18:01:35 <smooge> #startmeeting EPEL
18:01:35 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 13 18:01:35 2017 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:35 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:01:35 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
18:01:35 <centbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 13 18:01:35 2017 UTC.  The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:35 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:02:16 <smooge> #meetingname EPEL
18:02:16 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
18:02:16 <centbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
18:02:16 <smooge> #topic aloha
18:02:16 <smooge> #chair avij bstinson Evolution nirik smooge
18:02:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution avij bstinson nirik smooge
18:02:16 <centbot> Current chairs: Evolution avij bstinson nirik smooge
18:02:21 <smooge> we will do it here
18:02:33 <avij> we'll do it live
18:02:40 <smooge> <snicker>
18:02:51 <bstinson> heh
18:02:58 <nirik> and in production!
18:03:28 <smooge> #topic Meeting TIme
18:03:53 <smooge> ok wanted to get an idea of who can make meetings here and if this timeslot is still good
18:04:06 <smooge> also where I am supposed to update the meeting calendar :)?
18:04:17 <nirik> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/list/epel/
18:04:24 <nirik> this time is still fine with me
18:05:25 <bstinson> works for me too
18:05:34 <avij> this is an appropriate meeting time for me. it's evening (9pm), but that suits my schedules better than normal "office hour" times.
18:08:25 <smooge> ok I am putting in. OK for me to 'end' the series at the end of this year or make it longer?
18:09:40 <smooge> ok thanks for the info. I will finish up and start inviting after this meeting
18:10:04 <smooge> #topic Announcements
18:10:04 <smooge> #info CentOS-7.4 issues
18:10:04 <smooge> #info ???
18:10:36 <avij> as for announcements.. CentOS 7.4.1708 will be released today.
18:10:40 <smooge> So we have still been having CentOS CR issues reported but I think it is ending soon.
18:10:48 <smooge> avij, thanks for the info on that
18:11:06 <nirik> cool. :)
18:11:25 <smooge> #info  CentOS 7.4.1708 will be released today.
18:11:50 <smooge> #info FLOCK last week. Lots of talks. My brain is full syndrome on catching up with all the items
18:11:51 <avij> hopefully this will make the life of everyone a bit easier
18:12:31 <smooge> yeah.. now it will just be the people who think that EPEL somehow provides a link to older releases we see every minor release
18:13:21 <smooge> bstinson, nirik was there anything for announcements that you knew of?
18:13:45 <nirik> not off hand
18:13:58 <bstinson> nothing from me
18:14:53 <avij> nothing apart from the above
18:15:57 <smooge> okie dokie
18:16:14 <smooge> #topic FLOCK 2017 recap
18:16:48 <smooge> So there were 2 major meetings and a lot of hallway meetings. I have been trying to get all of them written down in a blog post but have had a bunch of irqs that ate up that time
18:17:15 <smooge> I am putting it down as a deliverable for next weeks meeting that I have the writeups done to a blog and to the list.
18:17:50 <smooge> Major items that looked 'interesting' was that modularity is going to make things very different in the future for EL
18:18:25 * nirik nods
18:19:18 <avij> yes, I can imagine..
18:20:53 <smooge> Next we talked about things we could try and do in the coming year.. which will hopefully be easier with the additional branching in Fedora sources
18:21:50 <smooge> that would be to allow branches for specific releases and to move EPEL into a rawhide type channel built against CentOS and a EL release cycle built against RHEL.
18:22:05 <smooge> Again I need to write down the particulars and will do so before meeting
18:22:21 <smooge> Was there anything from those who could make it?
18:23:06 <nirik> there was your opt parallel installable packages idea...
18:23:30 <nirik> which I am not sure I followed all the details of. I think I was fighting fires or lack of sleep about then. ;)
18:24:12 <smooge> both
18:25:03 <smooge> you had to step out. Basically I am hoping to get /opt/epel approved so we can make rules for putting packages which 'collide' with RHEL package filesystem space
18:26:33 <smooge> as in /opt/epel/bin/httpd could be in a httpd24 rpm on RHEL6 so that a packager does not need to make sure the binary and all its sub-items are named so as it could be /usr/bin/httpd24
18:26:44 <smooge> or python
18:28:31 <smooge> again it needs some policy written and more than 2 lines in irc for why and how it is supposed to work
18:28:49 <nirik> yeah, I wonder if it's worth the trouble now... but probibly
18:29:08 <avij> an interesting concept, but I'm not sure I know all the implications of that proposal
18:29:38 * carlwgeorge pops in
18:29:53 <smooge> since EPEL-6 is our largest and still growing user space I was figuring it made sense for the next 2 years and similar to EL-
18:30:08 <smooge> avij, understood.
18:30:24 <carlwgeorge> smooge: i remember you mentioned the goal was to provide one newer version, not multiple.  is that still the case?
18:31:34 <smooge> yes this is for single LTS streams which people want to focus on versus the other /opt/ thing which my brain cant remember the term for
18:31:57 <bstinson> the idea is not to replicate SCLs
18:32:02 <smooge> thanks
18:32:06 <smooge> god I am old today
18:32:45 <carlwgeorge> would python stick with the current python3_pkgversion stuff or move to this new competing space?
18:33:19 <nirik> IMHO it should just stick with the current thing...
18:33:26 <nirik> since there's a bunch of packages now that depend on it
18:33:32 <smooge> it is a depends thing. Currently (and far as I know) python3 is not shipping with RHEL7
18:33:48 <smooge> so we aren't running 2 different versions on the same system.
18:33:51 <carlwgeorge> ah, so it doesn't fit the competing definition
18:34:18 <carlwgeorge> hmm, well it competes with the stock python2...
18:34:33 <smooge> on EL-6 we have python2.6 as the /usr/{bin,lib,share} and people want python2.7 because stuff doesnt work in 2.6
18:34:41 <Sketch> smooge: correct, though it is in epel.
18:35:33 <nirik> people always want what they don't have. ;)
18:35:37 <Sketch> and SCL
18:35:46 <carlwgeorge> either way, i would be fine if the competing stuff is limited to things that do not easily cooperate with parallel installs.  python works great with it's make altinstall.
18:35:48 <Sketch> (for 7. not sure about 6.)
18:36:29 <smooge> I am using python as it was the one I remember being a pain in the ass for EPEL-5
18:37:05 <smooge> but fill in the bucket for the software which works better
18:37:36 <carlwgeorge> back then python may not have had altinstall in their makefile yet
18:38:16 <carlwgeorge> what about naming scheme?  would using names like httpd24 cause too much confusion with similarly named packages in epel like python34?
18:40:36 <smooge> I don't understand why people would be confused. I chose the name so it would be similar to how we do python34 and such. The /opt/epel/ choice was mainly that it is a path namespace which we could have which would not collide with current ones
18:40:56 <smooge> it is basically an /usr/local for the project
18:41:37 <smooge> however I am also likely blind to something
18:42:08 <carlwgeorge> my thinking is that users install python34 and expect python3.4 or similar in their path, but if they install httpd24 they will open issues about httpd2.4 or similar not being in their path.
18:44:17 <smooge> ah ok
18:44:48 <smooge> thanks
18:44:54 <smooge> yeah that does make sense
18:45:08 <carlwgeorge> with scl it's a bit more explicit with their long names (rh-<collectionname>-<packagename>), so the expectation is different i think
18:46:18 <bstinson> maybe that's something we can highlight when we create the proposal
18:46:21 <carlwgeorge> i'd like to say i have an ideal name scheme to suggest, but naming things is hard.  how about competing-<packagename>?  i.e. competing-httpd, competing-redis, etc.
18:47:15 <smooge> ok will do so
18:47:17 <carlwgeorge> that would also solve the problem of future updates invalidating a versioned name, i.e. competing-httpd could update from 2.4 to 2.6
18:47:34 <nirik> but then we get back to when would that be allowed/make sense...
18:47:53 <nirik> vs just stopping maintaining something. :)
18:48:36 <Evolution> sorry I'm late.
18:48:38 <carlwgeorge> iirc smooge wanted these competing packages to roll with the latest upstream lts
18:48:47 <smooge> my proposal was that we only maintain things which are either upstream LTS or supported by RHEL
18:48:57 <smooge> so lets take the case of the mythical EL-next
18:49:11 <smooge> let us say it comes with python-3.9
18:49:30 <smooge> (that isn't a real version on purpose)
18:51:11 <smooge> then we could have a python39 on the os's which don't have it. If for some reason EL-7.5 came with python-3.pi (again made up) we could have one python39 in a noncoliding space with the python3
18:51:20 <smooge> the more likely space for this is tetex
18:51:30 <smooge> but I didn't want to drive you all to madness
18:53:11 <carlwgeorge> ah, so more of "backport the latest EL spec file to older EL's", versus "backport the latest Fedora spec file to EL's"
18:53:18 <nirik> ok, I see... probibly will be more clear with a written up proposal/examples. ;)
18:53:28 <smooge> yes. it hopefully will
18:53:46 <carlwgeorge> sorry to derail with so many questions
18:53:50 <smooge> no it was needed
18:54:22 <carlwgeorge> several of these have been on my mind since flock tbh
18:54:59 <smooge> I will try to get this written up after a) fix nagiso pacakging b) get download-ib moved c) find a big pot of coffee
18:55:04 <nirik> questions are good. :) helped clarify it to me...
18:56:38 <carlwgeorge> so if name contains the version, in the httpd example, would httpd26 obsolete httpd24?  or is it more likely to just lock onto upstream's major verison number?
18:58:27 <smooge> I would say from the perspective of what I was writing about it would obsolete
18:59:54 <smooge> I am trying to make it simple for packagers
19:00:07 <smooge> who mostly want to fire and forget
19:00:20 * nirik nods
19:00:41 <smooge> I would like to make it so it is quite well laid out so that a normal spec file can be made easily to fit into the other name space without a lot of headaches
19:01:14 <smooge> supposedly it should be easy. If it isn't then this dies a fast death
19:01:23 <tibbs> It appears that I've missed a very interesting meeting.
19:01:36 <carlwgeorge> would a convenience symlink in the PATH be allowed?  something like /usr/bin/httpd24 -> /opt/epel/bin/httpd?
19:02:14 <smooge> I would think so as long as that did not break the app
19:02:41 <smooge> aka if /usr/bin/httpd24 crashes because it needed to be run from /opt/epel/bin/httpd
19:03:18 <smooge> The last part of the proposal would be to have a epel-opt.sh script which added /opt/epel/bin ot PAT and /opt/epel/lib to LIB
19:03:27 <carlwgeorge> fair enough
19:04:00 <smooge> so anyway.. time to get to writing that.
19:04:56 <smooge> thanks for the qustions
19:05:10 <smooge> so the next agenda item
19:05:17 <smooge> #topic Next Meeting Agenda
19:05:51 <smooge> so I need help here.. are there any tickets or items we need for this? If something comes up in the next week please email/ping me also
19:06:49 <nirik> I had 1 thing (I guess it could be open floor).... we had scheduled a work day, but I and I think everyone else completely forgot... so we should rescheule one sometime.
19:07:22 <smooge> yeah it was last friday
19:07:33 <smooge> my apologies on that
19:08:07 <nirik> mine too. I saw the reminder, but was swamped.
19:09:20 <smooge> so yes. we need an activity day and what to do on it.
19:09:31 <smooge> Next week we will go over what items need to be worked on
19:09:39 <smooge> Then advertise and do it
19:09:46 <smooge> And maybe cookies
19:10:02 <nirik> punch and pie?
19:10:17 <smooge> mmmm
19:10:20 <smooge> pie
19:10:33 <smooge> so ok I will have that for agenda next meeting
19:10:49 <smooge> I think we are running into other peoples meetings so
19:10:53 <smooge> #topic Open Floor
19:11:01 <smooge> I can close out in 2 minutes
19:11:04 <smooge> or less
19:11:53 <smooge> Shoot
19:11:57 <smooge> I just remembered something
19:12:51 <smooge> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/PBEYGLJXWY33ANB5XTKHIJVXEIYW2PSI/
19:13:38 <smooge> We have a bunch of packages which were in EPEL but aren't. tyll made a list
19:14:01 <smooge> We need to work out what to do with this and get it done. I would like some ideas on the list
19:14:19 <smooge> #info need ideas to deal with retired packages due to pkgs change
19:15:09 <smooge> ok with that
19:15:14 <smooge> #endmeeting