2024-05-31 16:01:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !startmeeting ELN SIG (2024-05-31) 2024-05-31 16:01:08 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !meetingname eln 2024-05-31 16:01:08 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2024-05-31 16:01:03 UTC 2024-05-31 16:01:09 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'ELN SIG (2024-05-31)' 2024-05-31 16:01:09 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now eln 2024-05-31 16:01:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !topic Init Process 2024-05-31 16:01:20 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !hi 2024-05-31 16:01:21 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his 2024-05-31 16:01:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !hi 2024-05-31 16:01:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Troy Dawson (tdawson) 2024-05-31 16:01:27 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> !hi 2024-05-31 16:01:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Yaakov Selkowitz (yselkowitz) 2024-05-31 16:01:36 <@davide:cavalca.name> !hi 2024-05-31 16:01:37 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his 2024-05-31 16:01:50 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi 2024-05-31 16:01:52 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his 2024-05-31 16:01:58 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> g'day folks. happy friday etc etc 2024-05-31 16:02:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Welcome, folks! 2024-05-31 16:02:39 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We've got one topic on the agenda today: Creating EPEL 10 from ELN Extras. 2024-05-31 16:03:12 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm going to wait a couple minutes to start because I expect Carl George to turn up and his involvement would be ideal. 2024-05-31 16:03:25 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !hi 2024-05-31 16:03:27 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his 2024-05-31 16:03:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Perfect timing! 2024-05-31 16:03:41 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> was just digging around to figure out which room this was in, thanks for the direct ping 2024-05-31 16:03:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi 2024-05-31 16:03:56 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his 2024-05-31 16:04:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !topic Creating EPEL 10 from ELN Extras 2024-05-31 16:04:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's new 2024-05-31 16:04:23 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !link https://red.ht/epel10 2024-05-31 16:05:05 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that is the background of what we are planning for epel10, in case anyone is out of the loop 2024-05-31 16:05:19 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !link https://hackmd.io/@carlwgeorge/S1r2tzZsp 2024-05-31 16:05:26 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Thanks! I see that was from 2022; is that still the plan of record? 2024-05-31 16:05:42 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that hackmd is a running doc for actual implementation items 2024-05-31 16:06:00 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> oh yes, I need to do the thing 2024-05-31 16:06:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Since we're adding references, I'd also like to mention: 2024-05-31 16:06:35 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yup, that's the plan the epel steering committee voted on. some minor implementation details might vary as we learn how to do this, but by and large the plan is the plan. 2024-05-31 16:06:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/187 2024-05-31 16:07:57 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So, let's start with a quick overview of the high-level plan we discussed a couple years ago and start looking at what it'll take to accomplish it 2024-05-31 16:08:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Specifically, the ELN Extras plan 2024-05-31 16:09:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> #info The ELN Extras sub-project was created to be an analog for the relationship to EPEL in the same way that ELN itself was created to be an analog for the relationship to RHEL 2024-05-31 16:10:13 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> \! not \# 2024-05-31 16:10:31 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !info The ELN Extras sub-project was created to be an analog for the relationship to EPEL in the same way that ELN itself was created to be an analog for the relationship to RHEL 2024-05-31 16:10:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (Thanks) 2024-05-31 16:11:22 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Specifically, the idea was that users would be able to opt-in to ELN Extras at any point in the Fedora development to track the requirements needed to build those packages for EPEL later. 2024-05-31 16:11:47 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> And inclusion in ELN Extras would imply the branching of those packages into EPEL at its creation, unless the user explicitly opted-out. 2024-05-31 16:12:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Now, I want to point out one minor hiccough that we didn't really consider initially. 2024-05-31 16:13:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We (maybe just me?) originally envisioned that branching taking place at the same time as the Fedora ELN -> CentOS Stream 10 branching. 2024-05-31 16:13:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Because ELN Extras shares a buildroot with what is now effectively the CentOS Stream 11 boostrap 2024-05-31 16:14:38 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So we might want to consider retroactively branching ELN Extras from what was present as of Fedora 40 branching date. (Though that's somewhat painful to accomplish) 2024-05-31 16:15:14 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> in a few epel steering committee meetings we've talked about how we could automatically create epel10 branches for packages that are in an eln extras workload, but no one ever signed up to do that work 2024-05-31 16:15:47 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> KDE isn't going to want to go backwards, they'll probably branch of of rawhide or current f40 2024-05-31 16:16:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yeah, I don't see that as a *good* option, but one I figured we should at least explicitly rule out 2024-05-31 16:16:44 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i don't think eln extras el11 has diverged enough yet for it to matter, and if there are exceptions we can deal with them case by case 2024-05-31 16:17:02 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I think branching out of the current f40 would be adequate. I don't think having to figure out which git commit was synced to CentOS Stream 10 is needed. 2024-05-31 16:17:18 <@davide:cavalca.name> agreed 2024-05-31 16:17:24 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: Oh, that's an option I hadn't thought about. 2024-05-31 16:18:24 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> everything we talked about up to this point was just creating branches, leaving which commits to sync up to the maintainers 2024-05-31 16:18:24 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: I don't think that's how we want to go, though. That branch will contain commits that were never built in ELN. 2024-05-31 16:18:56 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> otoh I'm wondering if we missed our window for automatic branching, and if we should retarget eln-extras to be ready for epel 11 by starting to pay more attention to it (tbh I just didn't have time leading up to rhel 10 branching) and making sure it is in good shape leading up to f46 branching, and for epel11 to branch off of f46 2024-05-31 16:18:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Carl George: Well, the original plan had us bringing in the commit history from ELN Extras 2024-05-31 16:19:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think generally going from current rawhide is fine 2024-05-31 16:19:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Since we at least have some assurance that those commits built in a roughly-equivalent buildroot 2024-05-31 16:19:49 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> in most cases I would expect current f40 to be compatible 2024-05-31 16:19:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> things have not changed in eln enough to seriously matter 2024-05-31 16:19:57 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> rawhide, perhaps not so much 2024-05-31 16:20:03 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> whose plan was that? i don't recall that ever being brought up in epel meetings. 2024-05-31 16:20:15 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i could be forgetting though 2024-05-31 16:20:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah I had envisioned that we would just branch rawhide into epel10 2024-05-31 16:20:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't know if we ever seriously thought of anything else 2024-05-31 16:20:47 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Carl George: In this group. Troy was involved, but may not have communicated that over to your end. My bad for not following up. 2024-05-31 16:20:54 <@davide:cavalca.name> oh yeah, branching rawhide would definitely be the simplest option, and the easiest way to preserve history too 2024-05-31 16:21:10 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I don't really remember talking about "commit history" ... so no, I didn't bring that over. 2024-05-31 16:21:38 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> at the time our committee discussions centered around branch creation, because at the time there was a significant delay on those for manual releng processing. i think interest in automating it dropped off because releng created a toddler, and now those branches get created pretty quickly. 2024-05-31 16:21:41 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: It's entirely possible I'm misremembering what we discussed vs. what I meant to discuss :) 2024-05-31 16:22:00 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> maybe commit history was w.r.t. the c10s cut? 2024-05-31 16:22:24 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I know that we discussed guaranteeing that commit history was preserved as it transferred to c10s 2024-05-31 16:22:26 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i remember a discussion about wanting to make sure we don't wash out fedora contributors commits during that transition 2024-05-31 16:22:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon: Well, we were carrying the history for c10s, so I thought we discussed doing the same for EPEL 10, but it's possible we implied it rather than stating it 2024-05-31 16:22:37 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> because that was a major sticking point with c9s 2024-05-31 16:22:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> As a package maintainer, to me it doesn't really matter if it's the exact commit at time of CS10 branching, or F40, or even rawhide. The first thing I'm goign to do is sync them with rawhide. 2024-05-31 16:22:43 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> human memory is a real jerk, tbh 2024-05-31 16:23:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Right, and I think that's what every maintainer does in practice 2024-05-31 16:23:14 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i'm cool w/ either plan (f40 or rawhide). i think it's about even 2024-05-31 16:23:55 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So, let's reconfirm one thing first: 2024-05-31 16:23:55 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> All packages currently included in ELN Extras will have an EPEL 10 branch created for them 2024-05-31 16:24:06 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yup, and this is why i think leaving it to maintainers makes the most sense. they can fast-forward merge to f40 or rawhide, or even older branches if they really want to 2024-05-31 16:24:19 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, that should have been lead by "Proposal:" 2024-05-31 16:24:29 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ack :) 2024-05-31 16:24:41 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i support this, but it needs an owner to work with releng to adapt the fedora mass branch tooling 2024-05-31 16:25:24 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya. I always wondered how we were going to get permissions to do this. 2024-05-31 16:25:34 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya. I always wondered how we were going to get permissions to do the branching. 2024-05-31 16:25:38 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> we'll actually need someone to get familiar with that tooling anyways, because we'll be mass branching for each minor version later on 2024-05-31 16:25:42 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: How was it done in EPEL 9? 2024-05-31 16:25:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It wasn't. 2024-05-31 16:26:03 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I was done package by package . 2024-05-31 16:26:07 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Ah 2024-05-31 16:26:23 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> which sucked 2024-05-31 16:26:30 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> we're building this airplane in the air 2024-05-31 16:28:15 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I don't see any disagreement about us *wanting* to do this, at least. 2024-05-31 16:28:51 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !agreed All packages currently included in ELN Extras will have an EPEL 10 branch created for them 2024-05-31 16:29:06 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> in the end it might fall onto me since this whole big change was my idea, but it would be awesome if someone else can take that part off my plate 2024-05-31 16:29:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> At minimum, maybe someone(s) else can help with building the tooling and Carl could just execute it? 2024-05-31 16:30:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If I can find the cycles, I'd be willing to help 2024-05-31 16:30:18 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> how many eln extras packages are we talking about? i'm struggling to find the right thing in cr 2024-05-31 16:30:26 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> that falls more in the realm of EPEL though than ELN 2024-05-31 16:30:34 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> CR is a bit messed up atm 2024-05-31 16:31:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Looks like 610 right now 2024-05-31 16:31:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Courtesy of https://tiny.distro.builders/view-all-source-package-name-list--view-eln-extras.txt 2024-05-31 16:31:13 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> should be 1200 something 2024-05-31 16:31:15 <@davide:cavalca.name> if someone can point to where the tooling is and what needs to be done I can try to take a look / find someone to take a look on my end 2024-05-31 16:31:31 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> thanks to an ICE preventing qt6-qtmultimedia from building, which is blocking the whole qt6 and kde stacks 2024-05-31 16:31:32 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yes, it's specifically something for epel. i'm not saying it's eln folks responsibility to do it. i'm saying i would love help, from anyone that cares about epel. 2024-05-31 16:32:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So, beyond just branch-creation, we need to figure out what else we want to automate. 2024-05-31 16:32:23 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> https://hackmd.io/@carlwgeorge/S1r2tzZsp#mass-branching-tooling 2024-05-31 16:32:39 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> basically that section just links to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/release_guide/sop_mass_branching/ 2024-05-31 16:32:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh, KDE is still failing on CR, so yes, 1200 is probrubly closer. 2024-05-31 16:32:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Do we want to just create empty branches and leave it to the maintainer? I don't think so. 2024-05-31 16:32:59 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> I do think so 2024-05-31 16:33:11 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> at least for 10 2024-05-31 16:33:13 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think we probably want to import the current Rawhide branches and do a side-tag mass-rebuild 2024-05-31 16:33:22 <@tdawson:fedora.im> NO!! 2024-05-31 16:33:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> With ELN in the buildroot. 2024-05-31 16:33:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> No? 2024-05-31 16:33:48 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> no what? 2024-05-31 16:34:01 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Sorry ... knew jerk reaction ... but in a more polite way ... um ... no, that wouldn't be best. 2024-05-31 16:34:23 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: Would you mind expounding? 2024-05-31 16:34:27 <@tdawson:fedora.im> No, please don't just blindly pull in rawhide and do a side-tag mass rebuild. 2024-05-31 16:34:35 <@davide:cavalca.name> I'm personally in favor of import+build, but if we go down that path we need a clear way for packagers to opt out 2024-05-31 16:34:52 <@davide:cavalca.name> as I can definitely see that not working well in some cases (e.g. complex stacks of intertwined packages) 2024-05-31 16:35:09 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> KDE has their own automation 2024-05-31 16:35:42 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm having a hard time figuring out why the person who was concerned about getting the exact git commit for the CS10 build is suddenly saying just pull rawhide on all branches. 2024-05-31 16:36:48 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: I was making a straw-man suggestion so we can decide if it's worth fixing the details or if the high-level concept is bad :) 2024-05-31 16:36:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> But yes. There is about 50-75 levels of "do this batch then do that batch" 2024-05-31 16:37:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> If we have an "opt-out" option, then I'm good with it. 2024-05-31 16:37:26 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The high-level idea is: give people something working to start from, so we don't have to completely re-bootstrap EPEL 10. 2024-05-31 16:37:45 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> I don't think we have the means *not* to have to rebootstrap it though, do we? 2024-05-31 16:37:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I am open to a reasonable argument as to why that's not a good idea. 2024-05-31 16:38:19 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> yselkowitz: Building an initial set against the pre-existing ELN Extras content isn't effectively doing that? 2024-05-31 16:38:21 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> slight less offensive strawman: an opt-in list, where maintainers can say "yes please auto-merge and build this package from rawhide, it should be fine" 2024-05-31 16:38:31 <@tdawson:fedora.im> And, like I said, that was a knee jerk reaction. .... maybe it wouldn't be that bad ... just know that you would have alot more "cycles" then you usually do with an ELN mass rebuild. 2024-05-31 16:38:31 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so a second list then? 2024-05-31 16:38:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> one list for branching and another list for auto merge+build? 2024-05-31 16:38:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Carl George: That really doesn't work though, since things have dependencies. 2024-05-31 16:39:28 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> the problem though is that eln extras sits atop eln which is rhel11 not c10s 2024-05-31 16:39:40 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Wait ... so you want them built against ELN instead of CentOS Stream 10? .... I'm lost here. 2024-05-31 16:40:19 <@tdawson:fedora.im> LLVM differences alone are going to not allow most of those to install on CS10 2024-05-31 16:40:34 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Troy Dawson: In the interest of getting a starter set of packages in EPEL, yeah. In an ideal world, we'd have done this concurrently with importing CS10... but we didn't. 2024-05-31 16:40:44 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Ah crap. I forgot about LLVm. 2024-05-31 16:40:55 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Ah crap. I forgot about LLVM. 2024-05-31 16:40:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I withdraw that suggestion 2024-05-31 16:42:33 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i think the "starter set of packages" is a good goal for this round, which to me could be that opt-in list i mentioned. ideally things with all dependencies already present in the c10 external repo. 2024-05-31 16:44:24 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm not entirely sure how we could generate that list. 2024-05-31 16:46:43 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I wonder if we should just go with "create empty branches" for this round and plan for doing the EPEL 11 import as part of the CS 11 import. 2024-05-31 16:47:00 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I don't love that option, but I'm having trouble finding a better one. 2024-05-31 16:47:03 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that sounds reasonable to me 2024-05-31 16:47:16 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm good with that. 2024-05-31 16:47:17 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that would also include tagging in the eln builds right? 2024-05-31 16:47:27 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: No 2024-05-31 16:47:28 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> we have enough new stuff to figure out with the minor version model, no need to make it more complicated with stretch goals 2024-05-31 16:47:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Or do you mean in RHEL 11? 2024-05-31 16:48:04 <@davide:cavalca.name> yeah, I think this is the better solution in practice 2024-05-31 16:48:06 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> with EPEL 11, tagging in eln/rhel 11 builds from extras builds to baseroot the environment 2024-05-31 16:48:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that would allow us to avoid having to bootstrap 2024-05-31 16:48:19 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Then yes, I agree with that completely. 2024-05-31 16:50:02 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> so you're thinking tag everything eln-extras into epel11, then do a mass rebuild to get everything switched from .elnXXX to .el11_0? 2024-05-31 16:50:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Actually... I wonder if we shouldn't consider doing that right now. I wonder if we can have Bodhi tag things into both `eln` and `epel11` when it goes stable. 2024-05-31 16:50:18 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't know why we couldn't 2024-05-31 16:50:22 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We don't have to *compose* epel11 right now. 2024-05-31 16:50:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> But then we don't even have to do a mass-tag later. 2024-05-31 16:50:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can also untag all of the eln stuff after everything is rebuilt 2024-05-31 16:50:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there are many different ways I could see us doing it 2024-05-31 16:51:09 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> if people are curious, here is what the tagging structure looks like in staging koji https://koji.stg.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=tag&terms=epel10* 2024-05-31 16:51:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> OK, first let me record the decision on branching... 2024-05-31 16:51:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Then let's continue this topic 2024-05-31 16:51:54 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !agreed We will mass-create empty branches for EPEL 10 and will work towards a better solution for EPEL 11 2024-05-31 16:52:02 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> basically every minor version is it's own mini-epel, and then we have a target that always points to the latest one that fedpkg will aim for 2024-05-31 16:53:18 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: Actually, I begin to wonder if we shouldn't just scrap "ELN Extras" and just start EPEL 11 immediately, just backed by ELN until we branch. 2024-05-31 16:53:21 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> e.g. https://koji.stg.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildtargetinfo?targetID=36775 2024-05-31 16:53:32 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that would make sense 2024-05-31 16:53:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the only problem with it is the rolling disttag thing for rebuilds 2024-05-31 16:53:52 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> that's just crazy enough to work (once we actually have epel10 in place) 2024-05-31 16:54:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> if we don't make epel11 branches, then it should be fine 2024-05-31 16:54:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> ELN Extras is kind of a hassle right now anyway, since I made a (poor) choice initially to have it build with the same target as ELN 2024-05-31 16:56:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !info Investigation topic: Drop ELN Extras in favor of starting EPEL 11 soon after EPEL 10, backed by ELN until branching. 2024-05-31 16:56:20 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i kinda like this idea. a semi-secret epel11, no epel11 branches, just build targets and tags that build against eln until we're ready to break it off. 2024-05-31 16:56:31 <@tdawson:fedora.im> The more I think of it, the more I really like that. As Carl said, after we get epel10 up and going. But I really like the idea. 2024-05-31 16:56:38 <@davide:cavalca.name> I also like this a lot and it would make my life considerably easier 2024-05-31 16:57:18 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> eln extras can go the way of epel next, a good initial idea obsoleted by something better 2024-05-31 16:57:46 <@yselkowitz:fedora.im> would EBS be able to manage building like that? 2024-05-31 16:57:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Carl George: 2024-05-31 16:57:58 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, hit enter too soon. What do you mean by "semi-secret"? 2024-05-31 16:58:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'd think we'd probably still want to compose it, at least for testing purposes. 2024-05-31 16:59:05 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> not the best term, i just mean we don't announce "epel11 is here" and maintainers don't see epel11 branches 2024-05-31 16:59:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> yselkowitz: We haven't discussed whether it would be auto-built (yet) 2024-05-31 16:59:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Carl George++ 2024-05-31 16:59:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> sgallagh gave a cookie to carlwgeorge. They now have 63 cookies, 16 of which were obtained in the Fedora 40 release cycle 2024-05-31 17:00:10 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> yselkowitz: EBS would probably need some enhancement to get it to build against different targets depending on the package. But that's not insurmountable 2024-05-31 17:00:14 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> how about instead of secret, a low-key epel11, if you know you know 2024-05-31 17:00:25 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I like it 2024-05-31 17:01:12 <@davide:cavalca.name> IMO it's even fine to talk about this, just make it clear it's not actually EPEL 11 until the branches show up 2024-05-31 17:01:34 <@davide:cavalca.name> but in the meantime, people can work on keeping things working well in rawhide 2024-05-31 17:01:59 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Although I agree with Davide, I'm not going to put it in my "State of EPEL" presentation .... yet. 2024-05-31 17:02:30 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yeah, ok to talk about, but not drawing the widest attention to it yet 2024-05-31 17:02:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Well, like ELN, we'll probably have to support exceptional cases that need an early `epel11` branch because their RHEL version is wildly different from Fedora. But those will be few and far between 2024-05-31 17:03:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (Such as epel-release) 2024-05-31 17:03:22 <@davide:cavalca.name> yeah I think that'll be fine in practice; or we can call the branch `eln` if we'd rather reserve the `epel*` branches for release time content 2024-05-31 17:03:38 <@davide:cavalca.name> though I personally think it'd be fine to use `epel11` for this 2024-05-31 17:03:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> This needs to be a research project to come up with a design proposal. 2024-05-31 17:04:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'll volunteer to head that up and create an initial proposal and we can refine it. 2024-05-31 17:05:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !action sgallagh to create a first-draft proposal for EPEL 11 to replace ELN Extras. 2024-05-31 17:05:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'll try to get that done by the next meeting. 2024-05-31 17:05:59 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Ideally in time for you to read it before we discuss it :) 2024-05-31 17:06:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Alright, we're a little over time. Does anyone have anything urgent or shall we call it a day? 2024-05-31 17:06:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm good 2024-05-31 17:07:27 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> 👍️ 2024-05-31 17:07:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Nothing from me. 2024-05-31 17:07:46 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Thank you for joining, folks! 2024-05-31 17:07:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !endmeeting