20:00:04 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2021-10-20)
20:00:04 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Oct 20 20:00:04 2021 UTC.
20:00:04 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
20:00:04 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
20:00:04 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2021-10-20)'
20:00:04 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
20:00:04 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson bstinson pgreco carlwgeorge michel dcavalca
20:00:04 <tdawson> #topic aloha
20:00:04 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
20:00:04 <zodbot> Current chairs: bstinson carlwgeorge dcavalca michel nirik pgreco tdawson
20:00:13 <carlwgeorge> .hi
20:00:14 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
20:00:16 <dcavalca> .hi
20:00:17 <nirik> morning
20:00:20 <zodbot> dcavalca: dcavalca 'Davide Cavalca' <dcavalca@fb.com>
20:00:25 <tdawson> Hi carlwgeorge
20:00:31 <rsc> .hello robert
20:00:32 <zodbot> rsc: robert 'Robert Scheck' <redhat@linuxnetz.de>
20:00:32 <tdawson> Hi dcavalca
20:00:35 <tdawson> Hi nirik
20:00:41 <tdawson> Hi rsc
20:01:05 <pgreco> hello!
20:01:07 <pgreco> .hi
20:01:08 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
20:01:24 <tdawson> Hi pgreco
20:02:21 <tdawson> Wow ... we have pretty much everyone in the first minute ... should I start early or is everyone expecting the usual 5 minute wait?
20:03:14 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
20:03:24 <themayor> .hi
20:03:25 <zodbot> themayor: Sorry, but user 'themayor' does not exist
20:03:30 <smooge> hello
20:03:32 <tdawson> Hi themayor
20:03:35 <tdawson> Hi smooge
20:03:37 <themayor> Wooops I never did that. Anyway I’m here
20:03:52 <pgreco> Jack, zodbot doesn't want you... :P
20:03:59 <nirik> hey are you implying smooge and themayor are old business? Or is that cooincidence? :)
20:04:07 <carlwgeorge> haha
20:04:18 <tdawson> Totally coincidence ... ya ... :)
20:04:29 <pgreco> yeah, let's go with coincidence....
20:05:05 <smooge> for me its a fair cop guv
20:05:17 <tdawson> Let's start with epel-next.   carlwgeorge nirik ... and progress this week.
20:06:02 <nirik> I don't think much this week? there's a pr pending, but might be after freeze.
20:06:11 <tdawson> Is that for bodhi?
20:06:43 <tdawson> or fedpkg ?
20:06:59 <nirik> https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/826
20:07:10 <carlwgeorge> fedpkg pr was merged, but not released yet
20:07:11 <nirik> koji sync listener (the thing that adds new packages to koji)
20:07:18 <carlwgeorge> https://pagure.io/fedpkg/pull-request/453
20:07:37 <nirik> I guess it has +1s to go in now...
20:07:56 <carlwgeorge> dewit.gif
20:07:58 * nirik can push it
20:08:53 <nirik> carlwgeorge: can you rebase? it doesn't want to rebase for me. ;(
20:09:05 <carlwgeorge> sure
20:09:41 <nirik> so, slow but steady progress.
20:09:54 <carlwgeorge> rebased
20:10:08 <tdawson> I forgot to work on epel-macros ... is that work still needed?
20:10:23 <carlwgeorge> yes but there is no rush
20:11:18 <tdawson> I'll leave it on my to-do list then.
20:11:28 <tdawson> Get to it when I can.
20:11:34 <carlwgeorge> i think i said i was going to get the branch requested, so all you need to do is a pr to the epel9-next branch
20:11:48 <tdawson> Yep
20:12:17 <tdawson> I think the hard part will be going through the various macros, see what is needed and what isn't, that sort of thing.
20:12:46 <carlwgeorge> yup
20:12:54 <tdawson> Although I know the answer to the following question, I'm going to ask it anyway so others know.  How is the s390x situation progressing?
20:12:59 <carlwgeorge> looks like i already got the branch https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37244
20:13:26 <carlwgeorge> just pushed the epel8 commits to the epel9-next branch, so it's ready for whoever to set up a pr to update it as needed
20:13:28 <nirik> tdawson: no progress that I know of. ;(
20:14:53 <tdawson> nirik Ya ... sad face here.  I'm not quite sure where to apply pressure ... but I'm starting to try pushing around internally, see if we can get some movement.
20:15:09 <nirik> feel free to do so. :)
20:16:13 <tdawson> Anything else for epel-next ?
20:16:14 <rsc> tdawson: does it make sense to apply the pressure where "EPEL getting a first class citizen" was promised?
20:16:30 <rsc> tdawson: i.e. mmcgrath?
20:16:51 <carlwgeorge> rsc: that's who the pressure is rolling up to, yes
20:17:27 <tdawson> rsc: That will be my last point of pressure.  Basically find the right places with warnings that pressure will come from the top if things don't start happening.
20:18:51 <tdawson> I don't want to play that card too many times.  I'd like to keep Mike answering my emails. :)
20:19:21 <nirik> :)
20:19:32 <rsc> tdawson: I've no idea about the hierarchies, I would have assumed resources come from where the goal is promised.
20:20:06 <rsc> So, do what's right simply.
20:20:19 <carlwgeorge> no, mike isn't working on this himself
20:22:17 <tdawson> Yep ... anyway, we're hoping to get the s390x stuff done in a timely manner ... and I'll quit deleting what I'm about to say and just move on. :)
20:23:38 <tdawson> Next I have "Will It" particularly "Will It Install" working finally - https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/epel/willit/status-overall.html
20:24:34 <tdawson> dnf have a bit of a leak with file holds, and a bit of memory.  So the initial code was fairly easy, it was getting it not to barf when it ramped up to over 1000 packages it was looking at that was hard.
20:25:24 <tdawson> This week I'm hoping to have some "Will It Build" in place, as well as put in a proper git repo.
20:25:38 <nirik> oh... shiny!
20:26:07 <tdawson> Right now it's here - https://github.com/tdawson/tdawson-misc-scripts/tree/master/willit
20:27:20 <tdawson> It's not to the "create bugzilla tickets" phase yet ... but that will be the goal.
20:27:52 <tdawson> Any questions before I move on?
20:27:53 <nirik> hum... are the epel8 results right?
20:28:11 <tdawson> 144 packages that don't install?
20:28:40 <nirik> yeah, seems high, but ick
20:29:03 <tdawson> Alot of them are python packages ... and of those, it looks like there are just a handful of missing deps.
20:29:31 <tdawson> Actually ... hmm ... I wonder if it's not dealing with modules ... ugg ...
20:29:43 <nirik> thats what I wondered, but I don't think thats the case
20:30:09 <tdawson> I'll double check.  Shouldn't be too hard to determine.
20:30:43 <tdawson> Yesterday was the first day I was able to complete epel8 due to the dnf file-leak problem.  I was just excited it finished, didn't give it a sanity check.
20:31:24 <tdawson> So, yep.  I'll put that top on the list.  Give it a sanity check.
20:31:50 <nirik> I think it's right, there's a bunch of things that seem like they might just need rebuilds.
20:32:13 <tdawson> quite possible.
20:32:27 <carlwgeorge> i'll take a closer look at the list and see if there is anything that i can rebuild to fix
20:32:39 <tdawson> OK, thanks.
20:32:52 <carlwgeorge> i just gave negative karma to the one in epel8-testing to stop it from getting promoted
20:33:04 <nirik> +1
20:34:19 <tdawson> *laughs as we sees the missing dependency*  Can't stop the slop
20:34:54 <tdawson> Sorry ... I'm going to move on.
20:35:06 <tdawson> pgreco: Any progress on the macros ?
20:35:10 <carlwgeorge> it would be nice if bodhi had an automatic "will it install" check that would block time based promotion
20:35:24 <pgreco> tdawson: not much time to test it, but I have everything ready to go
20:35:36 <pgreco> I'm trying to track down the user who asked for it
20:35:51 <pgreco> so we can test in a real life package
20:35:53 <nirik> carlwgeorge: we could perhaps get something like that for ci... but I don't think ci runs on epel yet/currently?
20:36:04 <tdawson> pgreco: Sounds good.  Hopefully they have some good examples.
20:36:27 <pgreco> yeah, user bkircher in case anybody knows him/her
20:37:43 <tdawson> I think that's it for old business
20:38:00 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-7
20:38:20 <tdawson> Anything new for epel7?
20:39:11 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-8
20:39:33 <tdawson> Aside from the packages that probrubly need a rebuild, anything new?
20:40:32 <tdawson> Oh, and if anyone is going through that list, the plasma-nm-* packages already have bugzilla's and their fix is in epel8-next.
20:41:22 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-Packaging-SIG
20:42:00 <tdawson> dcavalca: Anything for the Packaging-SIG ?
20:42:15 <dcavalca> tdawson: nothing on my side
20:42:34 <tdawson> OK, that brings us to ...
20:42:40 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
20:43:21 <carlwgeorge> should we start including an epel9 topic?
20:43:41 * nirik had a epel9 thing. ;)
20:43:45 <tdawson> We could.  I haven't cuz that seems to be what the epel-next is.
20:43:55 <carlwgeorge> that would be an ideal spot for status updates on the availability of epel9-next
20:44:15 <tdawson> That's a good idea ..., ok, I'll put it on the agenda ...
20:44:22 <tdawson> #topic EPEL-9
20:44:25 <nirik> .releng 10339
20:44:26 <zodbot> nirik: Issue #10339: Create empty `/epel/9` structure - releng - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10339
20:44:27 <carlwgeorge> also i just wanted to point out we have an epel9 version in bugzilla now, so some requests are coming in for epel9 packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?product=Fedora%20EPEL&version=epel9
20:44:44 <nirik> yeah, I feared that would happen
20:45:07 <carlwgeorge> i don't think it's an issue to have the bugs exist, good to see the interest early
20:45:11 <dcavalca> this seems a good thing to me
20:45:23 <carlwgeorge> most of them have "once available" in the subject
20:45:33 <carlwgeorge> expectations are correctly set :)
20:46:02 <nirik> I suppose, but it's another open bug lingering around...
20:47:13 <tdawson> Ohh ... there is one for epel-rpm-macros ... I'll be looking at that while I work on it.
20:47:37 <carlwgeorge> the chromium one was the wrong version, it was an epel8 report
20:48:23 <nirik> anyhow, re: the releng issue... shall we hold off on making a /epel/9 on mirrors? or is that something people want us to do now?
20:48:32 <carlwgeorge> on nirik's issue, i think it's fair to say no this far out.  it's ok for /epel/next/9/ because we're close enough to that being ready
20:49:08 <dcavalca> I see no harm either way, but if we do create we should write up expectations somewhere
20:49:22 <dcavalca> so folks don't get needlessly confused
20:49:22 <tdawson> I have mixed feelings.  It would be nice to have it for scripts ... but on the other hand ... it seems very early, and people might start looking for RHEL9 to go along with their epel9 directory.
20:49:37 <carlwgeorge> i feel like the reporter failed to explain why it matters
20:49:38 <nirik> yeah
20:49:44 <dcavalca> personally, the sooner I have it the sooner I can setup my internal mirroring stuff and drop special casing for c9s :)
20:49:57 <dcavalca> but it's not really a big deal
20:49:57 <nirik> we could ask them to expand on why they want it...
20:50:25 <carlwgeorge> doesn't seem worth it if we're just gonna say no anyways, that was just an open ended thought i had
20:51:46 <nirik> ok, proposed: close for now and tell them we will make it when epel9 is closer to really existing.
20:52:33 <tdawson> +1
20:52:59 <smooge> i think they are doing the same thing that dcavalca does.. copy all the code, rebuild it all in their own build system, run through ci, then feed back to us. With the directories missing they are running into the same issue dcavalca mentioned of having to special case their scripts
20:53:37 <dcavalca> we actually don't rebuild anything, just import the repos and snapshot them
20:53:59 <smooge> ok I thought facebook did their own complete rebuild of stuff.
20:53:59 <dcavalca> so yeah, for c9s right now I have some special casing to tell it to skip epel9
20:54:50 <smooge> that said, I am ok with the proposal
20:54:55 <dcavalca> smooge: nooope, I'm actually trying to minimize rebuilds as much as possible and getting most of them upstreamed where we can
20:55:26 <dcavalca> and fwiw, the
20:55:35 <dcavalca> the epel packagers sig has made this a lot easier
20:55:56 <dcavalca> as I can just get something packaged there instead of having to maintain an internal fork that will inevitably get stale :)
20:58:05 <tdawson> Did we get a final tally?
20:58:36 <dcavalca> I'm ok with nirik's proposal
20:58:44 <smooge> well no one voted against it.
20:59:13 <tdawson> Yep.  So, nirik sounds like we tell them no for now.
20:59:15 <smooge> carlwgeorge, are you for it or against it
20:59:40 <nirik> ok, I can close the ticket in a bit, unless someone else wants to...
20:59:55 <tdawson> We'll let you be the bad guy. :)
21:00:22 <tdawson> And, looks like our time is up.
21:00:32 <carlwgeorge> for or against the request, or for or against telling them no
21:00:46 <carlwgeorge> i think we should say no for now
21:00:57 <tdawson> Thank you everyone for coming and participating.  It's been a good meeting and discussions.
21:01:04 <pgreco> thanks tdawson
21:01:07 <tdawson> I'll talk to ya'll next week.
21:01:11 <dcavalca> thanks tdawson
21:01:16 <tdawson> #endmeeting