17:00:05 #startmeeting epel 17:00:05 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:09 #meetingname epel 17:00:09 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 17:00:19 #chairs bstinson dgilmore nirik smooge Evolution 17:00:31 #topic Robot Rollcall 17:00:39 hi all 17:00:42 Tom Servo? 17:00:46 * nirik is somewhat braindead, but here. 17:00:57 me too.. me too 17:01:09 * smooge waits for Evolution 17:01:54 yep. 17:02:31 thanks 17:02:42 #topic EPEL/CentOS meetup in Brussles 17:02:56 i seem to spell Brussels poorly 17:02:58 yeah, how did that go? ;) 17:03:10 Evolution, and bstinson have the floor 17:03:32 or kbsingh if he wants to talk about 17:03:39 the epel gathering had a ton of interested parties show up 17:04:02 we weren't able to get a devroom, so instead found a nice semi-quiet hallway to use 17:04:51 spot, pingou, DV, myself, bstinson, kb and myself did most of the talking. 17:05:32 seems the fedora board/council/whatever approved SCLs finally, but there was still a little question over implementation. 17:05:49 news to me on that 17:05:54 spot brought that point up sort of as a counter to 'we need EPIC' 17:06:11 smooge: same. caught me off guard as well. 17:06:19 they are still stalled in FPC I thought... without anyone pushing them/answering questions 17:06:35 nirik: that's what I thought. spot disagreed. 17:06:43 huh, ok, he would know more than I. 17:06:46 he seemed be under the impression that it was approved and we could move forward. 17:06:48 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 I haven't seen anything on this in any of the lists.. so I will have to double check 17:07:52 EPIC could also stand for Enterprise Packages In Containers 17:08:08 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 though I still like Coffins for the C word 17:08:19 bstinson: do I have that right? was that your understanding? 17:08:47 thats perfectly fine to me... 17:09:18 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 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 secondly, to find a way to host packages that overlap with distro 17:09:34 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 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 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 ( all of this was a : we need to find a way to make happen, rather than any sort of agreement ) 17:10:49 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 so the requirements thing might take more discussion/agreement 17:11:13 Evolution: right, find a way to make happen - ideally find a way that isnt going to make it even harder :) 17:11:28 Evolution: you mentioned that you have some interest in an epel proxy group from some existing sponsors/provenpackagers? 17:11:39 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 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 about 5 or so. 17:12:31 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 most of whom were on the proven packager list iirc. 17:12:50 Having a proxy group that knows the guidelines should reduce the need for lowering any rules or guidelines I would think 17:13:19 nirik: that was the intial middle ground while the rest of the details were worked out. 17:13:20 but all the rest sounds great to me. More communication is always good. ;) 17:13:35 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 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 I emphatically want to avoid ftp.redhat.com/contrib/ Those days were dark... 17:14:20 I think Evolution has seen a bit of that in tackling the SoftwareCollections.org stuff 17:14:20 nirik: but.. we were gonna bring back the rhx.redhat.com days via containers! 17:14:53 :) 17:15:01 Evolution, please.. I need to go take some medication after that 17:15:11 let me just submit my webmin.spec with %postun of 'rpm -e --nodeps webmin' :) 17:15:24 anyhow, sounds like a great meeting. :) 17:15:53 the best bit was that no devroom would host us, so i found us a corner of the Emergency room. 17:16:05 I liked the one that had a uuencoded bit which was unpacked and ran rm -rf / if removed or upgraded 17:16:17 ouch. sorry to hear that 17:16:27 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 well, if someone had decent handwriting such that a 4 didn't seem to be a 7.... 17:16:44 :-P 17:16:44 sounds exciting 17:17:08 ok so next time... we do this at devconf 17:17:21 Evolution: wasent me... thats Gh0sty's thing 17:17:29 smooge: i think we should keep doing it 17:17:41 smooge: depending on who's at scale - you guys should have one there as well 17:17:42 #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 kbsingh: oh, was that him? I keep meeting him in person without actually knowing who he is 17:17:59 that's like twice now 17:18:02 sitting in a room and actually talking at each other was beneficial 17:18:20 kbsingh, yeah.. I need a year in advance to get any travel budget unless OSAS will send me for it. 17:18:40 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 kbsingh, sorry I should have asked before saying that was your action item 17:19:07 smooge: if he can't, I will 17:19:08 smooge: no worries. I can recap 17:19:38 thanks. 17:19:52 I do actually like the idea of planning a repo/epel/whatever meeting around something else. devconf, fosdem, flock, whatever 17:20:21 I won't be at flock but we could ask for a budget for a EAD (EPEL Activity Day) somewhere 17:20:56 +1 to a repo day/meeting/event 17:20:58 sounds good. 17:20:59 * Jeff_S peeks in a bit late 17:21:01 #action smooge will look at setting up a Fall activity day 17:21:07 budgets are hard, lets just having semi official chat's evertime more than 2 people are in the same mile radius 17:22:13 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 and I like budgets 17:22:41 #action smooge will see a therapist about his like of budgets 17:23:00 anything more about the Brussels trip etc? 17:23:28 #topic python3 in EPEL 17:23:50 thanks, i need to rebase over to another thing. 17:23:51 ok so it looks like we are ready to start on a set of python3 rpms for EPEL 17:24:40 yeah, I am ok with the last proposal... 17:24:51 it's a bit of macro doom, but what can you do. 17:25:18 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 17:26:35 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 so, *assuming* that spot is correct, and SCLs are approved and can be used.... 17:26:56 should we add scls in conjuction, or replace this with scl? 17:27:02 eg python3-mythings would recompile on a system when you went from python3-3.4 to python3-3.5 17:27:23 which would require people to have buildrequires on their boxes 17:27:58 Evolution, well so there aren't any scl's in fedora packages yet 17:28:02 Evolution: I'm not interested in scls... so I would likely want to push ahead with this 17:28:03 so this would be the first set 17:28:13 if people wanted to do scls too, great 17:28:35 this is what i've found from a cursory search of FPC trac: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/339 17:28:37 okay, so setup similar to current el7 rhel, where package and scl have same version. 17:28:40 I'm fine with that. 17:30:41 ok so quick hands up. Are we ok with the proposal to go ahead with? 17:30:48 +1 17:30:49 I am +1 with it 17:30:56 yeah.+1 17:31:34 nirik, said he was ok with it earlier. 17:31:52 with python3 packages? yes. 17:32:39 #agreed 4 +1 1 not here. Agreed to go ahead with python3 packages as proposed on the list. 17:33:21 #topic Getting a better idea of how people use EPEL and where we can serve them better. 17:34:43 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 currently we are getting mostly information about EL-5, EL-6 when we remove packages versus anything else. 17:35:43 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 likely a stupid question, but any domain data we can get from dl.fedora or controlled mirrors? 17:36:15 smooge: I don't think fosdem would provide an accurate representation anyway. 17:36:47 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 essentially 'every rhel/cent/sl/oel user is a potential subscriber' but that doesn't help much 17:37:19 do we care about specific packages as much as the domains doing the mirroring? 17:37:43 take dl.fedora subtract mirrormanager subscribers... see what's left 17:38:03 are we trying to who needs which packages? or figuring out how to announce changes more widely? 17:38:17 *trying to figure out who needs which packages 17:39:08 Evolution, the problem is that there are a TON of mirrormanager subscribers. Tons of developers who reposync everything over and such 17:39:45 I ran out of time in trying to do it last time 17:40:00 I can try again now that I have a slightly beefier machine 17:40:49 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 ibm.com grabs 1000 times or whatever. 17:41:17 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 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 does that make sense? 17:43:02 smooge: downside. users are likely companies. they share significantly less data than individuals. 17:44:13 Evolution, I agree. 17:45:09 I am trying to go from "random one off noise" to "random noise" 17:45:25 anyway.. if you guys come up with any ideas.. lets put them to the list 17:46:06 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 #topic Open Flood 17:47:01 anything for the floor or a motion to adjourn? 17:47:04 secondary arch support 17:47:26 ok seconary arch support ... did that come up at Fosdem or something? 17:47:38 sort of. 17:48:10 anything to bring up here or wait til next meeting? 17:48:12 we have x86 built for 7 now, but will likely drop after 7.1 assuming it builds properly as well. 17:48:32 dgilmore also wanted to bring up ppc8le iirc. 17:48:56 so something to think about for next meeting. (hopefully he'll be here) 17:49:25 that's all I had. 17:49:43 we're not the only ones doing x86 either. a couple smaller rebuilds have it as well. 17:49:52 dunno about power builds. 17:50:18 New Fedora EPEL bug 1192567 filed by me2blr@gmail.com. 17:50:19 Bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1192567 docker-io, urgent, unspecified, ---, lsm5, NEW , Docker Build Hangs 17:50:32 ok cool 17:50:35 thanks 17:51:10 I will make sure that is on next agenda 17:51:24 I would like to motion to adjourn this meeting 17:51:35 +1 17:52:47 ok we have a second. 17:52:58 thank you all for this meeting. I need to go deal with a barrel of pages 17:53:06 #endmeeting