17:00:28 #startmeeting EPEL 17:00:28 Meeting started Fri Mar 6 17:00:28 2015 UTC. The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:28 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:36 #meetingname epel 17:00:36 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 17:00:54 woohoo 17:00:54 #chairs bstinson Evolution dgilmore nirik 17:01:02 #topic Robot Rollcall 17:01:08 * bstinson is here! 17:01:15 present 17:02:22 guess it's just bstinson and I... 17:02:25 * Evolution looks at smooge 17:03:49 * nirik is here, but also in a git hell. ;) 17:03:57 nirik, and dgilmore are working on getting alpha ready 17:04:05 ah 17:04:17 I need to let bstinson run these meetings. People show up when he does 17:04:39 #topic Status of things 17:04:56 Ok so currently RHEL-7.1 just came out and CentOS-7.1 will be soon ... 17:05:28 avij posted a bunch of packages that we will need to remove/block from EPEL 17:05:43 Evolution, how long before you think the CentOS-7.1 will come out? 17:06:03 really? *that* the question you're going to lead with? :-P 17:06:18 for 7.0 we were right at the 30 day mark. 17:06:48 I would imagine that we'll have the CR repo populated late next week, and then iso testing after. 17:07:11 the goal is still the same "2 weeks for point update media" 17:07:18 that it's always been. 17:07:31 Evolution, it was that or "I see you hate chocolate." 17:07:38 heh 17:08:04 some of the debranding patches from .0 don't apply cleanly to .1, so some changes and then testing needed. 17:08:04 ok that is cool. the reason is that it leads to the block/remove package timeline 17:08:50 hola 17:09:00 I was going to say we get a complete list of packages in 7.1 core and make a list of packages we need to 'block' in koji 17:09:23 smooge: we have a json file with all the packages in rhel 17:09:35 is it updated to 7.1? 17:09:43 writing a script to work out what to block shouldn't be hard 17:09:43 and who is we :) 17:10:20 dgilmore, my main worry was if we want to retire packages now or wait til CentOS-7.1 came out 17:10:26 smooge: https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/repo/json/pkg_el7.json 17:10:36 its updated daily so should have 7.1 now 17:10:50 smooge: historically we have waited for CentOS 17:11:45 no problem. I just want to make sure we are clear on this. I want to give the guys we are blocking/removing a heads up in case they were going to update nethack-4.0 and it was 3.9 in RHEL 17:12:29 smooge: bodhi needs to learn to check the json file and block those types of updates 17:12:30 dgilmore, can we block and remove later? so that people can't build new packages but it doesn't remove from the repo. Or are they part of the same step in the tools 17:12:41 smooge: no 17:12:48 its blocked and removed all at once 17:13:07 ok then I will make a warning email this weekend to send out 17:13:39 I will play with the json and python also 17:14:04 alright Evolution what was I supposed to lead with :)? 17:15:51 no clue. we could always go back down the python3 rabbit hole 17:15:53 :-P 17:16:03 (dear god please no) 17:16:10 how about ppc64le 17:16:10 #topic How far does this rabbit hole go? Python3 17:16:18 dgilmore, next up 17:16:46 OK all I want to do on the python3 is say I have looked over the proposal and I think its good enough for any approval we need to give. 17:17:08 however if there are parts that I am overlooking I would be happy to learn them. 17:17:13 * maxamillion is here now 17:17:17 that upgrade went terribly 17:17:34 smooge: +1, the conversations on the list seemed to handle some of the clarifications needed 17:18:19 dgilmore, nirik have you guys had anything to say on it? I can move it to an on-list vote if you hvan'te had time because of alpha but could look at it over the weekend 17:19:20 last I looked at it it was good. I can look again this weekend. 17:19:35 smooge: my head has been in Fedora Alpha land all week 17:19:48 * dgilmore is good with what he has seen 17:21:06 looks like ownership is being handed off to mstuchli, i can reach out to see what support we can give 17:21:39 I'm +1 for python3 as list-clarified 17:22:06 okie dokie 17:22:24 I will put this to a list vote with finalization on next Friday. 17:22:36 +1 for python3 also (for what it's worth, I can never remember who all's +1's technically "count") 17:22:49 #info Vote on Python3 proposal will be done on the list with finalization at next meeting. 17:23:00 #topic More Architectures 17:23:30 dgilmore, this is your part 17:24:26 oh man 17:24:27 so rhel will be supporting ppc64le as an official arch and I think we should also 17:24:41 we have the hardware 17:24:45 agree. 17:25:00 they have java which is a pain point in epel6 17:25:14 I think it will be a win for us 17:25:22 I'm all for it ... does CentOS have the hardware? (since we use CentOS in mock/copr configs for building, or is that not the case in koji?) 17:25:44 maxamillion: they do not have ppc64 builds from memory 17:25:55 Evolution: is that still true? 17:26:38 yes, but we have access to hardware now via 3rd party. so after x86_64 and i686 we'll start on that 17:26:43 Evolution: and what is the CentOS plans in regards to LE? 17:27:04 granted I don't see copr/mock being a real consideration since there's not likely a way to run that arch in openstack 17:27:06 we're going to put some effort into both ppc64le and aarch64. 17:27:27 brave 17:27:41 in theory, ppc64le will be easier since that can be done from actual rhel, where aarch64 is done from the old f19stage4 17:27:58 maxamillion: well you can run ppc64 be and le in openstack 17:28:15 Evolution: :( yeah 17:28:19 from what I've seen, the ppc64le stuff looks fairly badass. 17:28:27 it is nice 17:29:02 I do not know what aarch64 will look like in rhel land 17:29:16 but I think it is safe to assume that at some point it will be there 17:29:29 and I think we should support it at that point 17:29:39 dgilmore: I didn't know that ... qemu emulation? 17:29:40 I'm probably ~1month out from having something installable for cent on aarch64 17:29:45 is anyone against supporting ppc64le in epel? 17:30:17 no objection here 17:30:20 dgilmore: I'm doing my rebuild as sig work at present, because what i'm doing may end up being different from what actually shows up if/when it arrives. 17:30:20 OK I am going to be the negative nanny here. We have ~100 users of PPC. All of them pretty much behind redhat.com and ibm.com 17:30:38 Evolution: cool 17:31:29 smooge: I do believe openpower is starting to get there 17:31:41 smooge: so I feell that the number of users will increase 17:32:24 http://www.zdnet.com/article/rackspace-joins-openpower/ 17:32:42 My main issue is that Power is a secondary architecture in Fedora. It has people who focus on there. Are they going to help out on the EPEL side or is it just oging to be you and Evolution ? 17:33:03 http://www.tyan.com/campaign/openpower/ 17:33:16 smooge: they do help 17:34:05 dgilmore, I quit looking at those on the last time IBM said it was going to do this in the early 2000's and then changed their minds and all of that alternative power went away silently 17:34:56 my main thing was hoping they would be the ones championing it versus two very overworked work-aholics 17:35:07 smooge: now that IBM got rid of their x86 business they actually need it to be a sucess 17:36:25 possibly. They let go a portion of their PPC people last month so I really don't know. 17:36:34 in any case.. that isn't really my point 17:37:14 I think it is worth our while to support 17:38:20 so it seems everyone but smooge is for supporting ppc64le 17:38:39 I don't doubt that. And I expect it is. I want someone else shouldering it so when something doesn't compile on PPCle for some reason that x86_64 people don't understand.. it isn't on you to move a mountain 17:38:52 I am +0 17:39:35 nirik, you have a say? 17:39:53 yeah, that's a fair concern I think .... all said and done, it comes down to supportability and if it's just going to be left to like 2 or 3 people who may or may not have a PPCle background 17:40:01 * nirik cannot pay attention right now, sorry 17:40:51 I absolutely have no experience with PPCle nor access to any hardware so if I ran into an arch specific build issue I'm not sure how useful I would be in the effort.... I'm willing to learn though, just not sure that's the best strategy 17:41:30 I'll +0 also because I'm kind of on the fence, no real preference, some pros/cons that I think kind of stalemate in my mind 17:41:58 dgilmore, if we had secondary architecture EPEL I would be +1 in an instant.. if someone from the PPCle team comes in and says "We are happy to support this and make this work" I am also +1 in an instant 17:42:37 if you say we can drop ppc and replace it with ppcle... I will be +1 so fast that the Earth will turn backwards and Lois Lane will be saved 17:42:50 smooge: okay. the power community wants to support it 17:43:00 and most if not all le issues hit fedora also 17:43:04 and get fixed there 17:43:21 smooge: at least for now we will have both be and le 17:43:57 well I can't get everything I want :) 17:44:18 we would need to build the arch specific rpms in mock and import to koji and change the arches 17:44:35 implementation is not hard 17:44:44 let us move this to an email list vote also so that nirik can focus on it when he isn't sick/dealing with broken shit. We will finalize next week 17:45:27 sure 17:45:37 Since I am not blocking with a +0 I am going to say that it is mostly deal with any side line items and we can finalize and figure out what needs to be done to get the builds going 17:46:14 dgilmore, can you get some people from ppc on EPEL-devel as that is where questions for things 'broken' will end up. 17:46:40 #info email vote on PPCle inclusion to EPEL to be finalized next week 17:47:30 #topic Open Floor 17:47:56 anything for the open floor? broken builds etc? 17:48:19 if not we can close this out in 2 minutes. 17:48:30 smooge: sure 17:48:54 thanks dgilmore 17:49:21 nothing on my end 17:50:26 #endmeeting