21:01:18 #startmeeting EPEL (2020-03-20) 21:01:18 Meeting started Fri Mar 20 21:01:18 2020 UTC. 21:01:18 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 21:01:18 The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:01:18 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 21:01:18 The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2020-03-20)' 21:01:20 #meetingname epel 21:01:20 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 21:01:21 #chair nirik tdawson bstinson Evolution pgreco merlinm carlwgeorge 21:01:21 Current chairs: Evolution bstinson carlwgeorge merlinm nirik pgreco tdawson 21:01:23 #topic aloha 21:01:35 howdy 21:01:39 oh, hi!! 21:01:51 Hi carlwgeorge and pgreco 21:02:07 * cyberpear listens in 21:02:15 just finished my work day in front of the computer, starting my play day in front of the computer 21:02:31 Hi cyberpear 21:02:54 hello 21:03:48 * tdawson waits a couple more minutes. 21:04:27 afternoon 21:04:40 hi nirik 21:05:54 #topic Old Business 21:05:56 #info Discussion and/or voting on EPEL8 module addition to EPEL GuidelinesAndPolicies 21:06:00 #info https://pagure.io/epel/issue/100 21:06:11 #info https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JX5FKXJXZN24GTZI7DSR67JVKVRHSFSX/ 21:06:40 What do people think of the proposed wording, on Issue 100? 21:07:09 +1 21:07:21 +1 here 21:07:24 +1 21:07:40 And a +1 from me. Sounds like it's unaimous 21:08:09 #info Unanimous votes for proposed wording in Issue 100. 21:08:19 #info tdawson will update the wiki 21:08:31 Well, that was quick :) 21:08:38 we all came prepared 21:08:44 * nirik nods. 21:09:09 I just realized I put the next section as "Discussion" when it should be "Report" ... just a sec 21:09:32 #info Report on progres of testing CentOS Devel repo packages in EPEL8 21:09:34 #info https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8749 21:10:13 I don't have anything to report, because I don't see anything changing on the ticket. 21:10:32 yeah, not enough round tuits yet 21:10:44 nirik: Do you know how backed up things are? Or have any estimate of how long this will take before it get's started? 21:10:44 fyi, 8/devel is still populated, but 8-stream/devel has been emptied 21:11:07 carlwgeorge: Interesting. And thanks for the update. 21:11:08 tdawson: not sure, possibly next week? 21:11:19 just needs to get synced over and added to stg koji to test... 21:11:26 i can't defend or explain why, i just know that it happened 21:11:38 carlwgeorge: Yep, I saw the discussion. 21:11:47 hehe 21:12:22 It's sorta strange, but because of the discussion, I've had two people tell me that there was *only* a CentOS Stream Devel repo. I had to explain to them that there was both. 21:12:29 But ... I digress. 21:13:02 that one will be super useful for building stuff that needs libdnf-devel, etc 21:13:05 I think it may be confusing from the announcements, etc 21:13:27 nirik: I'll probrubly ask next week about progress. I realize things are busy, just want to check. 21:13:36 i'll summarize by saying that epel shouldn't do anything with centos devel until we know that it's going to exist long term 21:13:38 sure. please feel free to 21:13:54 agreed 21:14:28 #info No progress this week on this ticket. Hopefully some next week. 21:14:48 (Isn't the idea of centos-devel repo to demonstrate to RH that they should ship those devel packages?) 21:14:58 no? 21:15:23 it's to allow people to build things against them... knowning that they have 0 support 21:15:37 ok 21:15:39 the first goal was to get people the bits 21:15:44 I am pretty sure Red Hat doesn't wish to support them... but I don't speak for them. 21:15:58 the second goal was to gather information about what people might want to do with the bits 21:16:11 in the community context 21:16:14 aha 21:17:30 Correct. They don't want to support them, and if they are in RHEL in any form, people open tickets against them claiming that it's RHEL's fault that their bad code isn't working. 21:18:07 * tdawson notes that even though I know what I just said, I'm still very vocal against it. :) 21:18:27 *sigh* but I digress again. 21:18:38 codeready-builder-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms is also not supported, but I guess they're also worried about security patches... 21:19:26 (don't let me get in the way of the next topic) 21:19:29 I think that's it for Old Business. 21:19:36 #info EPEL-6 is End of Life in 2020-11. It will be moved to archives in 2020-12 21:19:38 #info THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 21:19:45 my take is that "supported" isn't binary, there is "shipped but not supported" and "so unsupported we actively block shipping it" 21:19:48 can't come soon enough. ;) 21:20:18 I noticed that someone wan't to update one of their EPEL6 packages, that will require rebuilds of several other packages. 21:20:42 I guess that means no python36 for epel-6 21:20:58 tdawson: yeah, saw that... I don't have the cycles to help. 21:21:35 This week I don't have the cycles either ... I'm curious if those packages will build even without the update. 21:22:10 cyberpear: probrubly not 21:23:00 I don't know if they've said it officially, but I think the python team in EPEL have stopped doing anything other than security issues in EPEL6. 21:23:26 Its hard to put in work on something that goes away soon 21:23:32 Yep 21:24:04 I think I might have the cycles to at least do some test builds of those packages the person is looking at, before the end of the week. 21:24:25 that would be nice of you 21:24:46 #topic EPEL-7 21:24:49 yeah, easily understood... sadly, "goes away" is only a dream for me... some orgs still have 40% RHEL 6 deployment... 21:25:34 cyberpear: :( 21:25:50 cyberpear: Understood. It took (is still taking) a long time for some places to move off RHEL5 21:26:15 yeah, I'm still aware of a few of those 21:26:47 I just heard of a machine at my last place I worked that just retired a Red Hat Linux (not RHEL) 6.1 machine. Luckily it wasn't on the network. 21:26:55 heh 21:27:35 the current fedora account system is stuck on rhel6. ;( but hopefully we replace it this year... 21:27:39 Anyway ... anything for EPEL7? I don't know of anything for this meeting. 21:28:17 * nirik has nothing off hand for el7 21:28:25 * nirik goes to get some water. brb 21:28:35 #topic EPEL-8 21:29:02 Outside of what we talked about before, anything for EPEL8? 21:29:08 any idea if the Fedora Go packaging changes will ever make it to EPEL 8? -- currently, I have to rebuild fc28 go packages to get them to build on epel8 21:30:02 cyberpear: there is some work under way to enable that, but it requires changes to redhat-rpm-macros which is being reviewed now 21:30:18 awesome! 21:30:24 not from me 21:30:38 it's not guaranteed to happen, but is being investigated 21:30:49 hey, that's the best you can ask for! 21:31:38 And it might take some time. All the features for RHEL 8.2 is already in, so the soonest would be 8.3. 21:31:46 sorry, i meant redhat-rpm-config 21:32:01 * carlwgeorge looks to see if that bugzilla was private or not 21:32:08 so May 2021 at earliest if RH keeps to their 6-mo pace 21:32:42 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774139 21:33:08 * cyberpear subscribes 21:33:50 based on https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#RHEL8_Planning_Guide , more like towards the end of this year 21:34:14 yeah, youre right... forgot 8.1 was already out 21:36:52 I gave my thumbs up to it, though ... I was only asked to comment on how it would affect overall size, nothing technical. 21:37:04 Anything else for EPEL8? 21:37:41 #topic Open Floor 21:38:54 Anything else? 21:39:26 I'll give it a couple minutes 21:41:19 I hope everyone has a good weekend. 21:41:22 Thanks for coming. 21:41:34 #endmeeting