<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:40
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-09-03)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:41
Meeting started at 2025-09-03 17:59:40 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:42
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-09-03)'
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:46
!meetingname epel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:46
!topic aloha
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:46
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:00:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:00:49
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:43
Hi Carl George
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:01:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:50
Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:54
Hi Diego Herrera
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:01:59
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:02:01
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:02:10
Hi Davide Cavalca
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:05
!hi
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:03:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:08
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:10
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:18
Hi Neil Hanlon and Conan Kudo
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:04:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:04:12
Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:20
Hi Jonathan Wright
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:37
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:37
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:39
morning
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:46
Morning nirik
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:59
We have 3 open items today.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:20
If anyone has a preference for what is first, speak quickly, or I'll choose in a minute.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:05:43
the rust thing will probably be quickest
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:55
Sounds good to me
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:03
!epel 348
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:04
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:04
**epel #348** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/348):__RFC: "incompatible" rust-matchers update in EPEL 10._ to fix CVE-2025-58160_*
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:04
● **Last Updated:** 18 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:04
● **Opened:** a day ago by decathorpe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:06:04
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:07:22
i didn't yet put it in a comment, but i'm +1, it seems reasonable to me
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:07:37
This hasn't been there for a week yet, so we can't really vote on it today.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:40
Yeah, after reading, +1 here
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:07:55
But ya, it's very staight forward to me.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:08:13
oh to be clear, i'm in favor for the epel10 branch, leaning towards no for 10.0/10.1
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:08:39
the cve is rated low btw
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:09:38
Thanks, I was about to look it up. If it's a low, then I agree. 10.2 - yes. 10.1 and 10.0 no.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:10:05
Well ... I'm fuzzy on 10.1 really, I could go either way.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:10:46
if this were rhel 10.1, i think it would be a no, so i think epel 10.1 should be the same
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:24
If they get it done before RHEL 10.1 is released, that would be good for me. After it's released, then ya, I think it would need to wait.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:13:24
Any other opinions on the 10.1 discussion. I'm not really feeling very strong about my opinion.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:13
I also think they need to send an email to epel-devel, I'm not seeing one, unless I missed it.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:42
i can comment summarizing this on the ticket and ask for the mailing list post round out the incompat process
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:57
Sounds good. Thank you.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:15:18
Everyone ok moving onto the next open issue?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:15:51
I'm goign to pick "group cleanup" ... I hope that one will be quick also.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:15:59
!epel 345
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:00
● **Last Updated:** 6 days ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:00
**epel #345** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/345):**EPEL group cleanup**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:00
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:00
● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:00
● **Opened:** a week ago by carlwgeorge
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:16:29
Hi Stephen J Smoogen
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:16:38
is this please stop the emails to the epel-packagers-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org list
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:52
smooge is here just in time to comment on ancient epel groups
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:17:16
if i drop all the members, then i think you'll stop getting the emails
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:17:39
Stephen J Smoogen: Yep ... although the only way we're going to be able to do that, is to take you off the list.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:18:01
well the list is a mailman group which gets bugzilla items forwarded to it
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:18:13
-1 anything that gives people less email. emails are important!
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:18:31
the signal to noise on this list is....bad
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:18:34
i tried removing myself from the list but it was not possible for some reason
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:19:06
and the list gets every email for a bugzilla for a package which is in any branch of epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:19:16
is the mailman group not the same as the fas group?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:17
you should be able to unsubscribe
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:26
mailman and fas have no integration
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:19:29
http://sieve.info/ ! _runs away before he's slapped_
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:19:58
it is different from the fas group
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:20:47
nirik: I tried but I got a lot of errors
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:20:53
no
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:21:02
would you like me to unsubscribe you?
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:21:38
please I tried when I had superuser mailman powers and it wouldn't so hopefully it will listen to you
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:22:00
i mean all you have to say is "discussion.fedoraproject.org is coming for you mailman"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:22:23
😦
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:22:58
so the fas group is different so back to the fas group discussion
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:23:11
at the very least, it sounds like no one is opposed to me emptying out epel-cabal, epel-wranglers, and epelproject. how do we feel about epel-packagers-sig?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:11
Getting back to what is in the issue. How do people feel about Carl removing everyone from those FAS groups?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:26
I'm fine with it.
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:23:32
fine by me
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:23:40
the epel-packagers-group does come in handy. it's let me help people plenty of times
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:24:00
Stephen J Smoogen: " The selected members have been unsubscribed "
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:24:49
sure, but we've already voted to deprecate it. so do we move forward with dropping members as the next step?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:04
What about some of the older ones? epel-cabal epel-wranglers and epelproject ?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:25:14
Yeah I know. I have mixed feelings about dropping it, but indeed we might as well do the deed.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:25:20
please kill them if they aren't being used
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:25:25
meh, let's do it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:25:37
though I like epel-cabal as a name :P
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:26:13
I'm a little concerned about epelproject ... if that goes away, are we no longer a Fedora Group/Project/EPIC/whatever we are ?
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:26:32
We can always move over to CentOS
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:43
to be clear this doesn't involve deleting any groups, just removing the members
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:26:44
💢
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:26:51
I don't think that group is used by anything.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:27:13
Then I'm still in favor of removing all the members.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:28:18
oof
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:28:28
i'd vote for a smooge committee re-election
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:29:34
anyway, I think most of those were ideas which were trying to come up with things that Carl George fixed with the 10.x builds
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:30:40
nirik: thanks I just got the "You have been unsubscribed from the Epel-packagers-sig mailing list"
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:42
So, the only "wait" votes I'm seeing is concerning the epel-packagers-sig ... do we want to wait a bit more before clearning that one out?
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:30:55
I am not sure anyone should be subscribed to it
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:55
I'm fine with all of them being cleared out, I'm just saying there was a couple people who were still using it. But they also didn't say too much.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:08
nah, clear it out
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:32:24
no real reason to wait
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:32:42
so there are two differen epel-packagers-sig. One in FAS and one in mailman. I was talking about the mailman3 one
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:32:57
I don't have an opinion on the FAS one
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:33:12
Ah, ok.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:33:14
so would be fine with whatever happens
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:27
while the fas group exists the bugs will cc to the list... even if there's no one there subscribed.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:32
but that can be a later thing
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:54
Since there was some feedback. I'd feel better with a vote. +1 - clear them all out :: -1 - leave epel-packagers-sig
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:35:03
+1
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:35:44
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:18
I think we're looking people. Conan Kudo Jonathan Wright Diego Herrera nirik Do ya'll mind giving a formal vote on this so we can move on?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:37:29
+1
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:37:31
if I can vote, then +1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:37:33
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:33
I think we're loosing people. Conan Kudo Jonathan Wright Diego Herrera nirik Do ya'll mind giving a formal vote on this so we can move on?
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:37:38
+1
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:38:03
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:38:59
!agreed the voting was unanamous - All the epel FAS groups in that issue will be cleared out.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:39:38
OK, I'm going to move on.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:39:49
!epel 347
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:50
● **Opened:** 6 days ago by carlwgeorge
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:50
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:50
**epel #347** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/347):**EPEL vs FESCo stalled process**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:50
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:39:50
● **Last Updated:** 5 days ago
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:36
We talked about this issue last week, and I see that there was some comments in the issue.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:54
Carl George: Was there something in particular you wanted to talk about?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:40:58
if I can vote, then +1 (I imagine you meant to tag Davide though)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:41:25
i definitely git that the overall sentiment was "not right now", but i am curious to see how malleable the fesco process is so we don't need both
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:42:29
i would say wait until something has worked its way through and the FESCO process has been proven
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:42:40
or 'fixed' because it ran into something
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:43:49
I'm not aware of anyone using this process yet on the fedora side...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:44:27
we haven't had a reason to invoke it yet
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:44:54
next time i have a stalled package, i'm happy to use the fesco process instead of the epel process and see how it feels
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:45:26
it seems like the sticking point is the addition of an explicit fesco vote
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:45:30
or perhaps people aren't aware they can use it. Not sure. ;)
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:45:32
works for me. thanks for being a guinea pig carl
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:49
There is one major difference between Fedora dist-git and EPEL dist-git, and that is branching. If a package is in f43, by default it will go to f44. While in EPEL by default it won't. That allows many more people in Fedora to not be "blocked". Thus I don't see the Fedora policy being used much.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:32
Sorry, by the time I got all that written out, the conversation had moved on. 😀
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:48:11
Is there anything else about this that needs to be talked about? Or are we ok moving on.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:49:21
we can move on, i'll comment on this issue too to update the state of things and mention my intent to try out the fesco process
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:49:24
need a "WAIT FOR TROY" flag
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:55
Moving on .... and I don't even have a good comment for the flag ...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:06
!topic General Issues / Open Floor
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:18
We're a little short on time so I'm going straight to open floor.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:30
But if someone has some older business they want to bring up, they can.
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:51:07
nothing from me other than I now know what sciatica feels like and why my grandparents were always grumpy
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:09
I letterally told some young kids to get off my lawn the other day ... so I think I might be catching up to you in the age bracket.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:52:35
i wanted to bring this one up for awareness
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:52:37
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/12737
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:53:41
Ooohh ... we are getting closer.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:54:18
Anything else before we call it a meeting?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:54:54
tldr, do we want forge.fpo/epel/esc and forge.fpo/epel/docs, or forge.fpo/subprojects/epel, or something else?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:55:45
forgejo apparently doesn't do nested projects it seems
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:56:15
so does that mean forge.fpo/epel_esc or forge.fpo/epel/esc?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:56:17
so probibly epel/foo epel/bar
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:56:38
org / projects (but not org / projects / subprojectA)
<@smooge:fedora.im>
18:56:59
got it.. I vote for epel/esc
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:57:12
epel/esc was my leaning as well
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:57:18
escape from epel
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:57:27
but i do know at one point someone said they liked the docs and esc issues in the same place
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:58:12
sounds like a infocom game. ;)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:58:22
main thing to keep in mind is we don't get top level repos, just orgs
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:58:29
What's wrong with forge.fpo/epel ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:58:31
yeah, I said this a while back
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:58:43
no top level repos
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:58:52
Ohh ... ok
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:58:52
nothing. that would be the org...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:58:55
because fesco doesn't do this and we keep forgetting to manage the docs
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:47
so .... forge.pfo/epel/epel is ok ?? I'm not saying I want that, but is that ok ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:52
yes
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:00:09
forge.fpo/epel/esc
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:13
wierd ... but if that's the rules ...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:00:20
escape from epel in the fedora forge
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:23
Looks like our time is up
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:01
Thank you all for the good discussions today. And thank you very much for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:09
I'll talk to ya'll next week if not sooner.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
19:01:20
cya ^^
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:54
!endmeeting