14:30:08 #startmeeting Fedora DotNet (2018-07-12) 14:30:08 Meeting started Thu Jul 12 14:30:08 2018 UTC. 14:30:08 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 14:30:08 The chair is Rhea. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:30:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 14:30:08 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_dotnet_(2018-07-12)' 14:30:13 #meetingname dotnet 14:30:13 The meeting name has been set to 'dotnet' 14:30:15 #nick dotnet 14:30:36 #topic Packaging progress / Open Floor discussion 14:30:56 .hello tmds 14:30:59 tmds: tmds 'Tom Deseyn' 14:31:33 One cool news on the packaging front: the copr maintainers fixed the mlock issue. we can now (re)build .net core in copr 14:31:44 omajid++ 14:31:52 #chair omajid tmds 14:31:52 Current chairs: Rhea omajid tmds 14:32:03 i spent some time testing out an older build of .net core in my copr repo, it worked! 14:32:05 karma distribution is broken 14:32:07 ... 14:32:07 https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/omajid/dotnet-2.1/build/775383/ 14:32:14 maybe an mlock issue... 14:32:18 omajid++ aslice++ tmds++ 14:32:22 Hmm. 14:32:25 tmds: i tink you can give 1 cookie per release in fedora 14:33:41 hmmm out of cookies 14:34:01 omajid: Should I start fixing the devportal to say "install dotnet-runtime-2.1" oooor? 14:34:19 Right now we have: 14:34:21 $ sudo dnf install dotnet-sdk-2.0 14:34:23 $ sudo dnf install dotnet-runtime-2.0 14:34:41 we need to go a couple of things: update my build to the latest security version. and then figure out how to keep multiple parallel versions (2.0, 2.1) in our single pagure repo/copr repo 14:35:05 s/to go/to do/ 14:35:06 I'd keep dotnet-sdk and add a sentence mentioning "Or you can simply use `install dotnet`" 14:35:33 omajid: we can have multiple repositories under the dotnet-sig group 14:35:43 ~ https://pagure.io/group/dotnet-sig 14:35:49 If that's better than branches 14:36:48 #chair aslice 14:36:48 Current chairs: Rhea aslice omajid tmds 14:37:00 oh, yeah. that could work. 14:37:12 we could even just put multiple directories (2.0, 2.1) in one repo 14:37:32 i dont want to go down the route of having multiple branches for different .net core versions. 14:37:46 omajid: Do you know what does ... e.g. openjdk look like? 14:38:40 openjdk (java-1.8.0-openjdk, java-9-openjdk) does different repo for each version. so does python (python2, python3) 14:39:56 If it's branches could we cherrypick commits between branchs if one change affects all? 14:40:13 Trying to think what makes for easier workflow... 14:40:27 Rhea: possibly, but not very likely. git format-patch + git apply might be just as easy? 14:40:49 yeah 14:41:12 Different repos then, or folders? o.o 14:42:41 either works for me. if we were an an official-fedora package, we would have to use different repos 14:42:46 so i would prefer to start doing that 14:44:24 no objections? different repos it is, then. i will look at migrating away from https://pagure.io/fedora-dotnet too. 14:44:39 Then let's do that, i'll set them all up and since we're moving away from that pagure repo, we could also have issue tracking under dotnet-sig pagure. 14:44:42 haha 14:45:07 Rhea: great :) 14:45:18 What about naming? 14:45:46 probably something like dotnet-2.0, dotnet-2.1 or some such 14:46:04 The version there is sdk right 14:46:18 no, runtime 14:46:21 I hate versioning of dotnet... 14:46:31 Can't you have 2.1 runtime with 2.0 sdk though? 14:46:46 both 2.0 and 2.1 runtime have 2.1.x as their sdk version, which different values of x 14:46:57 as their latest sdk version, even 14:47:06 Oh right the sdk is not kept on previous version 14:47:10 nevermind me 14:47:28 it depends, if you want to have sdk feature packages, you need to version by sdk feature 14:47:45 Do we though? 14:47:48 (want to) 14:47:56 I'm fine without feature packages on Fedora 14:48:12 tmds: yeah, we can have subpskcages called anything we want. dotnet-2.0,and dotnet-2.1 are just hte names of git repos 14:48:40 I'd be +1 to not having feature sdk's, Fedora is about being up to date and not about keeping the old stuff... 14:48:42 tmds: i would prefer to have feature packages. makes things more consistent between other distributions and fedora 14:49:20 well, we agreed to do feature packages with Microsoft, but we should wait and see if they will actually do those 14:49:48 I haven't checked their feeds 14:50:19 >_< 14:50:28 mkay 14:50:29 you know ... I'm no longer surprised if they do something else than what we agreed to 14:50:33 only disappointed... 14:50:55 tmds: https://packages.microsoft.com/debian/9/prod/pool/main/d/ 14:50:59 on the other hand, if they stick to the agreements, I'm excited :) 14:51:38 tmds: The nice thing about low expectations is how often you get good news. :) 14:51:45 and the fedora packages: https://packages.microsoft.com/fedora/27/prod/ 14:51:49 hehe 14:52:24 I wonder if dotnet-sdk-2.1.3 is a feature package ... 14:52:34 we agreed to call it dotnet-sdk-2.1.3xx ... 14:52:57 So pagure won't'let me create projects with dots in the name 14:53:05 dotnet-2-0 then i guess 14:53:06 but I'm happy if that is a feature package 14:54:29 Okay let's call it for today before the next meeting? tmds omajid aslice anything you would like to share or discuss before we do? 14:54:57 I don't have anything. 14:55:37 one more thing that is worth mentioning: fedora is soon going to drop openssl 1.0 14:55:45 #agreed We are moving from pagure.io/fedora-dotnet repository to multiple repositories per-version under pagure.io/dotnet-sig/ 14:56:00 upstream has openssl 1.1 support in the works (eg https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/pull/30807) 14:56:07 depending on the timing, we might be screwed :D 14:56:43 #info support of openssl 1.1 is wip https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/pull/30807 to be hopefully there before Fedora drops 1.0 14:56:50 o.o 14:57:05 We shall see! 14:57:36 i did a port (https://github.com/omajid/corefx/tree/openssl-1.1) but i will be impressed if it doesn't segfault 14:58:00 hehe 14:59:04 Okay let's go then :] 14:59:26 #endmeeting