19:30:02 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL (2011-06-27)
19:30:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Jun 27 19:30:02 2011 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:30:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:30:02 <nirik> #meetingname epel
19:30:02 <nirik> #topic init process/agenda
19:30:02 <nirik> #chair smooge tremble
19:30:02 <nirik> EPEL meeting ping abadger1999 rsc stahnma tremble dgilmore smooge nb maxamillion tremble Jeff_S HackMan
19:30:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
19:30:02 <zodbot> Current chairs: nirik smooge tremble
19:30:18 * rsc is around
19:30:22 * nb 
19:30:39 <Jeff_S> hiya
19:32:13 * nirik waits a minute or two more for folks to wander in.
19:34:43 <nirik> HackMan: you around?
19:34:54 <nirik> any other folks have topics we should discuss today?
19:37:15 * nirik listens to crickets
19:37:22 <derks> I'm here
19:37:43 * derks has no topics... just lurking
19:38:06 <rsc> the only topic I have, is off-topic and is that RHEL Optional repo just sucks :(
19:38:40 <HackMan> nirik here
19:38:52 <nirik> cool.
19:38:57 <nirik> #topic Should Percona SQL and/or MariaDB be part of the EPEL repo?
19:39:05 <nirik> HackMan: can you give us background on this issue?
19:39:45 <HackMan> Oracle's MySQL does not accept community patches and will not accept them in the future
19:40:06 <HackMan> I and a lot of other users need at least the Google patches for MySQL
19:40:24 <HackMan> Statistics and better InnoDB
19:40:52 <HackMan> these are packaged by two other Projects:  Percona's MySQL and MariaDB
19:41:05 <HackMan> both Percona and MariaDB are drop in replacements for MySQL
19:41:38 <HackMan> Percona uses the same code as Oracle's mysql, simply adding the Google patches and XtraDB storage Engine
19:41:51 <HackMan> MariaDB is a complete fork of Oracle's MySQL
19:42:09 <nirik> HackMan: Question: do you know what Fedora intends to do? keep shipping mysql? or switch? or ?
19:42:39 <derks> for whats its worth I'm the upstream packager for drizzle, and will be adding drizzle package in the near future...
19:42:58 <HackMan> I wish to add both or at least one of the packages to the EPEL repo and I want to maintain the packages.
19:43:05 <derks> though.. that is not exactly a replacement for what mysql is at this stage
19:43:41 <nirik> derks: drizzle is another mysql fork?
19:43:47 <HackMan> derks drizzel doesn't actually use /etc/my.cnf and it doesn't replace libmysqlclient
19:43:51 <derks> nirik, yes
19:44:19 <derks> HackMan, correct... though it does speak the mysql protocol via the mysql_protocol plugin (and listens on 3306)
19:44:29 <nirik> we did discuss this a bit in a previous meeting.
19:44:31 * nirik looks back.
19:44:35 <derks> the mysql_protocol plugin is disabled by default in my packages obviously
19:45:01 <derks> drizzle is by no means a replacement for shipping mysql... i just thought I'd throw it in the pot
19:45:27 <HackMan> so, my question is will it be possible to include Percona or MariaDB in EPEL?
19:45:33 <smooge> from the history of packages getting entered into EPEL, we don't usually add in stuff that conflicts. So how can we get them not to conflict
19:45:39 <nirik> HackMan: so I think the next step for you is to submit reviews. We agreed that "forward compat" conflicts would be acceptable for epel.
19:46:27 <nirik> or at least I thought we did.
19:46:37 <HackMan> smooge , nirik can you please agree ? :)
19:46:57 * Jeff_S is for including them
19:47:10 <smooge> dgilmore, ping
19:47:11 <nirik> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/epel/epel.2011-06-13-19.30.log.html#l-19
19:47:24 <nirik> I'm happy (ok, I lie) to revisit.
19:47:33 <jsmith> smooge: I think dgilmore is on his way to Brazil today
19:47:36 <smooge> I am arguing from remembering dgilmore's strong objections in the past on this
19:47:55 <smooge> versus any love of it myself
19:48:04 <rsc> nirik: "forward compat"?
19:48:28 <nirik> rsc: so, conflicts have been allowed in the case of compat packages...
19:48:32 <HackMan> rsc Provides: mysql Conflicts: mysql
19:49:00 <nirik> in cases when say db3-devel conflicted with db-devel and it was too hard to change them.
19:49:11 <rsc> nirik: oh, we allow overlaps with base packages?
19:49:13 <nirik> so, we were saying that php53 could conflict with php since it's a newer one.
19:49:28 <nirik> well, carefull there. What do you mean by 'overlap' ?
19:50:09 <HackMan> the name of the packages will be different, but since they have conflicting files the new package should have the Conflicts with the old one
19:50:31 <HackMan> and should also provide the old one, since there would be a lot of software that depends on mysql
19:50:55 <nirik> HackMan: well, that we would need to be very very carefull with, IMHO.
19:51:06 <nirik> if someone does 'yum install mysql' they should NOT get an epel package.
19:51:33 * stahnma is here now
19:51:36 <stahnma> late ...again
19:51:57 <HackMan> nirik I agree, I would need some time of testing to make sure there are no such issues
19:52:00 <nirik> so, I'd like to have input from dgilmore on this for sure. I thought he was ok with forward compat, but we should find out.
19:52:02 <Jeff_S> has this been attempted in Fedora already?  I know I brought it up a while back but never went anywhere with it
19:52:11 <smooge> Ok in any case, getting the packages into a fedora release looks like the needed step so that would give dgilmore time to be at a meeting.
19:52:13 <nirik> HackMan: perhaps a 'Provides: mysql = oldversion'
19:52:29 <nirik> Jeff_S: which? the mysql forks?
19:52:40 <Jeff_S> nirik: correct
19:53:23 <HackMan> nirik yup, but as I said, it will need some experimentation just to make sure its working as expected
19:53:31 * stahnma in favor of having those db packages
19:53:39 <nirik> sure.
19:53:52 <rsc> nirik: well...that comes down to my postfix26 thing ;)
19:54:38 <nirik> rsc: indeed it does.
19:54:39 <HackMan> rsc I'm half way done with porting of the debian separation patch for the postfix28 packages
19:54:48 <nirik> so, how about this:
19:55:00 <nirik> would folks interested in this write up an actual proposal in the wiki?
19:55:07 <nirik> and we can revisit at the next meeting?
19:55:12 <rsc> HackMan: sorry, no option for me. I just want RHEL 6 postfix in RHEL 5 ;)
19:55:25 <rsc> nirik: that sounds good
19:55:28 <nirik> I think it needs to address the requirement that installing the base package never installs from epel, and such.
19:56:03 <HackMan> nirik a package proposal in the bugzilla or something else ?
19:56:24 <rsc> wiki?
19:56:36 <nirik> HackMan: no, a proposal on this 'forward compat' conflicts.
19:56:45 <nirik> what a maintainer needs to do/not do.
19:57:13 <HackMan> nirik ok, and add that to the agenda for the next weeks meeting ?
19:58:18 <nirik> sure. Note that next monday is a holiday in the US... so likely no meeting...
19:58:24 <nirik> we could just discuss on list too.
19:58:25 <stahnma> good point
19:59:03 <HackMan> so, here is what I will do. I'll create a spec file with MariaDB or Percona... and test the installations by adding that packet to a enabled repo
19:59:28 <HackMan> the main idea would be if I install the package, it must not break any already installed packages
19:59:47 <HackMan> if I try to install mysql it should conflict with my package
19:59:55 <nirik> sounds good.
20:00:00 <HackMan> and if I don't have mysql and run yum install mysql
20:00:06 <HackMan> it should install the base OS mysql
20:00:34 <HackMan> if I cover all of these, then I can write a package review request
20:00:35 <HackMan> ok ?
20:00:38 <rsc> right. And I think nirik was looking for a written description what do to and not to do technically in the *.spec for a guideline?
20:01:03 <HackMan> Yup, I'll document that, once I know it :)
20:01:07 <smooge> I think that if he can do those, that would be a good starting point :)
20:01:15 <HackMan> currently it's only in theory in my head :)
20:01:36 <rsc> well, it works. It is working for my postfix26 already ;)
20:02:02 <HackMan> I can't start today since I'm up for more then 50h but tomorrow I'll start working on this.
20:02:37 <nirik> rsc: yeah, would be another good one to note... can you make your spec available for HackMan ?
20:03:22 <rsc> nirik: it is. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=694673 - but he needs to compare with the RHEL 6 one where it is based off.
20:03:26 <HackMan> nirik I think I already have it :) rsc the postfix26 packages from CentOS plus ?
20:03:46 <rsc> no, link above. Don't know what CentOS plus is shipping.
20:04:08 <rsc> (but I think, I'm missing the Conflicts:)
20:06:03 <HackMan> rsc yup you are
20:06:47 <HackMan> if this package doesn't Conflicts with the original postfix it will conflict during installation, which as far as I remember is against the guidelines
20:07:48 <nirik> right.
20:07:49 <nirik> it is.
20:07:58 <nirik> ok, anything further on this?
20:08:12 <HackMan> no, when I'm ready I'll post to the thread on the list
20:08:29 <nirik> HackMan: thanks.
20:08:34 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
20:08:38 <nirik> anything for open floor?
20:09:00 <HackMan> then if, you agree that the SPEC is ok, I'll write the package review request
20:09:50 <nirik> sounds good.
20:09:57 <nirik> HackMan: do you intend to maintain in Fedora as well?
20:10:01 <HackMan> will I need to wait for the next meeting or you can make that decision in the mailing list
20:10:19 <HackMan> nirik if there is demand, thats not a problem for me
20:10:33 <nirik> cool.
20:10:53 <nirik> well, if we can get folks to chime in on list we could just figure it out there.
20:11:01 <nirik> it;'s sometimes hard to get people to respond...
20:11:24 <nirik> ok, if nothing else will just close out in a minute here.
20:11:31 <HackMan> Currently I keep two CentOS VMs (32 and 64bit)
20:11:39 <HackMan> I'll need to build two more for Fedora
20:11:44 <HackMan> but its not a problem
20:14:37 <HackMan> ok, then we are finished with the meeting ;)
20:15:03 <nirik> yeah
20:15:05 <nirik> #endmeeting