19:30:07 #startmeeting EPEL (2011-04-11) 19:30:07 Meeting started Mon Apr 11 19:30:07 2011 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:30:07 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:30:07 #meetingname epel 19:30:07 #topic init process/agenda 19:30:07 #chair smooge tremble 19:30:07 EPEL meeting ping abadger1999 rsc stahnma tremble dgilmore smooge nb maxamillion tremble Jeff_S 19:30:07 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 19:30:07 Current chairs: nirik smooge tremble 19:30:14 * abadger1999 here 19:31:07 * rsc_ 's around, too 19:32:07 * nb 19:32:33 cool. Anyone have topics for today? 19:32:45 * dgilmore has no topics 19:32:48 except that I miss CentOS 6, not :) 19:32:51 clamav is in stable 19:32:58 here 19:33:10 -12 (latest) is in el4 and el5, -11 (which only has a small bug with i forget what it was) is in el6 19:33:12 I will be working on xfce 19:33:20 karma for -12 in el6 is welcome 19:33:39 smooge: oh yeah? I have been poking at it as time permits, but more help would be very welcome. 19:34:22 smooge: epel5 should have the base packages done, but is waiting on cwickert for which plugins we can ship. 19:34:30 nb: testing with EL-6 is still hard, because most servers still run CentOS 5, I think 19:34:33 on epel6, I need to try and build the 4.8 stack. 19:35:01 plugins we can ship? 19:35:05 rsc_, true 19:35:24 nb: can't we build CentOS as part of EPEL? :) 19:35:25 my plan is to get my home system able to build stuff again in mock and then attack the 4.8 as a mass rebuild 19:36:05 smooge: well, epel5 is way too old for some of the plugins... or things are missing. epel6 might have better luck... 19:36:16 rsc_: haha 19:36:25 rsc_, it'd be nice :) 19:36:41 yeah. I figured 4.6 for el5 and 4.8 for el6 19:36:46 rsc_, i kinda wonder how feasible that would be 19:36:48 or is that too far off 19:36:56 rsc_, although i doubt redhat would like it 19:36:59 * nirik nods. Exactly what I was thinking too. 19:37:17 nb: what's redhat? *hides* ;) 19:37:21 well, currently EPEL doesn't replace base packages, so it's not very feasable. ;) 19:37:36 ah, but if we're all together... 19:38:42 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694673 - I've a package that is similar to postgresql vs postgresql83 or php vs php53 - does this work in EPEL, too? A /etc/postfix26 etc. causes SELinux trouble :( 19:39:19 #topic parallel installable packages (postfix) 19:39:51 rsc_: well, thats a tough one. 19:40:09 we want different version packages like that to parallel install... 19:40:21 but as you note those ones above don't in base RHEL 19:40:29 nirik: I am forced to postfix > 2.3 in that case. And you know, having postfix 2.3 + 2.6 doesn't make sense... 19:41:08 can you not just go to rhel6? or you must have this on rhel5? 19:41:28 this must be RHEL 5, because HyperV vs RHEL 6 is unsupported for at least 1+ year :( 19:41:59 It is? Surprised it's taking them that long. 19:42:14 yeah, that seems slow. 19:42:46 tremble: well, it works as long as you don't need paravirtualized drivers as in supported at all. And from what I got when playing with upstream stuff, it is broken. Thus RHEL 5 :/ 19:42:48 anyhow, I really don't like the idea of conflicting with base packages. ;( 19:43:36 well lets look at it this way. 19:43:48 even if rhel does it... I don't think we should. 19:43:49 nirik: I know...ideas? /etc/postfix26, postconf26, /var/spool/postfix26 etc. isn't funny too - especially it requires SELinux exceptions while it now works without any additional SELinux rule here 19:43:51 can one do a yum install * in RHEL5/6 by default? 19:44:01 smooge: no, will fail anyway ;) 19:44:07 smooge: pretty sure 'no' 19:44:15 I doubt it too. 19:44:20 smooge: No 19:44:27 so ... as long as we don't override a RHEL package and just conflict is that a problem? 19:44:44 [loves to see all the people who have RHEL and yum as irc keywords] 19:44:57 hah 19:45:21 I see no reason to ban it. 19:45:34 basically as long as yum install postfix does not get the EPEL package is that a problem? 19:45:43 exactly 19:45:44 well, conflicts are nasty from a end user viewpoint... "I'd like to install postfix*' downloads, wanders off 'conflicts! you lose' 19:45:55 and maybe we get all nice and pretty with some selinux policy or another and RH adds it into 5.8 or something 19:45:56 but I guess it's a pretty corner case. 19:46:03 nirik: if you do 'yum install postfix-*' everything is fine :) 19:46:13 sure. 19:46:25 but there is only postfix-pflogsumm or so anyway 19:46:28 nirik, but wouldn't I run into that with a yum install php* with just regular stuff? 19:46:53 argues by absurdium 19:47:01 yep. Since they added the php53 stuff. 19:47:16 but you wouldn't with 'yum install python*' at least. 19:47:21 dunno about mediawiki* 19:48:57 * nirik tries. 19:49:26 how about this: post to the list a proposed conflicts guideline, discuss on list, revisit next week? 19:51:36 thoughts? 19:52:19 if I need to be the one to write that proposal, I need some help - never did that before, even I read lots of our existing guidelines 19:52:56 rsc_: I can try and assist. Basically we need to explain why we want EPEL to behave differently from Fedora's conflict guideline... 19:55:17 or does everyone think we should just relax the rule now? 19:55:34 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts is the Fedora guideline. 19:55:53 (I'm not going to answer this, because my point of view is obviously clear and not from a neutral perspective) 19:58:10 I would say we need to look at this and then ask the FPC for input. 19:58:44 though I expect from some it would be "GTFA" 19:59:07 so, how about we post to the list and have a weeks discussion and revisit next week? 19:59:17 sounds good here 20:01:18 hahaha Requires: postfix >= 2.6; Provides: postfix >=2.6 && postfix <=2.7 20:02:17 woah. thats pretty weird. 20:02:33 smooge: hu? 20:02:36 #action will post to the list about conflicts and epel packages. 20:03:34 I don't know if that would work.. the && part is guesswork. 20:04:20 the provides though would make a yum install postfix use the epel package before the RHEL one so would not be good. 20:05:58 yeah, that would be bad 20:06:42 smooge: shouldn't what I did in the current *.spec work? 20:06:59 'Provides: postfix26' would work, but might be an issue to maintain 20:07:36 smooge: at least our company-internal overlay repo wanted nowhere to install postfix26 so far - except where I did it intended 20:08:17 rsc_, yours will work. I was reading through the fedora conflicts on how they wanted it fixed and thought that was silly. 20:10:32 #topic Open Floor 20:10:39 anyone have anything for open floor? 20:11:01 not me 20:13:00 cool. will close out in a minute if nothing else shows up. 20:14:47 nothing else :) 20:15:16 #endmeeting