21:00:58 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2020-04-03) 21:00:58 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Apr 10 21:00:58 2020 UTC. 21:00:58 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 21:00:58 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 21:00:58 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 21:00:58 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2020-04-03)' 21:01:00 <tdawson> #meetingname epel 21:01:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 21:01:01 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson Evolution pgreco merlinm carlwgeorge 21:01:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution bstinson carlwgeorge merlinm nirik pgreco tdawson 21:01:03 <tdawson> #topic aloha 21:01:09 <pgreco> hello! 21:01:25 <tdawson> Hi pgreco 21:01:27 <moto-timo> aloha 21:01:41 <tdawson> aloha moto-timo 21:01:42 <cyberpear> .hello2 21:01:43 <zodbot> cyberpear: cyberpear 'James Cassell' <fedoraproject@cyberpear.com> 21:01:49 <nirik> afternoon 21:02:02 <moto-timo> fas: ttorling 21:02:06 <tdawson> aloha cyberpear and nirik 21:04:04 * tdawson gives it another minute to see who else shows up. 21:05:39 <tdawson> #topic Old Business 21:05:40 <tdawson> #info https://pagure.io/epel/issue/101 Policy for stalled EPEL requests 21:05:42 <tdawson> .ticket 101 21:05:43 <tdawson> We need to discuss if we feel the proposed solution is ok, and answer questions 21:05:44 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #101: Fedora Infrastructure Change Freeze - fedora-infrastructure - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/101 21:06:10 <tdawson> .epel 101 21:06:11 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #101: Policy for stalled EPEL requests - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/101 21:07:55 <nirik> yeah 21:07:58 <tdawson> Has anyone/everyone read the first draft? Does it sound ok? 21:08:38 <pgreco> it does, I'm not entirely sure about the two week period 21:08:44 <nirik> seems ok to me. I would say on the questions... 2 weeks, releng ticket and admin on the package (since they have to be able to request the branch) 21:09:01 <pgreco> imagining some vacation, but other than that, I like it 21:10:01 <nirik> yeah, if you are gone more than that tho, someone could do the non responsive process on you and take over that way. 21:10:02 <tdawson> I also think two weeks is a bit short, but on the other hand, if there isn't a package in there yet, even for EPEL8, the maintainer isn't really thinking of EPEL much. 21:10:24 <tdawson> So, I'm ok with two weeks. 21:10:52 <bstinson> i think 2 weeks is relatively ok during normal times. i'd expect us to be a little more flexible in applying this policy around holidays and such 21:11:03 <tdawson> True 21:11:27 <nirik> I think per branch ownership is coming to pagure at some point before long... 21:11:50 <nirik> so we could adjust then... just give them commit to the epel branch or something 21:12:27 <tdawson> I am looking forward to that. 21:13:15 * carlwgeorge sneaks in late 21:13:25 <pgreco> so we need to wait for that to land in pagure? 21:13:47 * pgreco fines carlwgeorge with a steak next time he's in texas 21:14:02 <smooge> oh hello 21:14:11 <tdawson> pgreco: I think we can start before that lands in pagure. But we'll adjust when it does land. 21:14:26 <pgreco> ack 21:15:02 <smooge> i am ok with the policy. thanks tdawson and others who wrote it 21:15:34 <moto-timo> agreed 2 weeks is slightly short, but not a show stopper 21:15:37 <tdawson> One note, about the comment in the issue, about opening an issue in EPEL, I'm against that. rel-eng is a monitored area. While the EPEL issues are done by volunteers in their spare time, and get's much less attention. 21:16:51 <tdawson> I think doing EPEL issues would make things slower. 21:16:58 <smooge> agreed 21:17:05 * nirik nods 21:17:33 <tdawson> So, before I write things more formally, since I messed this up before, when we talk about rel-eng tickets, where should I point them? 21:17:52 * moto-timo nods 21:18:35 <nirik> https://pagure.io/releng/issues/ 21:19:17 <tdawson> Sounds good. 21:20:29 <tdawson> OK, I'll get that written up and sent out to the email list as well as the issue with what I consider the overall proposal. 21:21:10 <tdawson> So people can double check it incase I put in something odd that I/you didn't expect. 21:21:25 <tdawson> Any other comments before we move on? 21:21:39 <pgreco> not from me 21:22:06 <tdawson> #info EPEL-6 is End of Life in 2020-11. It will be moved to archives in 2020-12 21:22:07 <tdawson> #info THIS IS NOT A DRILL. 21:22:26 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7 21:23:23 <tdawson> I and cyberpear dropped the ball on on archiving 21:24:02 <cyberpear> yeah, sorry, got busy 21:24:07 <tdawson> I did too 21:24:16 <moto-timo> still human? darn you! 21:25:15 <tdawson> What if we say the archive would be https://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/epel/7.7 ... does that seem like a logical place? Or do people think it would be epel/7/7.7/ ? 21:26:02 <pgreco> I think epel/7.7 21:26:36 <cyberpear> sounds like the right place to me 21:26:40 <tdawson> Having it at the top level will eventually look a little cluttered, but on the other hand, it's fairly logical and it's going to take many years before it really looks cluttered. 21:26:44 <moto-timo> yeah. similar to debian (short and sweet) 21:26:46 <moto-timo> http://archive.debian.org/debian/dists/jessie/main/ 21:27:05 <carlwgeorge> i agree with pgreco, epel/7.7 seems like the right choice 21:27:18 <tdawson> OK, I'll get a ticket open for this. smooge nirik ... expect a ticket for an archive. 21:27:32 <cyberpear> I mean there's already symlink in there, right? (for $releasever) 21:27:43 <pgreco> tdawson: http://vault.centos.org/ 21:27:44 <nirik> well... 21:28:25 <tdawson> nirik: last week smooge volunteered you. :) 21:28:31 <nirik> the problem with that is that it's harder for mirrors to not sync it also. For fedora we move old releases to archives (a seperate volume and sync target that mirrors can choose to carry or not) 21:28:40 <moto-timo> yep. http://vault.centos.org/7.7.1908/ 21:29:21 <nirik> so I would prefer if we move it to /pub/archive/ 21:29:24 <tdawson> nirik: Oh, that's what I means when I said top level ... top level of the archives, not on the normal mirrors. 21:29:36 <nirik> ah, then yes, thats fine. ;) 21:29:45 <moto-timo> +1 21:29:54 <pgreco> +1 21:30:39 <tdawson> Anything else for EPEL7? 21:31:03 <pgreco> just a note 21:31:19 <pgreco> along with imagemagick, glusterfs was rebased in 7.9 21:31:21 <pgreco> *7.8 21:31:56 <pgreco> but some things are still being built against the old version, since they fail against the new one 21:32:21 <pgreco> not much we can do, but I just wanted this to be out there :) 21:32:30 <tdawson> pgreco: Good to know. 21:33:13 <nirik> we could rebuild things, but would probibly take some investigation... 21:33:42 <pgreco> nirik, I don't think we need to do anything right now 21:34:08 <pgreco> we just noticed it while we were rebuilding CentOS 21:34:56 <nirik> ok 21:35:48 <tdawson> Anything else for EPEL7? 21:36:34 <carlwgeorge> for the imagemagick thing 21:37:04 <carlwgeorge> we could rebuild the things that depend on it and leave them in epel-testing until the centos 7.8 rebuild is done 21:37:36 <carlwgeorge> that would allow rhel users to upgrade by enabling epel-testing but make those updates a manual push, not time or karm 21:38:22 <tdawson> I wasn't going to even do my "will it install" tests until after CentOS 7.8 is out. 21:38:38 <carlwgeorge> it's only a handful of things 21:39:48 <carlwgeorge> nine by my count 21:39:48 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: That's what I was/am going to do for KDE when RHEL 8.2 comes out, leave everything in epel8-testing 21:40:07 <tdawson> So, it sounds like something they could do also. 21:40:21 <carlwgeorge> i'd be happy to do it myself but i'm not a proven packager 21:40:45 <tdawson> I'd wait until people complain and/or open bugzilla's. 21:41:34 <tdawson> There's been several times that the maintainer is looking for a good excuse to retire/orphan a package. 21:41:39 <carlwgeorge> https://paste.centos.org/view/ebd5579c 21:44:20 <tdawson> Anything else before we move to epel8 ? 21:45:16 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8 21:46:04 <tdawson> We were able to close alot of the "missing -devel" issues. That was exciting. 21:46:15 <tdawson> Most of them already had tickets in the CentOS bug tracker. 21:48:13 <nirik> cool. :) 21:48:55 <tdawson> I believe the building using non-default RHEL8 modules is still stalled. And that's partly my fault. 21:49:56 <tdawson> Do we have any other EPEL8 issues we need to discuss? 21:50:13 * nirik has none off hang 21:50:14 <nirik> hand 21:50:28 <pgreco> not here 21:50:41 <tdawson> #topic Open Floor 21:52:02 <tdawson> anything else before we close for the week? 21:52:46 <smooge> have a good weekend? 21:52:56 <tdawson> +1 21:53:07 <tdawson> And thank you for coming, especially when some of you have a holiday today. 21:53:20 <pgreco> have a nice weekend everybody! 21:53:27 <carlwgeorge> later yall 21:53:42 <tdawson> #endmeeting