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