18:01:02 <smooge> #startmeeting EPEL (2019-09-25)
18:01:02 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 25 18:01:02 2019 UTC.
18:01:02 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
18:01:02 <zodbot> The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:02 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
18:01:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2019-09-25)'
18:01:13 <smooge> #meetingname epel
18:01:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
18:01:25 <smooge> #chair bstinson Evolution nirik smooge pgreco tdawson sgallagh
18:01:25 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution bstinson nirik pgreco sgallagh smooge tdawson
18:01:49 * nirik sits in a chair
18:01:59 <smooge> hello anyone available for the emeting today?
18:02:03 <warren> hi
18:02:13 <tdawson> .hello2
18:02:14 <zodbot> tdawson: tdawson 'None' <tdawson@redhat.com>
18:02:30 <warren> .hello2
18:02:31 <zodbot> warren: warren 'Warren Besthorne JR' <wbesthorne@gmail.com>
18:02:40 <warren> what!? that isn't me
18:02:45 <pgreco> hello
18:03:16 * bstinson is unavailable at the moment
18:03:21 <nirik> warren: the hello2 alias assumes your irc nick == your fas name. If it's not you can use '.hello yourfasname'
18:03:55 <warren> .hello wtogami
18:03:57 <zodbot> warren: wtogami 'Warren Togami' <wtogami@gmail.com>
18:04:40 <smooge> bstinson, I have noted your absence and notified the truancy officer. He asked 'where are the qcow images'
18:04:50 <smooge> #topic CentOS-8
18:05:11 <smooge> #info Major thank yous to the CentOS developers for getting CentOS-8 out the door.
18:05:29 <sgallagh> .hello2
18:05:30 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
18:05:31 <sgallagh> Sorry I'm late.
18:05:43 <tdawson> Ya!!! ... thank you  CentOS developers!!
18:06:02 <sgallagh> \o/
18:06:06 <nirik> yeah, kudos!
18:06:26 <smooge> pgreco, Evolution and bstinson are currently tied up with that
18:08:15 <smooge> I also saw an influx of package requests for EPEL-8 things so I expect we will be seeing a growth in packages
18:08:28 <smooge> #topic CentOS-8 Streams
18:08:59 <smooge> #info This is still getting worked on so not sure exactly what it means.
18:09:22 <smooge> #info Maybe use for playground? Kevin started a thread on this
18:09:41 <nirik> yeah... more feedback welcome.
18:09:45 <smooge> anything else on this?
18:10:09 <warren> is there a convenient way to figure out if something is in centos proper vs streams vs EPEL?
18:11:22 <tdawson> If it's in centos proper, it should be in RHEL8, so the same check does both.
18:11:28 <tdawson> I don't know about streams though.
18:12:01 <smooge> streams is a complete unknown and we will need to figure out how to get that into pdc
18:12:03 <warren> I suppose EPEL may get complicated if there's different incompatible streams that are below it
18:12:28 <smooge> well again it isn't clear there are going to be incompatible streams.
18:12:33 <nirik> afaict there is only one stream.
18:12:55 <smooge> one way of reading what was said was that basically streams is RHEL8.n+1 rawhide
18:13:40 <smooge> which people then think is everything and anything.. but it still has to roll up into RHEL-8.n+1
18:13:48 <pgreco> I'm planning on writing a blog or something about c8-stream, and also not to confuse it with module streams...
18:14:22 * orionp really wish they hadn't use the name "CentOS Stream"
18:14:22 <smooge> I expect we will all be screaming about streams to let off some steam
18:14:46 * nirik is glad they didn't use rawhide in it.
18:15:07 * tdawson likes to take his shoes off and put his feet in a nice cool stream.
18:15:13 <orionp> centos playground!
18:15:38 <nirik> not professional enough I expect. ;)
18:16:28 <smooge> ok so a lot of this is still be worked out. There will be a crawling stage before we get to a walking or running or driving car and leaving dad stage
18:17:48 <smooge> ok not much else on this I think
18:17:55 <smooge> #topic EL-6 issues
18:18:24 <smooge> Other than Nov 30 2020 is one day closer.. anything outstanding issues?
18:18:57 <smooge> #topic EL-7 issues
18:19:13 <smooge> any issues on this at the moment?
18:19:19 <sgallagh> One
18:19:28 <sgallagh> There's been question about the ancient copy of Node.js there.
18:19:32 <smooge> several actually ..
18:19:53 <smooge> #info nodejs question on mailing list
18:20:04 <sgallagh> Technically, Node.js 6 went EOL upstream at the end of May
18:20:12 <smooge> sgallagh, I saw your answer.. you were thinking of going to 10?
18:20:46 <sgallagh> I'm thinking of going all the way to 12, actually
18:21:27 <smooge> ok I thought the dial only went to 10
18:21:45 <sgallagh> Nah, I got the Spinal Tap Upgrade and then didn't stop.
18:21:53 <tdawson> Dials nowdays go to 11 ... but sgallagh ... he went past that.
18:22:18 <nirik> well, we can just build a module ... oh wait.
18:22:19 <smooge> hmm it looks like you used a felt pen here
18:22:52 <sgallagh> v12 will hit EOL in April 2022, kicking the can pretty far down the road
18:23:16 <pgreco> sgallagh, I'm not friends with nodejs, compatibility?
18:23:18 <sgallagh> I could also package it as `nodejs12` instead of upgrading the 6.x stream, if preferred.
18:23:29 <sgallagh> pgreco: Guaranteed not to be compatible :)
18:23:44 <pgreco> then I like the name change
18:23:47 <warren> in practice upgrades like this breaks compat, but they shouldn't be using old unmaintained versions anyway
18:23:48 <sgallagh> They follow semver.
18:24:24 <warren> do we know people are using EPEL nodejs? I've seen people deploy the upstream binaries instead.
18:24:47 <sgallagh> At least one person is, since they're requesting an upgrade :)
18:24:49 <smooge> people use it
18:25:19 <smooge> how much and compared ot the overall population impossible to tell
18:25:25 <sgallagh> But I suppose for EPEL 7 it might make sense to package both 10 and 12
18:25:56 <smooge> sgallagh, I think nodejs12 would be preferred. If you haven't done 10 I wouldn't want you to double your work
18:26:15 * sgallagh nods
18:26:42 <smooge> anything else on that?
18:26:57 <sgallagh> Nada
18:26:58 <smooge> #info python36 to be retired from EPEL this week
18:27:08 <smooge> nirik, I think you were lead on this
18:28:49 <nirik> well, I think we are waiting a week or two
18:28:59 <smooge> I thought that week was up
18:29:05 <nirik> there was one complaint about people using 7.x older minor releases.
18:29:17 <smooge> well they are screwed either way
18:29:17 <nirik> but we explicitly don't support that anyhow.
18:29:43 <nirik> I can look at retiring them again after the meeting or later in the week
18:29:54 <smooge> nirik, I guess I could grab the python36 items, put them in a repo on people and tell people if they need it go there
18:30:04 <warren> I haven't been around here in like 10 years but is it still the case generally that we don't know how many people are using a particular package. We also have no way of getting news out to EPEL users?
18:30:05 <smooge> later in the week or next week is fine
18:30:07 <nirik> the main harm they do is people might expect they are supported and file bugs or the like
18:30:48 <nirik> warren: yeah, we don't know specific package use... we do have epel-announce list... but unlikely all consumers are subscribed there.
18:31:05 <smooge> I will put a blog and send out an epel-announce email
18:31:06 <nirik> we do have broad/handwavy how many people request this repo
18:32:38 <smooge> nirik, let us schedule this for next Wednesday? We can let mhronek(sp) know. I will put announcements out later today
18:33:05 <smooge> that will give people time to be informed if they want to be
18:33:20 <smooge> anything else on this do you think?
18:33:59 <nirik> sure, sounds fine.
18:34:06 <nirik> you want to send those? or want me to?
18:35:34 <smooge> I can send them out.
18:35:42 <smooge> #info nginx (warren)
18:36:15 <warren> nginx had a few nasty DoS issues. it seems none of the nginx package owners use EPEL7.
18:37:02 <warren> I use EPEL7 so I went through the effort of adding minor nginx.spec conditionals against nginx master, it works fine on my EPEL-7 machine. Asked a few other people who had custom nginx configs and it worked for them.
18:37:24 <warren> my suggestion is if the nginx package maintainers don't use EPEL7 then it's easiest to maintain it in sync with Fedora
18:37:46 <warren> nginx doesn't break stuff with version upgrades, and EPEL has upgraded the version many times already
18:37:50 <smooge> did the maintainers get back to you on it?
18:38:05 <warren> checking
18:38:36 <warren> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nginx/pull-request/6
18:38:47 <warren> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750857
18:40:54 <smooge> so the package is owned by jamielinux and he doesn't seem to be a very active maintainer these days
18:41:12 <smooge> sgallagh, have you worked with them on nodejs much?
18:41:50 <sgallagh> jamielinux is MIA as far as I know.
18:42:01 <warren> only person who responded was heffer, who is that?
18:42:08 <pgreco> any provenpackager?
18:42:39 <sgallagh> I think it's definitely worth going through non-responsive maintainer for jamielinux
18:42:48 <warren> pgreco: are you a provenpackager? I tried to grant you co-ownership of a package this past week but the system wouldn't let me
18:43:14 <pgreco> I'm not proven packager, not even registered as a packager afaik
18:43:26 <smooge> I can make the fixes later this week
18:43:31 <smooge> probably friday
18:43:37 <warren> what fix specifically?
18:44:04 <smooge> the one you listed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nginx/pull-request/6
18:44:23 <nirik> pgreco: we can fix that if you like. :)
18:44:25 <warren> More generally, asking this EPEL meeting, they had maintained the epel7/ branch for years separately. I want to literally merge it with master
18:44:27 <smooge> since it is security related.. i will use proven packager
18:44:45 <warren> i already tested it
18:45:10 <sgallagh> warren: What do you mean by "merge it with master"
18:45:17 <sgallagh> Build it from the master branch?
18:45:21 <pgreco> nirik, sure, I just need clear guidelines of what I can (and should) do ;)
18:45:35 <pgreco> sgallagh, small fixes in master, then keep epel7 in sync
18:45:47 <nirik> pgreco: to be clear, I can sponsor you in packager so you can own packages and such... provepackager has a process with voting and such...
18:45:47 <smooge> so put the changes to master; fedpkg switch-branch epel7; git merge master ; git unbreakthisstuff; fedpkg build
18:45:50 <sgallagh> I don't see anything wrong with that
18:46:05 <smooge> i forgot a fedpkg push
18:46:51 <pgreco> nirik, agreed, please do
18:47:05 <smooge> this actually leads to my next item
18:47:09 <warren> Is anyone concerned that EPEL7 would be a higher version than RHEL8?
18:47:09 <tdawson> ideally you wouldn't need "git unbreakthisstuff"
18:47:19 <nirik> pgreco: sure, you are also pgreco in fas?
18:47:28 <pgreco> nirik, yes
18:47:42 <smooge> warren, yes I would be. I would probably have to check other things then
18:47:43 <nirik> warren: nope, we don't support dist upgrades (although I think there's a rhel tool to do it now)
18:48:14 <warren> we could upgrade EPEL7 to RHEL8's version but I'm not willing to QA that
18:48:48 <warren> sync EPEL7 with master was my solution to "make EPEL7 maintainable"
18:48:55 <smooge> plus it is a module they magically fix themselves
18:48:57 <nirik> pgreco: done, please let me know if you have any questions on anything. My email is always open.
18:49:33 <smooge> ok I will look at if the version in rhel8 can be used in epel7 also
18:49:39 <smooge> but otherwsie what nirik said
18:49:55 <warren> OK so revisit this topic later?
18:50:04 <smooge> yeah I will give you a status on Monday
18:50:16 <smooge> I have one more item
18:50:26 <smooge> #topic Onboarding EPEL only packagers
18:51:17 <smooge> There has been a very eager person (skywalker) who went and learned spec files and has been making pull requests for getting things into EPEL
18:51:47 <nirik> cool.
18:51:51 <smooge> I am not clear on how you become a packager if you don't want to add some new software into Fedora these days
18:52:21 <nirik> well, you can convince any sponsor that you should be added... but we could have some more fomal path, like a epel ticket and discussion or something?
18:52:58 <sgallagh> smooge: The usual way is to request comaintainership of a package.
18:53:00 <smooge> yeah I didn't want this to be an old-boys club menhod
18:53:39 <smooge> so I believe there was a problem where they asked someone.. and the person saw they weren't a packager so said they couldn't comaintain until they became a packager.
18:54:12 <nirik> thats not the case... any existing packager can ask someone be added to co-maintain...
18:54:12 <smooge> sgallagh, so I wanted to make sure I sent them on the right path this time
18:54:38 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
18:54:42 <sgallagh> smooge: If they got that instruction, it was incorrect.
18:55:30 <smooge> nirik, ok thanks. I was worried that was one of our dead wiki pages
18:55:53 <smooge> ok I will follow it with the person and we will get them into packaging stuff
18:56:05 <smooge> ok that is all I had for this week
18:56:08 <warren> Related question, I recently asked nirik for help for an upstream non-fedora developer to have access to the testing machines. nirik created a group just for that. Now I want him to co-maintain his own package in Fedora and EPEL. Is there a status for a single package packager?
18:57:03 <smooge> not sure I parse that.
18:57:12 <smooge> the status would be become a Fedora packager
18:58:00 <smooge> I need to end this meeting in 2
18:58:07 <smooge> #topic Open Flood
18:58:44 <tdawson> Nothing from me.
18:58:47 <smooge> Other than warren's question which may be better suited for an email thread.. anything else for this week
18:59:01 <smooge> thank you all for coming this week. it was good to see old faces and new
18:59:04 <warren> I guess I should join this mailing list ...
18:59:23 <smooge> well warren the fedora-devel might be it since you wanted a fedora packager
18:59:41 <smooge> #endmeeting