#meeting-1:fedoraproject.org log

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:57

!startmeeting EPEL (2026-01-14)

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:59

Meeting started at 2026-01-14 18:00:57 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:59

The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2026-01-14)'

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:06

!topic aloha

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:06

!meetingname epel

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:01:06

The Meeting Name is now epel

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:01:16

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:18

Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:01:39

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:40

Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:02:11

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:13

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:02:31

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:32

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:02:47

Hi Robby Callicotte Carl George Michel Lind UTC Diego Herrera

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:03:33

morning

<@elguero:fedora.im>

18:04:03

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:04:04

Michael Young (elguero)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:53

Hi Michael L. Young

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:57

Morning nirik

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:05

!link https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/docs/pulls

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:05

!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:05

!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:29

!epel 322

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:06:31

● **Opened:** 10 months ago by tdawson

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:06:31

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:06:31

● **Last Updated:** 16 hours ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:06:31

**epel #322** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/322):**Document EPEL policy on packages with epel in the name**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:06:31

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:11

We do have one issue marked with meeting. Although this iis an older issue, it hasn't been resolved and the problem came up again.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:26

We do have one issue marked with meeting. Although this is an older issue, it hasn't been resolved and the problem came up again.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:07:58

fwiw, the conversation around gdal-epel has shifted and now the maintainer is going to make a gdal3.4 package instead, but we should still firm up our guidelines around it

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:08:29

That's good to hear.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:08:41

in some ways a versioned one is not as good, but I guess it depends on what we want to convey...

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:10:05

Well, they were going above and beyond just "adding back the packages that weren't in RHEL"

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:10:25

where my head is at is we could adjust the policy to say that the -epel suffix is reserved for shipping missing rhel subpackages, and any other use needs an approved exception from esc

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:11:10

yeah, although having some indicator in the package name that it's a epel provided complete (or more complete) version over the rhel one might have some value...

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:11:41

are there any -epel packages currently that are not just shipping missing packages?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:12:35

there was an selinux one, but they changed coursed and made it -extras and put it in crb instead. i'm struggling to think of any others.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:13:08

Looking at binary packages, for epel10, the only ones are the macro packages.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:13:41

The same for epel9, except python3.11-pyasn1-epel-doc

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:14:21

epel8 has a few python packages that have epel in the name ... oh, and perl-generators-epel

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:14:59

I thought there was an selinux one as well

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:15:09

So it looks like we're getting more and more to our ideal ... though I haven't checked the source rpm names.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:15:19

The selinux one got pulled back into RHEL.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:15:27

Just adjusting the policy as Carl George suggested probibly is the easiest way forward...

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:17:30

I was looking to see if there was a pull request already, but I'm not seeing one.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:17:52

Do we have a volunteer to write up the first draft for the clarification of the policy?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:18:18

as it's my suggestion i guess i'm the default to submit a pr

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:18:31

any thoughts on what page it should go on?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:18:52

i was thinking perhaps a note block on https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-missing-sub-packages/

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:18:54

"guidelines and policies" I imagine

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:19:02

yeah

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:19:05

that makes sense

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:19:16

yeah this page is under that section, but i could also see it going on the top level policy page

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:20:25

i'll work up a pr to one of those, depending on how it fits as i write it

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:20:56

I think the top page (If you don't mind, that would be great ) just after the "Conflict" sections, so right above here - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#policy_for_orphan_and_retired_packages

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:21:01

hmm... I feel that it makes more sense to add it at the top level considering that it's relevant to know when deciding how to package

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:21:23

I think the top page ( https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/) just after the "Conflict" sections, so right above here - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#policy\_for\_orphan\_and\_retired\_packages

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:21:36

yes! what troy said :D

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:22:09

Sorry for that wierd line in the middle, my cut and paste grabbed what I just deleted before I clicked send ...

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:23:11

sounds good

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:23:48

Thank you Carl George , for working on that, as well as talking to the gdal people.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:23:59

it's been an adventure

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:24:10

and it ain't over 😁

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:24:26

Anything else before we move on?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:25:54

There aren't any other things marked with meeting for issues or pull requests, so moving on.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:26:03

!topic Old Business

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:26:17

Does anyone have any Old Business?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:27:03

I’m old and I have a business 😛

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:27:24

I have a kinda old business, but more of an open question, so Michel Lind UTC can go firsr :)

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:27:46

I have a kinda old business, but more of an open question, so Michel Lind UTC can go first:)

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:27:51

I have a kinda old business, but more of an open question, so Michel Lind UTC can go first :)

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:28:12

(unless that was a joke ;D)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:28:18

I think Michel Lind UTC was just making a joke. Go for it Diego Herrera

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:28:57

ok :) just wanted to ask on what do we need to move the EPEL issue tracker to the new forge :o

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:29:23

!epel 355

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:29:24

● **Opened:** 3 months ago by dherrera

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:29:24

**epel #355** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/355):**Transition from Pagure to Forgejo instance**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:29:24

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:29:24

● **Last Updated:** 3 months ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:29:24

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:29:39

I remember that there were questions in regards to redirecting old issues between trackers, but just wanted a refresher on this topic

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:29:41

When is FOSDEM/Connect? Would it be ok to transition it afterwards?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:30:24

jan 29 to feb 1

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:30:29

FOSDEM/Connect is in two weeks (Jan 29 - Feb 1) ...

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:30:49

i'm ok with that as a timeline, aiming for the first week of feb

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:30:58

I don't think we could transition it before even if we wanted to ... just due to the amount of work .... I think ... I not the one doing the work, so that's what I think.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:31:11

i don't think we have any blockers, it's just when we're ready to pull the trigger

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:31:24

But ya, saying after that is fine with me.

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:32:02

I can bring up the topic again by then ^^

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:32:06

that would be it :)

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:32:18

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:33:20

just do it on feb 2-3, then let us know it's done at the meeting on feb 4

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:20

I'll put it on the agenda for Feb 4 ... if it's done, great, if not, let us know the progress.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:35:03

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:35:06

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:35:25

Diego Herrera: Was there anything specific you needed? Or do you have all the information you need?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:35:29

Hi Conan Kudo

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:37:18

no, I just wanted to know how to push this forward, since we already have the docs there :), but if ya'll are ok with me pushing this, I'll just push the issues into a new repo as we discussed last time. unless you'd prefer for me to write-up the process for approval before proceeding

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:38:08

I don't know about the others, but I trust you, do what you need/want to do, no approval from me needed.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:38:43

Yeah mine is more an open floor fyi / question

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:38:51

👍️ I'll work on it then

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:39:20

Thank you Diego Herrera

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:39:39

If that is the only Old Business, then I'll move to Open Floor.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:39:49

!topic General Issues / Open Floor

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:40:09

Michel Lind UTC: Go for it.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:41:32

Ok - Carl and I have a change proposal pending for Django 6.x

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:41:32

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:41:32

The plan is to bring it to epel10 and we will cross the bridge when it comes to incompat update for ashore

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:42:13

But one bigger question is - when Django 4 which is in EPEL 9 EOLs, what do we do on that major release? The updates to key components needed will be more invasive still

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:42:42

Asgiref

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:42:48

Sorry taking this from my phone

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:43:02

What do you mean by "key components needed" ? Do you mean packages that depend on it? Or packages needed to maintain it?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:43:11

Packages Django depend on

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:43:53

For anything depending on Django I wouldn’t worry, we can maintain parallel Django stacks and will only retire the old one if there’s a bad CVE anyway

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:44:32

Eg for rawhide we needed asgiref and aiosmtpd to be updated

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:47:07

Sorry, it took me a while to understand. So you are planning on bringing Django 6 into epel9, but to do that you will need to update the dependencies, that the current Django4 depend on. Is that the problem?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:47:34

We are bringing Django 6 to f44 and epel10

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:47:52

Epel10 has no Django now, epel9 has 4.2 which will hit EOL sooner

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:12

April 2026 actually

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:48:20

I guess I'm not seeing the problem, if you are planning on keeping Django4 in epel9.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:31

We cannot as soon as there is a major cve

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:42

And Django 4 powers our mailing list infra

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:48:51

Oof

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:49:24

So this is out of scope of the change proposal I filed but is related, what happens if we need to bring a newer Django for el9

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:49:59

5.2 is supported until 2028 but I suspect on 9 we will also need a bunch of incompat updates, at which point bringing in the latest might be better

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:50:22

django4.2 deps look pretty minimal in the package metadata, just asigref and sqlparse. does it get worse in django6?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:50:43

So far it’s only aiosmtpd but I guess I can do a copr ahead of time to be sure

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:50:59

And I think I might have to disable or update selenium for testing

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:52:25

Ya, I think copr would be your friend. It might be simple, or it might be complicated, but you won't know until you give it a try.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:52:58

yeah map it out first to see what we're working with. i think it will vary a bit component to component. asgiref for example looks like it will be an easy bugfix-only upgrade to the latest version. other component may be more complicated and might require compat packages.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:27

Compat for Python will be fun

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:40

Ok, will do. This is just a heads up fwiw

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:48

So we’re not caught unaware come April

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:53:56

they're not too bad, alternate name and then conflict with the main one

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:02

I’ll announce the copr on the mailing list and the contingency plan

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:27

Yeah worst case we make sure our mailing list servers don’t need both set of conflicting packages

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:54:56

disabling some tests is also reasonable if the problem package is just a test dep

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:58

eg mistune08 vs mistune was a bit painful

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:55:16

Before time runs out, does anyone else have anything for Open Floor?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:56:20

Out of curiosity, how many here are going to make it to CentOS Connect/FOSDOM in two weeks?

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:56:40

not me :(

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:57:12

I'm wondering if we need to cancel the Jan 28th meeting. (Not next week, but the week after)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:57:26

i'll be there

<@elguero:fedora.im>

18:57:40

I am going to be there. Looking forward to meeting some folks in person.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:58:01

at connect/fosdem i mean, and thus will likely miss the jan 28th meeting

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:58:20

that will be a setup day for connect, so not sure how busy i'll be

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:58:28

We also canceled Hyperscale meeting for the same reason

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:58:33

Michael L. Young: Cool. I'll finally be able to mee you.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:58:43

Michael L. Young: Cool. I'll finally be able to meet you.

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:58:46

I'm ok with us cancelling due to fosdem

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:59:11

I don't mind cancelling either :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:59:16

I'll be at FOSDEM

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:59:19

and Connect

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:59:52

Robby Callicotte: I'm sorry you won't be there, but I'll see what flights look like for making it to Texas LinuxFest this year.

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

19:00:14

Aww yeah!!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:00:31

Looks like our time is up for this week.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

19:00:59

See y’all in person in two weeks!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:00:59

Thank you all for the great discussions today. And thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community. You're a great bunch of people to work with.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:01:22

I'll talk to ya'll next week, if not sooner.

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

19:01:22

Bye everyone!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:01:41

!endmeeting