21:00:27 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2020-08-28)
21:00:27 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Aug 28 21:00:27 2020 UTC.
21:00:27 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
21:00:27 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:00:27 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
21:00:27 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2020-08-28)'
21:00:29 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
21:00:29 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
21:00:30 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson Evolution pgreco carlwgeorge
21:00:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: Evolution bstinson carlwgeorge nirik pgreco tdawson
21:00:32 <tdawson> #topic aloha
21:00:37 <carlwgeorge> .hello2
21:00:38 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'None' <carl@redhat.com>
21:00:40 <pgreco> hi!
21:00:50 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
21:00:52 <tdawson> Hi pgreco
21:03:46 <tdawson> Hopefully we have a few more, I'll give it a couple more minutess
21:05:12 <tdawson> Well, let's start.
21:05:26 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
21:05:27 <tdawson> epel8-playground
21:05:35 <pgreco> yeah, I wanted to talk to nirik about what he asked in the ML
21:06:05 <tdawson> Yep, I'm hoping he'll show up, maybe a little late.
21:06:16 <tdawson> Do we want to postpone this until the end of the meeting?
21:06:17 <pgreco> tdawson: kde (and friends) usually break for you, right?
21:06:34 <pgreco> yeah, I'd like that
21:06:51 <tdawson> pgreco: It should be just that one time ... but ya, let's do our other normal stuff first.
21:07:07 <tdawson> #info EPEL-6 is End of Life in 2020-11. It will be moved to archives in 2020-12
21:07:09 <tdawson> #info THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
21:07:26 <tdawson> That's only two months away
21:07:42 <carlwgeorge> \o/
21:07:53 <pgreco> 2 months, 8 meetings...
21:07:58 <tdawson> I think, starting next week, it will be a good time to start sending out emails saying it's getting archived.
21:08:55 <carlwgeorge> goodbye `%if %{with systemd}`
21:09:12 <tdawson> Beyond emails ... I don't think there is anything that the people here can do, the rest is Fedora releng
21:09:58 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7
21:10:19 <pgreco> I was looking at the epel-testing report
21:10:44 <pgreco> there are 3 really old packages in testing
21:10:53 <tdawson> Yep
21:10:55 <pgreco> over 2 years old
21:11:07 <pgreco> do we know what's with that?
21:11:54 <tdawson> About a year ago I cleared out alot (hundreds) of old packages.
21:12:05 <tdawson> from testing.
21:12:13 <pgreco> I was just looking at it, minutes before the meeting
21:12:22 <pgreco> I'll investigate those 3 and report back
21:12:39 <tdawson> pgreco: Sounds good.  Thank you.
21:13:05 <tdawson> I'm not sure why the two oldest ones made it past my initial sweep.  But the newer one wasn't old enough at the time.
21:14:13 <pgreco> yeah, 6 months or so
21:14:22 <tdawson> #info pgreco will investigate the three old RHEL7 packages that are still in testing, and report back next week.
21:14:40 <tdawson> Anything else for EPEL7?
21:15:33 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8
21:16:40 <carlwgeorge> i like option d, except for the part about building against stream
21:17:44 <tdawson> Yep ... I'm thinking there needs to be an option e, or possibly rewrite option a to be d, except for the last step.
21:18:05 * carlwgeorge scrolls back to find option a
21:18:51 <carlwgeorge> sounds good to me
21:18:59 <tdawson> I think it's basically d without  the last step, only it wasn't worded very well.
21:20:01 <carlwgeorge> i have an idea for stream that we can save for open floor
21:20:07 <pgreco> carlwgeorge: just curious, what don't you like about building against stream?
21:20:12 <tdawson> My biggest problem with option d is that CentOS 8 Stream (not the real name) is only temporary.
21:20:42 <carlwgeorge> pgreco: like was brought up in the thread, stream is going to move on to el9 well before el8 eol
21:20:44 <tdawson> In a couple years it becomes CentOS 9 Stream (again, not the real name)
21:21:12 <pgreco> yeah, I can see that
21:21:21 <carlwgeorge> additionally, there is always the potential for a library bump in stream that renders packages built against stream uninstallable on rhel/centos
21:22:17 <carlwgeorge> i expect that within the el8 lifecycle there will be an openssl rebase for tls 1.3, similar to what happened in rhel 7.4
21:22:50 <pgreco> actually, the library bump was one of my "pro" points for using stream
21:23:13 <pgreco> playground may break, but we allow people to use something
21:23:20 <carlwgeorge> for a smaller example, see the imagemagick bump in 7.8
21:23:40 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: You said you had an idea about what to do with stream.   Do you want to bring it up now?
21:23:48 <carlwgeorge> sure why not
21:24:43 <carlwgeorge> i don't think we can cleanly solve this with just epel8 and epel8-playground.  i propose we introduce an epel8-next (or other name) repo.
21:25:10 <carlwgeorge> epel8: built against rhel 8 + centos-devel, current rules
21:25:44 <carlwgeorge> epel8-playground: built against rhel8 + centos-devel, breaking changes allowed, and maintainers are allowed to merge this to epel8 at point release time
21:26:01 <carlwgeorge> epel8-next: built against centos stream, other rules tbd
21:26:27 <tdawson> Sounds good to me, other than the name.   What about epel8-stream?
21:26:40 <pgreco> epel-stream maybe
21:26:46 <carlwgeorge> extra packages for enterprise stream (epes)
21:26:52 <tdawson> And what about :)
21:27:03 <carlwgeorge> (kidding, i hate the acronym)
21:27:23 <pgreco> since it will probably stay with the release that stream is tracking
21:27:24 <tdawson> And what about when the CentOS Stream moves to RHEL9?
21:27:35 <carlwgeorge> i'm fine with epep8-stream, to the extent that i'm ok with the gross overuse of the word "stream"
21:27:42 <tdawson> Do we just archive it?
21:27:45 <tdawson> :)
21:28:10 <carlwgeorge> yes, we make epel9-stream for the overlap, then retire epel8-stream when centos 8 stream is retired
21:28:15 <tdawson> Yep ... I'm not a big fan of the CentOS Stream name ... but ... *sigh* I'll take it.
21:28:25 <pgreco> well, that probably brings us back to the autobranch we talked about last week
21:28:39 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: That sounds like a good plan.
21:28:54 <pgreco> tdawson: CentOS-inprogress doesn't look that fancy :)
21:29:03 <tdawson> *laughs*
21:29:09 <carlwgeorge> make sure to enable that module stream from appstream on your centos stream.  not to be confused with the non-modular appstream-data package in appstream.
21:29:26 * bstinson parachutes in to say that we should probably pick something besides 'stream'
21:29:42 <carlwgeorge> i still like epel8-next
21:29:46 <pgreco> yeah
21:30:14 <tdawson> I'm fine with epel8-next ... but now I'm curious why bstinson thinks we should pick something besides 'stream'
21:30:39 <tdawson> I'm more wondering if it will get us in trouble with legal, or just the over-use of the word.
21:31:09 <pgreco> carlwgeorge: I like your idea better than using the two branches we have right now, but didn't think a third one was an option :)
21:31:16 <bstinson> parts of Red Hat marketing was involved in choosing 'CentOS Stream'
21:31:24 <bstinson> i don't want to wake those folks up again for this
21:31:39 <tdawson> bstinson: you are wise
21:33:21 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: As long as the folks that have to implement this don't disagree, I like your proposal.
21:33:39 <tdawson> Since none of them are here right now ... I say we vote on it. :)
21:33:43 <tdawson> Just kidding. :)
21:34:17 <carlwgeorge> haha
21:34:33 <pgreco> hehe, I was just thinking, nirik is going to love this... :P
21:35:53 <tdawson> So, for epel8-next we'll have a two, possibly three year lifetime ... but then epel8-next will get at least 3 full years.
21:36:10 <tdawson> That second epel8-next was supposed to be epel9-next
21:37:00 <carlwgeorge> yup, just chain them to the lifecycle of the stream release they build against
21:37:05 <pgreco> yeap
21:37:16 <carlwgeorge> which we won't have solid dates for anyways, at least not for a while
21:37:30 <pgreco> one thing that can be important, fully new rebuilds? or inherited from epel8
21:37:50 <tdawson> OK, I'll put this proposal in the email, see what people who do the work say ...
21:38:18 <pgreco> I like the idea of everything inheriting from epel8, avoiding useless rebuilds
21:38:22 <tdawson> pgreco: good point.  I would think it would have to inherit from itself first, and then epel8.
21:38:49 <pgreco> right, %dist would probably take care of that
21:39:36 <carlwgeorge> on a related note, currently centos 8 stream buildroot inherits from the centos 8 buildroot, but we're eventually moving away from that
21:39:48 <carlwgeorge> we may not be fully away from that until the 9 cycle
21:39:49 <tdawson> But we don't need to do a complete epel8 rebuild.  People just rebuild what needs to be rebuilt.
21:41:17 <carlwgeorge> to be clear, i'm fine with epel8-playground inheriting from epel8
21:41:36 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: As long as you get all things rebuild in CentOS Stream, that need to get rebuilt ... I guess having it build against the CentOS 8 buildroot isn't too bad.
21:42:33 <tdawson> Anything to discuss on this before we move on?
21:42:42 <tdawson> Anything else I mean?
21:43:18 <tdawson> Or anything else dealing with EPEL 8?
21:43:41 <pgreco> not here, we made a mess, now we can move on :)
21:43:49 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-9
21:44:15 <tdawson> OK, I don't know if this needs to be a topic, but ...
21:44:50 <pgreco> in 2 months we can recycle epel-6
21:44:51 <tdawson> Last week we were talking about possibly getting EPEL9 up earlier, sorta an alpha and beta epel9
21:45:00 <carlwgeorge> spinning off the epel8-next idea, i think we should have epel9-next up as soon as possible
21:45:38 <carlwgeorge> *after centos 9 stream is available, of course
21:46:08 <pgreco> we were thinking about bootstraping something in .dev, using a snapshot of .eln or something like that
21:46:10 <tdawson> Last week pgreco thought of taking a snapshot of ELN right before it transitions, and use that for starting EPEL9
21:46:23 <tdawson> What he said. :)
21:46:33 <pgreco> .dev or .stg, can't remember, hehe
21:47:02 <tdawson> I worry a little bit about using the initial CentOS 9 Stream, because that is going to be in major flux.
21:47:34 <tdawson> That's why I like the idea of a snapshot instead.
21:48:23 <bstinson> sorry i missed last week, was the suggestion to do a pass to see if things build?
21:48:42 <tdawson> And possibly setting up a page so that if EPEL maintainers know they want their package to go from EPEL8 to EPEL9, that some script can branch it, and merge it over from Fedora master.
21:50:05 <tdawson> bstinson: Ya, and to get the infrastructure in place quicker.
21:51:47 <tdawson> We know we're still at least 6 months away before any ELN / CentOS Stream transition, but we wanted to talk about it now so we aren't rushed.
21:52:13 <bstinson> yeah, it's probably good to talk about. especially if epel-next is a thing
21:54:00 <tdawson> So, our time is getting close, and some key people aren't hear for this subject ... does this sound like something that should be sent around via email, or should we wait another week before going into details?
21:54:52 <pgreco> I think we can wait a week
21:54:57 <bstinson> i'm ok waiting a week, and i promise to be there :P
21:55:14 <tdawson> OK, then we'll talk about this more next week.
21:55:19 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
21:56:34 <tdawson> Anyone have anything else?
21:56:54 <carlwgeorge> nothing here
21:57:11 <pgreco> nope
21:57:51 <tdawson> Thanks you all for coming.  We'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.
21:58:01 <pgreco> thanks, bye bye
21:58:08 <tdawson> #endmeeting