20:00:25 #startmeeting EPEL (2021-03-24) 20:00:25 Meeting started Wed Mar 24 20:00:25 2021 UTC. 20:00:25 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 20:00:25 The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 20:00:25 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 20:00:25 The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2021-03-24)' 20:00:26 #meetingname epel 20:00:26 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 20:00:28 #chair nirik tdawson bstinson pgreco carlwgeorge michel_slm 20:00:28 Current chairs: bstinson carlwgeorge michel_slm nirik pgreco tdawson 20:00:29 #topic aloha 20:01:07 .hi 20:01:08 dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' 20:01:15 Hi dcavalca 20:01:20 * carlwgeorge waves 20:01:33 * nirik is only sort of here. 20:01:35 Hi carlwgeorge 20:01:54 Hi nirik ... better to have you sort of here, then not at all. 20:02:17 hey guys, about 10% following here, dealing with work fires 20:02:38 Hi pgreco ... also, good to have you partly here. 20:02:51 .hello salimma 20:02:51 michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' 20:02:59 hi all! 20:03:10 Hi michel_slm How is the new one doing? 20:03:28 he's having a growth spurt and feeding every hour, haha 20:04:27 Hopefully you can get some sleep at some point. 20:04:55 hope so! he sleeps a bit longer between feeding at night and we take turn covering half the night each 20:05:23 #topic Old Business 20:05:33 EPEL-Packaging-SIG 20:05:51 Last week the code was in, but not deployed yet. Does anyone know if it's been deployed? 20:06:09 the fedscm-admin code, or the code for allowing collaborator to push updates to bodhi? 20:06:23 the bodhi one is https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/pull/4181 20:06:43 I think it was the collaborator being able to push. 20:06:58 and according to the thread in devel@ it'll take a while to get it deployed 20:07:26 also, Davide noticed the template for collaborator incorrectly listed el* as an example rather than epel*, I have a PR fixing it https://pagure.io/pagure/pull-request/5136 20:07:35 but... anyone knows why it fails CI? 20:08:58 shhh ... it's a secret 20:09:20 Sorry, I just had a laugh at the error "sh: [PAGURE_PUSH_SECRET]" 20:09:26 yeah, the error log for the first attempt (haven't seen the second) seems to imply that 20:10:29 but the previous build succeeded fine. I hope the CI doesn't actually fail like this for all PRs :) 20:10:37 My quick look isn't ringing any bells. 20:10:57 Well, there is the problem that authentication is being redone as we speak. 20:11:22 but ... it has the same problem yesterday. 20:12:18 Anything else SIG related? 20:12:45 I'm going down the rabbithole of trying to branch swtpm and its dependencies for epel8 20:12:55 Not that I don't want to find the problem with that, but I also don't want to spend the meeting finding one thing and neglecting the rest. 20:13:10 which had some interesting fallouts like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942240 involving modularity 20:13:30 oh definitely, was mostly mentioning it in case we need more usecase examples 20:14:04 I wonder if it makes sense for these modules to be made available for EPEL? 20:14:16 Ya modules and EPEL. 20:14:31 dcavalca: alex's #2 sounds like a winner there 20:14:39 after all, EPEL packages sometimes migrate to EL eventually, so making the builds more similar has benefits 20:15:03 carlwgeorge: yeah, I think that's what I'll do, which I guess means just branching the package for epel8 ignoring the module stuff altogether 20:15:51 michel_slm: The big problem is that we can't even get regular modules to show up as modules in EPEL ... getting packages that are filtered out of a module, even harder. 20:16:42 Are we ok if we move on? 20:17:12 yeah, I don't think we can solve it now 20:17:25 yup 20:17:37 OK, moving on to epel8-next - carlwgeorge do you have a status ? 20:18:12 got more prs merged for fedscm-admin and robosignatory 20:18:20 Ya!! 20:18:23 another pending for fedpkg 20:18:43 https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/pull-request/63 20:18:46 https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/486 20:18:52 https://pagure.io/fedpkg/pull-request/429 20:19:34 i know mboddu is ready to start making koji changes in prod for this, so i'll try to loop him in for that later this week 20:19:51 Looks like that last one he gave it a thumbs up. 20:20:40 Would it be bad if I accidentally pushed that green merge button? 20:21:03 nah it would probably be fine, i think 20:21:37 it would only be in the fedpkg master branch, would still need to get tagged and built into an update 20:22:50 Doesn't like me. I didn't think I really had permissions, that green button is just there to tease me. 20:23:05 haha 20:23:23 that's it for epel next for now 20:23:37 OK, moving on. 20:24:16 Hmm ... documentation is on hold until end of April ... and I think that's it for old business 20:24:29 #topic EPEL-7 20:24:54 Any EPEL7 business? 20:25:31 It's been really quiet this week ... not meaning this meeting, but EPEL in general. 20:25:47 #topic EPEL-8 20:26:18 oh hello 20:26:26 i wanted to bring attention to an epel8 thing 20:26:36 sure thing 20:26:36 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1774139#c25 20:26:39 Hi smooge 20:27:06 rhel rpm maintainers declined to update redhat-rpm-config to make it easier to backport forge macros to epel8 20:27:49 so fedora's go macros will continue to not work on epel8, discouraging people from building go things in epel8 20:28:07 no action, just an fyi 20:28:41 carlwgeorge: is doing a subpackage like suggested in the last comment viable? 20:28:43 * smooge takes a long hard toke on his pipe and says 'so same old same old' 20:28:55 that sounds annoying, but it'd work it could be an ok workaround 20:29:12 not for epel 20:29:27 "Having such a package probably still violates the policy of some repositories." is a direct comment at epel 20:29:48 I guess a question is, how many people / packages does this affect. 20:30:07 for me at least, it blocks building caddy for epel8 20:30:20 no telling how many other packages 20:30:27 I have a few golang things I gave up on having in epel8 because of this before 20:30:55 we can workaround it internally, so for us specifically it's not too bad, but it's definitely annoying 20:31:04 what's their concern? that they have to support the macros going forward or that it might break things 20:31:05 Yep 20:31:17 Sorry, yep was for dcavalca 20:31:31 and... can we ship the macros in a separate macro RPM that's epel specific? 20:31:46 doing a %undefine and redefine things for epel would help? 20:32:22 nim (nicolas) would be the expert on doing that, and he says it requires changes in redhat-rpm-config 20:34:22 I'm really hoping that these macros stay in for RHEL9. 20:35:19 Anything else for EPEL8 ? 20:36:04 #topic General Issues / Open Floor / EPEL-9 20:37:08 Anything else? Or do we want a short meeting this week? 20:37:50 no complaints here 20:37:54 I'm ok with a short meeting. 20:38:09 ok, back to the fires 20:38:14 Thanks everyone for coming, and for all the work you do for EPEL. 20:38:20 thanks 20:38:20 Talk to ya'll next week. 20:38:28 thanks tdawson 20:38:29 #endmeeting