18:02:09 #startmeeting EPEL (2019-10-16) 18:02:09 Meeting started Wed Oct 23 18:02:09 2019 UTC. 18:02:09 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 18:02:09 The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:02:09 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:02:09 The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2019-10-16)' 18:02:09 #meetingname epel 18:02:09 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 18:02:09 #topic aloha 18:02:09 #chair nirik smooge tdawson bstinson Evolution pgreco sgallagh 18:02:09 Current chairs: Evolution bstinson nirik pgreco sgallagh smooge tdawson 18:02:09 #topic Intros 18:02:27 yay another wednesday! 18:02:34 hello 18:02:41 monday #3 18:02:56 nirik is out. Evolution is in meetings 18:03:37 #info Meeting is run from https://board.net/p/epel 18:03:37 #topic Old Business 18:04:02 ok I put out the email listing the 138 tickets open which seem to be epel-8 related 18:04:11 .hello2 18:04:12 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 18:04:28 hey sgallagh I wasn't sure yuou were around 18:04:49 I was running a bit late. Here now. 18:04:58 np 18:05:28 #info Need to look out why some packages can't be branched (rsh) 18:05:49 I think that is in pdc 18:06:05 but I am not sure and I am not sure if it is possible to over-ride 18:07:19 any other old business? 18:08:43 #info Getting EPEL docs into docs.fedoraproject.org did not go smoothly 18:09:21 I followed what pbokoc had said.. but it doesn't work well for a repository which is also getting lots of tickets as every person in fedora-docs got cc'd on tickets etc 18:09:39 so I made pbokoc an admin for the time being until we work out what is needed 18:09:42 #topic EPEL-6 18:09:43 #info EPEL-6 is End of Life in 2020-11. It will be moved to archives in 2020-12 18:10:21 #topic EPEL-7 18:10:21 #info no news is good news 18:10:21 #topic EPEL-8 18:10:21 #info sgallagh says... 18:10:57 how goes stuff sgallagh ? 18:11:20 We're a little behind schedule, but moving forwards 18:12:01 I created the module defaults branches for EPEL 8 and playground today 18:12:10 Merlin is going to take over landing the remaining bits to start doing builds. 18:12:30 My goal for this upcoming week is to do at least one successful module build against the epel8 platform 18:12:59 My goal for the week to follow will be to try to generate an Uber-module that contains all the stuff that was filtered out of RHEL 8 18:13:21 Though I expect that may extend to two weeks 18:13:33 cool 18:14:03 we will need to figure out how to get 'branches' from git.centos.org for that software 18:15:07 Yeah, that's going to be fun 18:17:00 bstinson, do you have suggestions? 18:17:25 Do you need any testers for modules? 18:17:41 we still need to discuss that a little bit on the CentOS side 18:17:45 tdawson: I will definitely ask for them as soon as I have a successful build 18:17:55 ok 18:19:00 smooge: In the short term, we *can* direct MBS to point at a non-default git repository for the components 18:19:13 So I will perhaps do that until the syncing/merging is worked out 18:19:30 Sorry, I should probably clarify that 18:19:34 sounds good. I didn't know that 18:20:14 is epel wanting to consume that module directly from a repo that CentOS provides? 18:20:14 The components section in the modulemd metadata has an optional `repository` field that can point to another repo: https://github.com/fedora-modularity/libmodulemd/blob/master/spec.v2.yaml#L263 18:22:00 bstinson, sgallagh that might be one way to do it. if centos produced such a module in a repo we could sync and add to koji? 18:22:46 smooge: Sorry, I meant that we could create a module in Fedora dist-git (modules/ prefix) whose components might be coming from branches in centos dist-git 18:22:52 Such as for the Uber-module 18:23:11 (Aside: any good ideas for what to call it?) 18:23:29 I like Uber-module ... that sounds good. 18:23:55 But ... it also doesn't really say what it has in it ... it just sounds cool 18:24:19 Right, its purpose is to carry any of the subpackages that RHEL 8 didn't deliver. 18:24:27 Like the libuv-devel package (for example) 18:24:43 if we can accelerate the necessary conversations in CentOS, i'd rather curate that module over on that side 18:24:58 could someone take over the meeting. I need to do another meeting all of a sudden 18:24:59 and do it once rather than try to keep 2 of them in sync (we're considering shipping something similar) 18:26:08 OK, I just spoke to an MBS developer and Fedora's MBS in prod currently disallows overriding the repository (for reproducibility requirements) 18:26:26 I could ask them to add a whitelist, but if we could get the merged git sooner, that would be much nicer. 18:27:03 How about codeready-missing-module 18:27:29 code-not-ready-module 18:28:11 smooge: Too snarky, even for me :) 18:28:25 sgallagh, yeah sorry 18:28:28 tdawson: That could work 18:28:50 we should steer away from the codeready branding 18:29:00 actually we should .. what bstinson said 18:29:17 good point 18:29:21 additional-powertools-module 18:29:35 actually, maybe just `epel-platform` 18:29:36 We could shorten it to missing-module 18:29:51 With streams for each minor release 18:29:57 not-the-module-you-are-looking-for 18:30:03 *laughs* 18:30:05 Move along 18:30:14 move-along-module 18:30:29 is there a reason that centos couldn't ship a repo with this module in place? 18:30:38 i *really* *really* don't want to do this twice 18:30:50 agreed. because you will have to update it a lot 18:32:27 bstinson: Actually, that might indeed be preferable 18:32:55 It would be best if the CentOS folks could take ownership of automating it so that it's updated when RHEL releases errata 18:33:03 (If they get out of sync, bad things(tm) might happen) 18:33:16 well, I was going to ask about that 18:33:19 bad things being a broken build systme 18:33:27 right 18:33:31 oooh speaking of broken build systems 18:33:36 ... 18:33:41 is the idea to use a split repo (rhel + missing parts coming from centos) 18:33:56 or is it easier just to switch it all to build from centos? 18:34:14 #info EPEL8 was broken earlier this week because epel-rpm-macros got pushed with a change which should not have caused problems but did. We reverted until we figure it out 18:34:28 Theory, meet practice... 18:35:44 pgreco, so in theory.. if all the items are in a module, then it doesn't matter if we mix the streams as long as we have said module with the right metadata and Ursa prime does its stuff. 18:36:16 if they aren't in a module then it gets hairy like when we tried to use the centos aarch64 7.7 18:36:23 however... 18:36:54 practice will show where our spherical cows grew udders and lost their aerodynamics 18:37:08 bstinson: Does CentOS do the same filtering of subpackages, or does it actually carry them? 18:37:28 It filters them the same ... so it's missing the same packages. 18:37:30 we do the exact same filtering 18:37:30 Because if they're available from CentOS, I think just using that as the buildroot makes more sense than RHEL 18:37:32 damn 18:37:35 sgallagh, currently centos filters because the modules defs are defined in the git 18:38:49 sgallagh, but could something like how virt : virt-devel are kept in sync work? 18:39:42 smooge: In theory, but someone actually has to do that work 18:39:55 well you volunteered yourself earlier 18:40:06 I volunteered to get us off the ground. 18:40:07 so I check marked that off already 18:40:19 I am *not* (and cannot) be a long-term maintainer 18:40:26 understood :) 18:40:53 let's start with a discussion on centos-devel to see what that community wants out of missing -devel packages 18:40:58 * bstinson takes that action 18:41:49 Thanks 18:43:05 sgallagh, thinking about it the 'uber-module' would have had to build and include both sets of packages like libblueray and libblueray-devel 18:44:13 It would have to build them 18:44:14 I am trying to figure out if it would make sense to rebuild them or have a fake module like the way RHEL-8 does perl 18:44:16 Not necessarily ship them 18:44:35 smooge: Do we have access to them somewhere? 18:44:41 not me 18:44:45 The binary packages need to exist. 18:44:52 sgallagh, how is this affected by the module name difference between rhel and centos? 18:45:15 sgallagh, the reason I was wondering was it would need to ship them since libblueray is not in a module 18:45:19 pgreco: What module name difference? 18:45:39 el8_module+++++ 18:45:49 oh, hmm 18:46:13 We might have some issues with %{release} in dependency fields :-/ 18:46:21 so if libblueray-devel was in a module.. would we end up with one of those 'oh your module has this thing we have to replace your non-module with it' 18:48:08 anyway.. 18:48:30 bstinson thanks for opening an email thread. we will look for it on centos-devel and work from there? 18:49:12 yeah, let's start there 18:49:15 #info bstinson will open a thread on centos-devel on how to deal with shipping non-shipped packages 18:49:35 #info devconf.cz CfP ends in 7 days. 18:49:39 smooge: I think I need to ponder that more deeply 18:49:46 sgallagh, understood 18:50:33 #topic open floor 18:50:59 * sgallagh falls through 18:51:51 it is a deep pit filled with alligators for a reason 18:54:49 ok nothing for open floor? The piranha are starting to get hungry so I am going to close this out. 18:55:57 #endmeeting