17:00:05 <smooge> #startmeeting epel
17:00:05 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Feb 13 17:00:05 2015 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:05 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:09 <smooge> #meetingname epel
17:00:09 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
17:00:19 <smooge> #chairs bstinson dgilmore nirik smooge Evolution
17:00:31 <smooge> #topic Robot Rollcall
17:00:39 <bstinson> hi all
17:00:42 <smooge> Tom Servo?
17:00:46 * nirik is somewhat braindead, but here.
17:00:57 <smooge> me too.. me too
17:01:09 * smooge waits for Evolution
17:01:54 <Evolution> yep.
17:02:31 <smooge> thanks
17:02:42 <smooge> #topic EPEL/CentOS meetup in Brussles
17:02:56 <smooge> i seem to spell Brussels poorly
17:02:58 <nirik> yeah, how did that go? ;)
17:03:10 <smooge> Evolution, and bstinson have the floor
17:03:32 <smooge> or kbsingh if he wants to talk about
17:03:39 <Evolution> the epel gathering had a ton of interested parties show up
17:04:02 <Evolution> we weren't able to get a devroom, so instead found a nice semi-quiet hallway to use
17:04:51 <Evolution> spot, pingou, DV, myself, bstinson, kb and myself did most of the talking.
17:05:32 <Evolution> seems the fedora board/council/whatever approved SCLs finally, but there was still a little question over implementation.
17:05:49 <smooge> news to me on that
17:05:54 <Evolution> spot brought that point up sort of as a counter to 'we need EPIC'
17:06:11 <Evolution> smooge: same. caught me off guard as well.
17:06:19 <nirik> they are still stalled in FPC I thought... without anyone pushing them/answering questions
17:06:35 <Evolution> nirik: that's what I thought. spot disagreed.
17:06:43 <nirik> huh, ok, he would know more than I.
17:06:46 <Evolution> he seemed be under the impression that it was approved and we could move forward.
17:06:48 <bstinson> something about the proposal is finished, but there is still some tweaking that is ongoing?
17:06:59 * nirik isn't a fan.
17:07:28 <smooge> I haven't seen anything on this in any of the lists.. so I will have to double check
17:07:52 <smooge> EPIC could also stand for Enterprise Packages In Containers
17:08:08 <Evolution> biggest thing that seem to come of the meeting (to me) was the agreement with dgilmore and others to create a 'centos' group or whatever made up of approved fedora/epel packagers to act as proxies into EPEL for centos packagers.
17:08:17 <smooge> though I still like Coffins for the C word
17:08:19 <Evolution> bstinson: do I have that right? was that your understanding?
17:08:47 <nirik> thats perfectly fine to me...
17:09:18 <kbsingh> yeah, from my side : it was emotional, but the EPEL folks agreed to talk around dropping ( if not just lowering ) barriers to EPEL package influence to move away from fedora
17:09:30 <bstinson> yeah, my understanding was a group of centos and epel devs specifically tasked as a resource for centos sig members to throw one-off contributions at
17:09:30 <kbsingh> secondly, to find a way to host packages that overlap with distro
17:09:34 <Evolution> also the creation of git repo somewhere for spec files, which would allow for 'drive-by' updates (to be run through CI, and then trough the packager proxy group) into epel.
17:10:00 <kbsingh> thirdly, to find a way to host multiple versions of the same packages, SCL might be on option, baseline namespace overload might be another, folks might have other solutions as well
17:10:27 <kbsingh> lastly, to find a way to notify/consume feedback into EPEL from SIG's and other groups that might be consuming EPEL content
17:10:43 <kbsingh> ( all of this was a : we need to find a way to make happen, rather than any sort of agreement )
17:10:49 <Evolution> kbsingh: matt/dgilmore weren't keen to drop the requirements, but we fine with proxying packages through other people who were approved.
17:10:59 <Evolution> so the requirements thing might take more discussion/agreement
17:11:13 <kbsingh> Evolution: right, find a way to make happen - ideally find a way that isnt going to make it even harder :)
17:11:28 <bstinson> Evolution: you mentioned that you have some interest in an epel proxy group from some existing sponsors/provenpackagers?
17:11:39 <smooge> kbsingh, Evolution ok could we get this in an email to make sure we have all the details that people think they agreed on to be hammered out?
17:12:04 <Evolution> bstinson: when I suggested it before, I had a few folks email me privately to volunteer, but they didn't want to be overly public about it.
17:12:12 <Evolution> about 5 or so.
17:12:31 <kbsingh> sure, we can get a thread started up - its going to need a fair bit of airtime to make sure that everyone finds the right level of closure, and also to make sure we really are addressing problems folks have
17:12:38 <Evolution> most of whom were on the proven packager list iirc.
17:12:50 <nirik> Having a proxy group that knows the guidelines should reduce the need for lowering any rules or guidelines I would think
17:13:19 <Evolution> nirik: that was the intial middle ground while the rest of the details were worked out.
17:13:20 <nirik> but all the rest sounds great to me. More communication is always good. ;)
17:13:35 <kbsingh> nirik: right, but its an audience thing. having a proxy group does reduce barriers for the people needing / using hat proxy  group
17:13:40 <smooge> And getting the guidelines cleared up in some places as tibbs mentioned earlier as to what is needed for EPEL-5 versus 6 versus 7 isn't always clear for people who KNOW the guidelines
17:13:49 <nirik> I emphatically want to avoid ftp.redhat.com/contrib/ Those days were dark...
17:14:20 <smooge> I think Evolution has seen a bit of that in tackling the SoftwareCollections.org stuff
17:14:20 <Evolution> nirik: but.. we were gonna bring back the rhx.redhat.com days via containers!
17:14:53 <nirik> :)
17:15:01 <smooge> Evolution, please.. I need to go take some medication after that
17:15:11 <nirik> let me just submit my webmin.spec with %postun of 'rpm -e --nodeps webmin' :)
17:15:24 <nirik> anyhow, sounds like a great meeting. :)
17:15:53 <kbsingh> the best bit was that no devroom would host us, so i found us a corner of the Emergency room.
17:16:05 <smooge> I liked the one that had a uuencoded bit which was unpacked and ran rm -rf / if removed or upgraded
17:16:17 <smooge> ouch. sorry to hear that
17:16:27 <kbsingh> i.e across the hallway were 2 guys, drunk off their face, getting first aid. and a lady who had slipped outside getting her foot bandaged.
17:16:41 <Evolution> well, if someone had decent handwriting such that a 4 didn't seem to be a 7....
17:16:44 <Evolution> :-P
17:16:44 <ktdreyer> sounds exciting
17:17:08 <smooge> ok so next time... we do this at devconf
17:17:21 <kbsingh> Evolution: wasent me... thats Gh0sty's thing
17:17:29 <kbsingh> smooge: i think we should keep doing it
17:17:41 <kbsingh> smooge: depending on who's at scale - you guys should have one there as well
17:17:42 <smooge> #action kbsingh will write to the list a memory of what things were discussed and what aims need to be worked on.
17:17:50 <Evolution> kbsingh: oh, was that him? I keep meeting him in person without actually knowing who he is
17:17:59 <Evolution> that's like twice now
17:18:02 <bstinson> sitting in a room and actually talking at each other was beneficial
17:18:20 <smooge> kbsingh, yeah.. I need a year in advance to get any travel budget unless OSAS will send me for it.
17:18:40 <kbsingh> we could even organise a one day conference around packaging and repo relationships - i think there is enough content and interest in there
17:18:54 <smooge> kbsingh, sorry I should have asked before saying that was your action item
17:19:07 <Evolution> smooge: if he can't, I will
17:19:08 <kbsingh> smooge: no worries. I can recap
17:19:38 <smooge> thanks.
17:19:52 <Evolution> I do actually like the idea of planning a repo/epel/whatever meeting around something else. devconf, fosdem, flock, whatever
17:20:21 <smooge> I won't be at flock but we could ask for a budget for a EAD (EPEL Activity Day) somewhere
17:20:56 <bstinson> +1 to a repo day/meeting/event
17:20:58 <Evolution> sounds good.
17:20:59 * Jeff_S peeks in a bit late
17:21:01 <smooge> #action smooge will look at setting up a Fall activity day
17:21:07 <kbsingh> budgets are hard, lets just having semi official chat's evertime more than 2 people are in the same mile radius
17:22:13 <smooge> kbsingh, I agree on that. I can see about an activity day at an offices though. That way video can be available etc
17:22:21 <smooge> and I like budgets
17:22:41 <smooge> #action smooge will see a therapist about his like of budgets
17:23:00 <smooge> anything more about the Brussels trip etc?
17:23:28 <smooge> #topic python3 in EPEL
17:23:50 <kbsingh> thanks, i need to rebase over to another thing.
17:23:51 <smooge> ok so it looks like we are ready to start on a set of python3 rpms for EPEL
17:24:40 <nirik> yeah, I am ok with the last proposal...
17:24:51 <nirik> it's a bit of macro doom, but what can you do.
17:25:18 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
17:26:35 <smooge> yeah I am not sure there is much we can do about it beyond trying an idea that someone had with another set of macros which would rebuild the sub-things whenever a major update occurred
17:26:40 <Evolution> so, *assuming* that spot is correct, and SCLs are approved and can be used....
17:26:56 <Evolution> should we add scls in conjuction, or replace this with scl?
17:27:02 <smooge> eg python3-mythings would recompile on a system when you went from python3-3.4 to python3-3.5
17:27:23 <smooge> which would require people to have buildrequires on their boxes
17:27:58 <smooge> Evolution, well so there aren't any scl's in fedora packages yet
17:28:02 <nirik> Evolution: I'm not interested in scls... so I would likely want to push ahead with this
17:28:03 <smooge> so this would be the first set
17:28:13 <nirik> if people wanted to do scls too, great
17:28:35 <bstinson> this is what i've found from a cursory search of FPC trac: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339
17:28:37 <Evolution> okay, so setup similar to current el7 rhel, where package and scl have same version.
17:28:40 <Evolution> I'm fine with that.
17:30:41 <smooge> ok so quick hands up. Are we ok with the proposal to go ahead with?
17:30:48 <bstinson> +1
17:30:49 <smooge> I am +1 with it
17:30:56 <Evolution> yeah.+1
17:31:34 <smooge> nirik, said he was ok with it earlier.
17:31:52 <nirik> with python3 packages? yes.
17:32:39 <smooge> #agreed 4 +1 1 not here. Agreed to go ahead with python3 packages as proposed on the list.
17:33:21 <smooge> #topic Getting a better idea of how people use EPEL and where we can serve them better.
17:34:43 <smooge> Ok this was more of a general toss out for how we can better help people. Looking at the various numbers of users.. and that el-5, el-6,el-7 each have significant usage.. how can we better get ideas from the people that the Fedora side might not know as much about (EL-5, EL-6?)
17:35:04 <smooge> currently we are getting mostly information about EL-5, EL-6 when we remove packages versus anything else.
17:35:43 <smooge> I was hoping that we could get more information from the FOSDEM about what users might need but it sounds like the lack of room made that hard to gauge
17:35:49 <Evolution> likely a stupid question, but any domain data we can get from dl.fedora or controlled mirrors?
17:36:15 <Evolution> smooge: I don't think fosdem would provide an accurate representation anyway.
17:36:47 <smooge> I tried getting data from dl but we have so many mirrors hitting it directly that trying to figure out who is asking for specific packages is lost in the data
17:36:54 <Evolution> essentially 'every rhel/cent/sl/oel user is a potential subscriber' but that doesn't help much
17:37:19 <Evolution> do we care about specific packages as much as the domains doing the mirroring?
17:37:43 <Evolution> take dl.fedora subtract mirrormanager subscribers... see what's left
17:38:03 <bstinson> are we trying to who needs which packages? or figuring out how to announce changes more widely?
17:38:17 <bstinson> *trying to figure out who needs which packages
17:39:08 <smooge> Evolution, the problem is that there are a TON of mirrormanager subscribers. Tons of developers who reposync everything over and such
17:39:45 <smooge> I ran out of time in trying to do it last time
17:40:00 <smooge> I can try again now that I have a slightly beefier machine
17:40:49 <Evolution> smooge: true. I don't know how else to get a better picture though. or just seeing unique domains and headcounts off the mirrorlist url.
17:41:04 <Evolution> ibm.com grabs 1000 times or whatever.
17:41:17 <smooge> bstinson, I am looking at the general question: How can we get subscribers to tell us theirr needs better? How can we engage them more so it isn't completely a one-way conversation
17:42:52 <smooge> in all honsesty I don't expect us to have an answer this meeting. I want to get people thinking about it so that we can get back to this at somepoint
17:43:02 <smooge> does that make sense?
17:43:02 <Evolution> smooge: downside. users are likely companies. they share significantly less data than individuals.
17:44:13 <smooge> Evolution, I agree.
17:45:09 <smooge> I am trying to go from "random one off noise" to "random noise"
17:45:25 <smooge> anyway.. if you guys come up with any ideas.. lets put them to the list
17:46:06 <smooge> last piece of business was looking at ppcle and other architectures.. however dennis isn't here so I don't know what that entails
17:46:40 <smooge> #topic Open Flood
17:47:01 <smooge> anything for the floor or a motion to adjourn?
17:47:04 <Evolution> secondary arch support
17:47:26 <smooge> ok seconary arch support ... did that come up at Fosdem or something?
17:47:38 <Evolution> sort of.
17:48:10 <smooge> anything to bring up here or wait til next meeting?
17:48:12 <Evolution> we have x86 built for 7 now, but will likely drop after 7.1 assuming it builds properly as well.
17:48:32 <Evolution> dgilmore also wanted to bring up ppc8le iirc.
17:48:56 <Evolution> so something to think about for next meeting. (hopefully he'll be here)
17:49:25 <Evolution> that's all I had.
17:49:43 <Evolution> we're not the only ones doing x86 either. a couple smaller rebuilds have it as well.
17:49:52 <Evolution> dunno about power builds.
17:50:18 <buggbot> New Fedora EPEL bug 1192567 filed by me2blr@gmail.com.
17:50:19 <buggbot> Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192567 docker-io, urgent, unspecified, ---, lsm5, NEW , Docker Build Hangs
17:50:32 <smooge> ok cool
17:50:35 <smooge> thanks
17:51:10 <smooge> I will make sure that is on next agenda
17:51:24 <smooge> I would like to motion to adjourn this meeting
17:51:35 <bstinson> +1
17:52:47 <smooge> ok we have a second.
17:52:58 <smooge> thank you all for this meeting. I need to go deal with a barrel of pages
17:53:06 <smooge> #endmeeting