<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:58
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-10-08)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:59
Meeting started at 2025-10-08 17:59:58 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:00
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-10-08)'
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:12
!meetingname epel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:12
!topic aloha
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:13
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:00:46
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:00:47
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:01:02
morning
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:01:16
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:17
Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:31
Hi Michel Lind UTC+1 and Diego Herrera
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:35
Morning nirik
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:01:51
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:52
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:02:01
Hi Carl George
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:58
We're a bit light today, but let's see how things go.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:10
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:10
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:32
We have one issue, and one pull request ... let's start with the issue.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:42
!epel 351
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:44
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:44
**epel #351** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/351):**Beta Software Released On Main EPEL Channel**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:44
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:44
● **Opened:** 3 days ago by scuttlefish42
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:44
● **Last Updated:** an hour ago
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:06:51
i tagged this one for the meeting, for awareness and any discussion. i agree with the submitter, this should not have gone into epel10 yet.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:07:40
Although I do agree on principle, as an end user, I have to say I'm glad they did.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:00
yeah, I think the maintainer was reasonable here
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:08:05
the upstream dev said they considered a temporary copr, which i would have preferred
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:13
It's been rock solid, I've been using it since they put it in.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:08:47
hindsight is 20/20
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:08:54
slippages happen I guess
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:09:09
I do understand their concern that if they shipped 2.6 they will have to ship an incompatible update
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:09:30
yes, and because they happen is another reason not to ship a pre-release in epel, as one doesn't know how long it will stay like that
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:09:30
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:09:34
Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:09:45
Hi Robby Callicotte
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:09:50
should we clarify our guidelines? or is it clear enogh
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:09:53
should we clarify our guidelines? or is it clear enough
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:09:59
rhel shipped in pre-release gimp in rhel9, and i still hear user complains/confusion about it
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:04
To me the biggest concern is that they didn't ship this in Fedora .. until right now.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:11:04
i think that one is getting resolved in 9.7
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:44
yeah, fedora first. ;)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:11:54
and the initial rawhide update broke composes.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:05
Ouch
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:12:08
(not for any reason that would have affected epel tho)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:13:30
this originally shipped in december as a pre-alpha shapshot, then got upgraded to alpha, then beta
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:13:35
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=&packages=openvpn&releases=EPEL-10.0&releases=EPEL-10.1&releases=EPEL-10.2
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:13:36
after re-reading the issue for same context... this is a wierd one
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:13:58
should have been Fedora first
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:14:27
i agree we should touch on this in the guidelines, leaving room for exceptions while defining the majority use case
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:15:10
epel-only is one thing, but skipping fedora first is another
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:15:57
imo this ideally should have been in rawhide first, allowed to reach 2.7 final, then shipped in a fedora stable release, then shipped in epel10
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:16:20
I think a lot of people would be mad about that...
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:16:20
agreed
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:16:55
<rant> It should be in RHEL. Red Hat itself needs this package, it's crazy they don't ship it. </rant>
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:56
if it needed to be 2.7 long term in epel10, then that would have been the response
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:17:18
i'm also a bit confused about the need for 2.7
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:17:42
they mention an ovpn kernel module, which isn't in the centos/rhel kernel
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:18:11
....yet?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:18:16
So, at this point the deed is done. We can discuss all we want, but is there any action we can/want to take.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:18:39
put a SHOULD NOT in the docs around this?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:18:46
put a SHOULD NOT in the policy around this?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:19:22
Which specific part ?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:27
I think it's fine to discourage beta/alpha stuff, but there's no one size fits all... so a should sounds good.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:19:54
I think that this would be a problem if it would have affected software that was already packaged that depended on this, but as a leaf package it might be fine if it's to reduce maintainability burden?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:20:04
yeah SHOULD NOT leaves room for self-determined exceptions, but there should be a good justification and careful consideration
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:21:12
openvpn is not a leaf package, if people were wondering. I know of at least two packages that depend on it.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:23:24
I can update the policy doc. I may have questions, but I can tackle it.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:33
Sorry for the pause, I was reading through various EPEL docs, trying to figure out the best place to put the SHOULD discussed above.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:47
Robby Callicotte: Thank you.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:01
Note: I didn't find a good place.
<@michel-slm:matrix.org>
18:24:35
Network Manager 😀
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:45
Robby Callicotte: If you can do that, and make a pull request, that would be very helpful.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:03
Yep, and plasma-nm-openvpn
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:44
With Robby doing the edit, I'm going to move on to the pull request that also has a meeting tag.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:59
!link https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/352
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:26:54
Diego Herrera: Do you mind talking about this one?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:26:59
yeah ^^ that one is mine
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:28:30
this PRs adds 2 things to the docs, the first one is a description of the EPEL10 minor branch lifetime. While the other is a proposal on how to expand the retirement policy in regards to the minor branches
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:29:12
TBH, it's something that was already discussed, just tried to write down the way that makes sense to do it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:29:13
should there be a bit of overlap? to allow people to upgrade to the new minor?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:29:22
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:29:24
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:29:24
from my perspective, i'll add that none of this should be surprising. it's what we've talked about for epel10 all along, just needed to get it written into policy.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:28
I think it's a good writeup.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:33
Hi Conan Kudo
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:17
nirik: I believe there is a link put in place, so when it's archived, if someone is still on the minor version, they aren't really affected.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:30:25
i don't think so, that gets into eus territory which we said we wouldn't do. i know some maintainers are already ready to get back to two epel10 branches instead of three.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:03
Users should still have access to the archived stuff without changes, but it will not be able to be updated.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:21
Or am I wrong?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:31:29
no you're right
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:31:37
yeah, true enough. ok
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:31:46
that's true
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:44
So end users shouldn't really notice, and when they do, we have this policy in place for them to go ... oh, so that's what's happening.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:33:07
So end users shouldn't really notice, and when they do, we have this policy written for them to go ... oh, so that's what's happening.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:34:03
yeah epel-release will point them to the epel-z-10 mirrormanager repo, which on rhel 10.1 release day will get switched from epel/10.0 to epel/10.1
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:34:48
end users shouldn't notice, maintainers will just no longer be able to push to the epel10.0 branch or do 10.0 builds
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:35:38
so are we ready to vote on this policy?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:36:16
Oh, I thought this was just the documentation on something we'd already voted on ....
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:36:44
sort of
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:36:45
But if we do want to vote and say that the working is correct, I'm fine with that.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:36:57
sure, +1 but also yeah, this is the plan anyhow.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:26
But if we do want to vote and say that the wording is correct, I'm fine with that.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:37:31
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:34
+1
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:38:17
do we have a fourth for majority Conan Kudo Robby Callicotte ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:38:36
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:39:54
I absolutely, definitely, do not want any _hint_ of supporting EUS branches in community EPEL.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:40:29
It's hard enough as it is now, adding EUS and ELS would make it much worse.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:57
!agreed The write up in merge request #352 is what we agreed upon on earlier meetings and is worded correctly - +1(4) -1(0)
<@michel-slm:matrix.org>
18:41:19
yeah we can't support EUS as a community when it's a paid product, can we
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:22
Sorry, it takes me a while to writeup the agreed lines.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:50
I'm going to move on.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:57
!topic Old Business
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:42:20
Oh, I just realized I moved on without an action on that.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:42:21
fwiw the free individual devsub does include eus
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:14
Diego Herrera: Thank you very much for that writeup. I'll put the vote on the pull request, and we can get it merged.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:43:17
sorry, was fire-fighting
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:43:45
+1 if it matters now
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:54
!agreed The write up in merge request #352 is what we agreed upon on earlier meetings and is worded correctly - +1(5) -1(0)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:45:21
OK, any Old Business ?
<@michel-slm:matrix.org>
18:45:24
that's one extra VM per EUS version a maintainer has to run though
<@michel-slm:matrix.org>
18:45:30
but good to know
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:45:43
I had one item for open floor
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:25
!topic General Issues / Open Floor
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:31
nirik: go for it
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:47:07
wanted to note https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12992 I don't think there's any way to do what they want, and probibly it should just be added as part of minor branching.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:48:04
agreed that if there are tags needed we should probably build them into our playbooks, the only problem is i'm totally lost on how their tags and builds work
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:48:51
it's pretty complicated (at least on the fedora side).
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:09
It's complicated on the CentOS Stream side as well.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:18
basically they build one on the oldest supported release, then use that to build other stuff (because they can get that old one passed through the certification thing)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:30
They do have their own build tag and buildroot for CentOS Stream.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:49:34
also these are packages named `-latest`, and last i checked epel updates policy doesn't allow for that
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:49
yeah, thats a poor choice.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:50:14
do they have a fesco exception for doing `-latest` in fedora stable releases?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:31
Oh, here's a fun one, the java-25-openjdk in CentOS Stream (and RHEL I think) is version 22 .... what???
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:50:51
yikes...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:56
Sorry, openjdk makes my head spin.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:51:12
yeah, there were a series of changes around it in recent fedoras.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:51:19
i think i'd like to just schedule a work meeting with this maintainer to ask stuff interactively
<@michel-slm:matrix.org>
18:51:30
my head burst in fesco meetings that involve openjdk way more than even discussing flatpaks
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:51:40
same
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:51:43
i don't think we'll get far just scratching our heads here pointing out wtfs
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:52:03
I'm all for assigning Carl to go figure this out with Red Hat people internally
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:52:12
because I can't take any more WTFs over Java in my head
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:52:46
Yep ... someone needs to sit down with them and sketch out exactly what they want and need. That's what CentOS Stream had to do (Adam specifically)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:52:48
keep in mind i can't make them do anything, i can just try to understand what they're doing now
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:53:03
i wouldn't mind pulling in adam
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:53:42
it will still be CONSTRUCTive. Maybe future jdk releases will INHERIT the benefits of your discussion..
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:54:08
Johnny might know as well, he's the one in charge of keeping the java people happy now, for CentOS Stream.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:55:00
I do have one quick Open Floor thing - I won't be available next week. Would someone be willing to run the meeting next week?
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:55:22
I will also be out next week
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:23
i would take it, but i'll be flying back from ato
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:36
we could also cancel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:55:47
Oh ... I didn't expect that many people to be away ... I'm ok canceling.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:56:19
i slightly take it back, looks like my flight is late, so i could do the meeting from somewhere with wifi in raleigh
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:56:28
but cancelling is still fine
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:57:05
I seem to remember some other people being at a conference next week.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:57:14
yeah, ato
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:57:31
who else here is going to ato?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:58:10
Oh, it was a different meeting ... so .. I don't know about here.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:04
Is everyone ok with canceling next week? nirik Michel Lind UTC+1 Conan Kudo ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:11
fine with me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:59:21
I can't attend anyway
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:05
Well, our time is up, and enough people aren't going to be here that we won't be able to have a quorum, so I'm canceling next weeks meeting.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
19:00:25
sure.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:32
Thank you all for coming and for the good discussions, and thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:44
I'll talk to ya'll in two weeks.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:02
!endmeeting