
2025-05-07 18:34:10 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2025-05-07 18:34:18 <@salimma:fedora.im> as cursed as my old iptables-epel that I also nuked
2025-05-07 18:34:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> even moreso
2025-05-07 18:34:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I thought I saw an upstream ticket asking that.
2025-05-07 18:35:57 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> unless i'm misunderstanding this, it seems like petr is amenable to selinux-policy-epel subpackages going into crb like i suggested
2025-05-07 18:35:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 'fraught with peril'
2025-05-07 18:36:43 <@salimma:fedora.im> oh that helps
2025-05-07 18:36:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> so no chicken and egg about repos not enabled
2025-05-07 18:37:17 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm wondering how that will help.  Won't there be the same upgrade/installation issues?
2025-05-07 18:37:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> nope
2025-05-07 18:38:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because the only case to worry about is whether CRB is enabled or not
2025-05-07 18:38:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and CRB is _already_ required for EPEL
2025-05-07 18:38:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if CRB is not enabled, you get broken dependency and refusal to install
2025-05-07 18:38:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so no EPEL for you without it
2025-05-07 18:38:47 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Since when?
2025-05-07 18:38:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> what dep is broken there? or you mean in general for many epel packages?
2025-05-07 18:39:33 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> since the introduction of crb, we realized that epel packages often have runtime deps on crb packages, so we put in the setup instructions to enable it
2025-05-07 18:39:36 <@tdawson:fedora.im> You can't get /usr/bin/crb without epel-release installed, and that's how many people enable crb, after epel-release is installed.
2025-05-07 18:39:57 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> the crb command isn't in the setup instructions
2025-05-07 18:40:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> That doesn't mean that people don't do that.
2025-05-07 18:40:16 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> it's really a helper for people that know about it
2025-05-07 18:40:33 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> or people that see the scriptlet warning
2025-05-07 18:40:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> But the fact is, you CAN install epel-release without crb enabled.
2025-05-07 18:40:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya'll are acting like it's a fact that crb is enabled before epel-release.
2025-05-07 18:41:15 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes, and people do it, and epel maintainers get bugs about missing dependencies and waste time debugging when the problem is not enabling crb first
2025-05-07 18:41:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm saying that it will _become_ explicit when people don't do it
2025-05-07 18:41:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Correct
2025-05-07 18:41:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sadly, 'Requires(reponame)' is not a thing. ;)
2025-05-07 18:41:40 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> not acting like it's 100% the case, but it is the documented process
2025-05-07 18:42:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in this case tho, say someone installs epel-release, doesn't enable crb and installs some epel package that doesn't have any crb requirements... they would just get no selinux policy on it right?
2025-05-07 18:42:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it would take some work to do, but it could also be done, but that's a separate discussion :)
2025-05-07 18:42:46 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes, and that is what happens now, although it seems that is limited to just 64 packages
2025-05-07 18:43:25 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> having the new policy subpackages in crb, and installed by default if crb is enabled, is objectively an improvement over how it works now
2025-05-07 18:43:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I think the biggest of those 64 is mock.
2025-05-07 18:43:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> KDE Plasma also fails without CRB
2025-05-07 18:43:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> whats installing by default if crb is enabled again?
2025-05-07 18:44:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> whats installing it by default if crb is enabled again?
2025-05-07 18:44:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> conditional dependency on selinux-policy
2025-05-07 18:44:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> `Requires: (selinux-policy-epel if selinux-policy)`
2025-05-07 18:45:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> in epel-release?
2025-05-07 18:46:00 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> current scenario:  selinux-policy-epel, selinux-policy-epel-mls, and selinux-policy-epel-targeted are weak deps that never get pulled in because they're not available at the time epel-release is installed.
2025-05-07 18:46:00 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> my suggested scenario:  those packages move from epel to crb, so as long as crb is enabled at the time of epel-release install like we have documented, those policy subpackages get installed by default.
2025-05-07 18:46:00 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> 
2025-05-07 18:46:46 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Have we tested this?
2025-05-07 18:47:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I did.
2025-05-07 18:47:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> if thats a requires there, then it will fail to install epel-release without crb enabled right?
2025-05-07 18:47:13 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Shouldn't be too hard to test ... I'm just asking before I go do it.
2025-05-07 18:47:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Yes.
2025-05-07 18:47:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> OK, cool.
2025-05-07 18:47:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It can't be weak, because then DNF will exclude it forever.
2025-05-07 18:48:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I predict that all those 'can't install XYZ' bugs will become 'can't install epel-release'. ;)
2025-05-07 18:48:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> (which I suppose is a higher level)
2025-05-07 18:48:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it also is a "point to docs" thing
2025-05-07 18:48:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Honestly, that might make the "can't install XYZ" bugs easier, because they'll all have the same error.
2025-05-07 18:49:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2025-05-07 18:49:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> sure, as are the bugs about not having crb.
2025-05-07 18:49:38 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> assuming we move forward with moving those subpackages to crb, the requires vs recommends question would be if we want to move from crb being a documented dependency to a literal hard dependency
2025-05-07 18:49:43 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anyway, one thing I like is that if it moves to CRB, then it because a RHEL problem instead of an EPEL problem ... sorta.
2025-05-07 18:49:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we would need to rework epel-releases crb check a bit
2025-05-07 18:50:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> the post check is useless and can be removed then
2025-05-07 18:50:32 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> sounds fine to me
2025-05-07 18:51:41 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm not sure I like making CRB a required thing for epel-release.  Several of the most used epel packages have no crb requirements.
2025-05-07 18:52:06 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> fwiw, i'm open to other ideas besides moving those packages to crb, just waiting on people to suggest them
2025-05-07 18:52:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> well the package could be moved to AppStream :)
2025-05-07 18:52:30 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> that certainly won't work with acg levels
2025-05-07 18:52:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> or even *gasp* BaseOS :P
2025-05-07 18:52:40 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Let's say you only want to use htop, or some other small utility, and it's only in epel.  enabling crb seems overkill.
2025-05-07 18:52:54 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> isn't crb already a prerequisite to epel?
2025-05-07 18:52:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2025-05-07 18:52:59 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/getting-started/
2025-05-07 18:53:01 <@dherrera:fedora.im> it is
2025-05-07 18:53:07 <@tdawson:fedora.im> No, it is not.
2025-05-07 18:53:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Documentation does not equal rpm dependencies.
2025-05-07 18:53:44 <@salimma:fedora.im> I thought installing epel-release gives you a prominent noti... yeah true
2025-05-07 18:53:57 <@salimma:fedora.im> so it's required but not enforced
2025-05-07 18:54:05 <@salimma:fedora.im> we *can* enforce it with DNF 5 I think
2025-05-07 18:54:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Correct
2025-05-07 18:54:09 <@salimma:fedora.im> but not before that?
2025-05-07 18:54:09 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the thing is that selinux-policy-epel is necessary for many packages that nobody is going to know
2025-05-07 18:54:16 <@salimma:fedora.im> with dnf 5 we can drop in a config override that enables it
2025-05-07 18:54:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> it wouldn't work for this case explicitly
2025-05-07 18:54:40 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Could we move the requres to the packages that have actual policy?
2025-05-07 18:55:20 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> that's what petr suggested, but that is unworkable because many fedora maintainers say no to epel-specific conditionals in fedora spec files
2025-05-07 18:55:36 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I really feel like we (EPEL) are being forced to fix a RHEL problem. :(
2025-05-07 18:55:58 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes, that's exactly the case, this is a rhel change we're having to adjust for
2025-05-07 18:56:12 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ah ... ok, it's not totally that ... but as soon as I saw this (and I saw it before ya'll did) I didn't like it.
2025-05-07 18:56:19 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> if rhel kept selinux-policy all in one then we wouldn't be dealing with this
2025-05-07 18:56:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> which is also what I said they should do
2025-05-07 18:56:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anyway  ... we're close to our time.   So I'm going to timebox this as well.
2025-05-07 18:56:56 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> proposal: assuming the new policy subpackages move to crb, we have epel-release use conditional recommends (not requires like in the issue)
2025-05-07 18:57:13 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm not against the CRB thing, I'm really not, I'm just looking at it from a different angle I think.
2025-05-07 18:57:17 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> that would get them installed if you follow the instructions and turn on crb first, and if you don't do that then you can clean up the mess yourself later
2025-05-07 18:57:30 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep
2025-05-07 18:57:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 😦
2025-05-07 18:57:51 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> or never clean it up if 1) your desired package has no crb deps and 2) has not selinux policy modules
2025-05-07 18:58:04 <@tdawson:fedora.im> True
2025-05-07 18:58:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> 'contitional recommends' ?
2025-05-07 18:58:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah I move to just make sure people read documentation
2025-05-07 18:58:19 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> `Recommends: (selinux-policy-epel if selinux-policy)`
2025-05-07 18:58:19 <@tdawson:fedora.im> We have only a few minutes left.
2025-05-07 18:58:25 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Michel Lind UTC-6: good luck with that.
2025-05-07 18:58:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this would result in a very weird bug reports :/
2025-05-07 18:58:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic General Issues / Open Floor
2025-05-07 18:58:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this would result in very weird bug reports :/
2025-05-07 18:58:48 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone have anything really important they want to bring up before we need to close?
2025-05-07 19:00:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Well, that made things really quiet ...
2025-05-07 19:00:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you all for the very good discussions.   I'm sure we'll get these various issues figured out / fixed/ working
2025-05-07 19:01:08 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.  I'll talk to you next week.
2025-05-07 19:01:17 <@dherrera:fedora.im> thx troy :)
2025-05-07 19:01:22 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> thanks Troy
2025-05-07 19:01:28 <@salimma:fedora.im> thanks Troy
2025-05-07 19:01:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !endmeeting