20:00:21 <tdawson> #startmeeting EPEL (2023-09-13)
20:00:21 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Sep 13 20:00:21 2023 UTC.
20:00:21 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
20:00:21 <zodbot> The chair is tdawson. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions.
20:00:21 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:21 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel_(2023-09-13)'
20:00:23 <tdawson> #meetingname epel
20:00:23 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
20:00:24 <tdawson> #chair nirik tdawson pgreco carlwgeorge salimma dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 smooge
20:00:24 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
20:00:26 <tdawson> #topic aloha
20:00:35 <nirik> morning
20:00:37 <smooge> hello
20:00:39 <pgreco> .hi
20:00:40 <zodbot> pgreco: pgreco 'Pablo Sebastian Greco' <pablo@fliagreco.com.ar>
20:00:44 <carlwgeorge> .hi
20:00:45 <zodbot> carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' <carl@redhat.com>
20:00:49 <dherrera_> .hi
20:00:50 <zodbot> dherrera_: Sorry, but user 'dherrera_' does not exist
20:01:17 <rcallicotte> .hi
20:01:18 <zodbot> rcallicotte: rcallicotte 'Robby Callicotte' <rcallicotte@mailbox.org>
20:01:24 <tdawson> Morning nirik
20:01:28 <tdawson> Hello smooge
20:01:35 <dherrera> .hi
20:01:36 <zodbot> dherrera: dherrera 'Diego Herrera' <dherrera@redhat.com>
20:01:53 <tdawson> Hi pgreco, carlwgeorge, dherrera and rcallicotte
20:02:20 * rcallicotte waves
20:03:48 <michel-slm> .hello salimma
20:03:49 <zodbot> michel-slm: salimma 'Michel Lind' <michel@michel-slm.name>
20:03:56 * michel-slm hates tox
20:04:06 <tdawson> Hello michel-slm
20:04:16 <tdawson> #chair michel-slm
20:04:17 <zodbot> Current chairs: carlwgeorge dcavalca dherrera gotmax23 michel-slm nirik pgreco salimma smooge tdawson
20:05:12 <tdawson> #topic End Of Life (EOL)
20:05:14 <tdawson> RHEL 7 / epel-7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
20:05:15 <tdawson> https://endoflife.date/rhel
20:05:17 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 8 / epel-8-next goes EOL in 2024-05-31
20:05:18 <tdawson> CentOS Stream 9 / epel-9-next goes EOL in 2027-05-31
20:05:20 <tdawson> https://endoflife.date/centos-stream
20:05:23 <jonathanspw> .hi
20:05:23 <zodbot> jonathanspw: jonathanspw 'Jonathan Wright' <jonathan@almalinux.org>
20:05:30 <tdawson> Hi jonathanspw
20:06:20 <tdawson> #topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
20:06:22 <tdawson> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
20:06:49 <tdawson> We have two items marked for meetings today.  I'm going to start with what I think will be the shorter.
20:06:59 <tdawson> .epel 242
20:07:00 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #242: Formalizing the EPEL Steering Committee voting process - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/242
20:07:27 <carlwgeorge> i owe you wording for that.  got something in the works, but not final.  also not sure where in the current docs it would fit.
20:07:57 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I'm halfway through writting the steering committee page ... did you want me to put a section in there?
20:08:26 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I could put a outline, and then let you fill it in.
20:08:53 <carlwgeorge> that would be the right place for it.  you can leave out the section for now and i can add it as part of a pr.  no sense in having the initial page have "TODO" on it for that section.
20:09:17 <tdawson> :) ... ok.  Sounds good to me.
20:09:17 <carlwgeorge> or if you want to put the section still, just link to this issue
20:09:24 <carlwgeorge> either way is fine
20:09:35 <tdawson> Oh, I like that ... that way we can figure out the placement in the page.
20:09:57 <carlwgeorge> i'll keep working on my words outside of git, and then once the committee page is up i can work in the words
20:10:03 <tdawson> OK
20:10:16 <carlwgeorge> spoiler, it's gonna look like https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#ticket-votes
20:10:30 <tdawson> *laughs*
20:10:41 <tdawson> Anything else for this?  Can we take the meeting tag off it?
20:10:48 <carlwgeorge> no sense in writing the text from scratch imo
20:10:51 <michel-slm> we might copy this wholesale for Rust SIG at some point :P
20:10:55 <rcallicotte> nice
20:10:59 <carlwgeorge> untag works for me
20:11:03 <pgreco> inspired by....
20:11:10 <smooge> proust
20:11:58 <tdawson> Moving on to the next issue
20:12:04 <tdawson> .epel 245
20:12:05 <zodbot> tdawson: Issue #245: Revisiting our package request template - epel - Pagure.io - https://pagure.io/epel/issue/245
20:12:29 <tdawson> michel-slm - Did you want to talk about this one
20:12:35 <michel-slm> hola!
20:12:37 <michel-slm> yes
20:12:54 <michel-slm> so tl;dr ... I listed two recent examples in the ticket, but there have been more over the past months
20:13:16 <nirik> a small 'go to this link and do this thing' might be good.
20:13:18 <michel-slm> where Fedora maintainers unfamiliar with the EPEL package request flow would ... mishandle requests
20:14:07 <michel-slm> e.g. saying "I don't want to maintain this but I'll grant ACL" even though the people who need to be added is already listed
20:14:13 <michel-slm> so.. I am thinking of
20:14:25 <michel-slm> - linking to our documentation
20:14:33 <michel-slm> - using more bullet points to make the text more readable
20:14:56 <michel-slm> - fleshing out additional actions (e.g. if you want the requester to handle it, please grant the ACLs needed then assign the bug back to them)
20:15:45 <nirik> sounds like a good plan to me!
20:15:53 <smooge> agreed
20:16:26 <tdawson> I especially like bullet points with who needs to be added to the ACL.
20:16:59 <carlwgeorge> I'm definitely not opposed to it, but I am worried about the bug comments getting too long, so I'd like to stay mindful of that with any changes
20:19:32 <tdawson> michel-slm: Were you planning on making a pull request with the proposed changes?
20:19:35 <michel-slm> yeah... with that in mind, I'll try and draft something for the next meeting
20:19:41 <carlwgeorge> if we're going to link to documentation, what do y'all think of a specific maintainer walkthrough page, and then the bug comment template is basically just "please add it, or follow these steps <url>"
20:19:43 <michel-slm> yeah, going to write it up if people think this is a good idea
20:20:17 <michel-slm> that sounds like a good idea. I also have the template embedded in ebranch, so being able to update the walkthrough without updating the tool would be nice
20:20:25 <carlwgeorge> exactly
20:20:43 <carlwgeorge> looks like this page, if fleshed out a bit more, could be that walkthrough https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/fedora-package-in-epel/
20:21:22 <michel-slm> yeah. we just need it written up from the POV of the package maintainer
20:21:44 <michel-slm> alright then, I'll try and have something ready.. hopefully this week
20:21:51 * michel-slm needs to miss next week's meeting, traveling to Strange Loop
20:22:04 <michel-slm> I'll post in the mailing list when it's ready
20:22:34 <tdawson> michel-slm: Sounds good.  Thank you
20:22:49 <tdawson> michel-slm: Anything else before we move on?
20:23:14 <michel-slm> no, that's it
20:23:23 <michel-slm> sorry, was juggling a debugging session on the other window
20:23:35 <tdawson> Not a problem.  Thanks.
20:23:36 <michel-slm> thanks all!
20:23:41 <tdawson> #topic Old Business
20:23:52 <tdawson> Does anyone have any Old Business they would like to bring up?
20:25:12 <tdawson> OK, I'll take that as a no.
20:25:24 <tdawson> #topic General Issues / Open Floor
20:25:35 <tdawson> Does anyone have anything for Open Floor?
20:25:49 <smooge> tdawson: sorry I didn't get my old joke ready in time
20:25:57 <tdawson> *laughs*
20:25:59 <carlwgeorge> i have two thing
20:26:22 <dherrera> i have one if it's not one of the 2 things that carl has :)
20:26:25 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Go for it ... but be prepared for an Old Joke thrown in.
20:27:04 <carlwgeorge> first one, i noticed that libssh2-devel in epel8 is uninstallable on rhel8
20:28:06 <carlwgeorge> it has a complicated history, but the short version is that rhel 8.0 had libssh2 in the default virt:rhel module, and libssh2-devel in the non-default virt-devel:rhel module.  the package was dropped from rhel, but as y'all know the rhel cdn doesn't remove packages.
20:28:32 <tdawson> Oh ya ... I knew that sounded familier
20:28:33 <carlwgeorge> request to add it to epel8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1792625
20:29:35 <carlwgeorge> request (from tdawson) to make rhel8 modularity not show removed packages as default, which was closed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805260
20:30:03 <carlwgeorge> releng issue to allow the package in epel8 anyways https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8558
20:30:08 <pgreco> carlwgeorge: if the artifacts are renamed, while including a provides, does that fix the issue?
20:30:12 <smooge> ... sees libssh-devel and goes to call his AA partner
20:30:42 <pgreco> like libssh2-epel which provides(and obsoletes) libssh2
20:30:46 <pgreco> same for devel
20:30:53 <carlwgeorge> pgreco: i don't think so, because of module filtering
20:31:10 <carlwgeorge> but modularity is weird and i could easily be wrong
20:31:22 <pgreco> I think it works, I should have an example here
20:31:42 <pgreco> IIRC, I do it to provide my own versions of rust in el8
20:32:07 <carlwgeorge> besides the uninstallable package, i'm worried about something else.  epel8 packages build against libssh2-devel-1.10.0-1.el8 from epel, but then at install time pull in libssh2-1.8.0-8.module+el8.0.0+4084+cceb9f44.1
20:32:46 <carlwgeorge> now 1.8.0 and 1.10.0 technically have the same library soname (libssh2.so.1), so it _might_ be fine, but it makes me worry
20:33:06 <smooge> isn't that the package that was 'you shouldn't use libssh2 its bad, use libssh which is its replacement'
20:33:36 <carlwgeorge> i think it may be the other way around, libssh being older than libssh2
20:34:52 <tdawson> Well ... RHEL (both 8 and 9) support libssh ... and yet not libssh2
20:35:20 <tdawson> So I think smooge is right on priciple, you should use libssh.
20:35:53 <carlwgeorge> glancing at this page does not make it immediately clear https://libssh2.org/libssh2-vs-libssh.html
20:35:57 <smooge> https://libssh2.org/libssh2-vs-libssh.html table at the bottom says
20:36:34 <smooge> so there was a libssh which was ssh1 based but the current libssh is a full ssh2 compliant library with active development
20:36:46 <carlwgeorge> regardless of what developers should choose to use, packages can't do much when a piece of software requires one or the other
20:37:24 <smooge> yep
20:37:31 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: There are currently about 150 packages not-isntallable on epel8.  I'm curious why you are concerned about this one?  Because let's be honest, it's installable on everything but RHEL 8.
20:38:01 <tdawson> Is there a bug and/or RHEL customer who is having issues with it?
20:38:41 <carlwgeorge> ran across it today while looking at that libgit2_1.6 thing.  that spec file has a conditional to disable ssh2 integration, i tried to enable it, and it failed to install libssh2-devel.
20:39:17 <pgreco> carlwgeorge: just an FYI, tested locally in a rocky 8, installed rust and then replaced it with xxxx-rust that provides and obsoletes rust using yum localinstall
20:39:20 <carlwgeorge> i don't know if those features are actually important for the context (rpmautospec in koji for el10), but it nerd-sniped me for a bit
20:39:44 <carlwgeorge> it's not a problem for rebuilds that don't keep all old packages
20:40:07 <carlwgeorge> but we explicitly target rhel, so it's kind of a moot point
20:40:08 <tdawson> It's not a problem for centos stream 8 either (not officially a rebuild)
20:40:25 <carlwgeorge> s/rebuilds/distros/
20:42:43 <carlwgeorge> pgreco's idea intrigues me, because the module filtering is specific to the package name.  so if we did an alternative name with the same library soname, that might work.
20:43:54 <smooge> yeah
20:44:03 <Son_Goku> .hello ngompa
20:44:04 <zodbot> Son_Goku: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' <ngompa13@gmail.com>
20:44:13 * Son_Goku forgot about this since CentOS Board and this are at the same time
20:44:16 <rcallicotte> hi Neal
20:44:35 <smooge> well one of those two meetings count
20:45:08 <carlwgeorge> in hindsight perhaps the epel libssh2 should have been a matching version as the rhel one, even if it was dropped.  but that ship has sailed.
20:45:17 <tdawson> Hello smooge
20:45:30 <tdawson> Hello Son_Goku
20:45:50 <smooge> hi tdawson :)
20:45:50 <carlwgeorge> i'll experiment with this in a copr to see if an alternate naming scheme can resolve the issue
20:46:05 <tdawson> :) ... tab completion ... almost as bad as autocorrect.
20:46:18 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Sounds good ... you said you had two things.
20:46:25 <smooge> carlwgeorge: I think the reason it was not the same was the due to the 1.0.8 being 'dead' and 'cve issues'
20:46:53 <michel-slm> well.. kind of weird if the epel package has to be tied to an older version, right?
20:46:54 <smooge> basically I think someone came back and took over maintenance so the 1.0.10 and beyond are maintained
20:47:05 <michel-slm> smooge++
20:47:05 <zodbot> michel-slm: Karma for smooge changed to 1 (for the release cycle f39):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
20:47:27 <nirik> nice, pdc is wrong again somehow. ;(
20:47:28 <smooge> and since the internal maintainer said 'Please dont use this outside of what we are needing it for'
20:47:32 <michel-slm> if there are CVE etc. then yeah .. if the old version is being used in RHEL systems that's bad
20:47:39 <smooge> nirik: that will be fixed soon I hear :)
20:47:44 <carlwgeorge> yes, second thing, i'd like to revisit the conflicts in compat packages policy
20:47:45 <carlwgeorge> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy/#conflicts_in_compat_packages
20:48:51 <tdawson> Which part of it?
20:49:10 <carlwgeorge> in fedora and epel, compat devel packages can conflict with each other, because of how painful relocating headers pkgconfig files usually is
20:49:28 <carlwgeorge> but we explicitly say that we don't allow it between epel and rhel packages
20:49:28 <smooge> woah.. look my karma started over finally
20:50:01 <carlwgeorge> the policy seems to hint that we might eventually allow that, see the "at this time" part
20:50:16 <nirik> smooge: tell us how f39 is... you live in the future! :)
20:50:32 <michel-slm> nirik: I hear it has a nice wallpaper
20:51:02 <tdawson> So you are hinting/asking if now is the time?
20:51:10 <carlwgeorge> pretty much
20:51:36 <carlwgeorge> i've run into it before, but the specific example i have in mind for this one is libgit2 and libgit2_1.6 (related to that rpmautospec koji thing)
20:51:55 <Son_Goku> I think in practice people do this a fair bit
20:52:14 <carlwgeorge> libgit2_1.6 builds fine for el8, but we can't branch it for epel as-is because libgit2_1.6 would conflict (both files paths and conflicts directive) with libgit2-devel in rhel8 crb
20:52:15 <tdawson> Well, I can see why it sounds dangerous ... but if you think about it, if someone tries to install libgit2_1.6-devel .... they certainly didn't accidentally mispell that.
20:52:16 <Son_Goku> I've tried to follow our rule on this and it sometimes involves fairly invasive changes
20:52:31 <Son_Goku> (I remember doing this when I tried to bring DNF into EPEL 7 before it was added as tech preview)
20:52:35 * nirik would ponder on it, not make a snap decision today in a open floor.
20:52:42 <carlwgeorge> fedora gets by pretty well with lots of devel compat conflict packages
20:53:02 <Son_Goku> nobody should ever look at my old dnf el7 copr :P
20:53:19 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: I agree with nirik, in that we shouldn't decide today ... did you want to create an issue?  Or have me put it in Old Business?
20:53:35 <smooge> I ask for an issue
20:53:52 <carlwgeorge> i can file an issue.  certainly wasn't asking for a snap decision, but broaching the topic.
20:54:33 <tdawson> carlwgeorge: Sounds like a good subject to me ... go for the issue and we'll have some discussion and resolve it.
20:55:04 <carlwgeorge> that's it from me
20:55:22 <tdawson> dherrera: Did carlwgeorge cover what you wanted to talk about?
20:55:42 <dherrera> nope :) so I'll go next
20:55:52 <carlwgeorge> https://issues.redhat.com/browse/CS-1740
20:55:58 <carlwgeorge> ^ for the meeting log for the last thing
20:56:10 <carlwgeorge> i'm for real done now, sorry dherrera, all yours
20:56:52 <dherrera> just wanted to mention that we had some problems with the EPEL survey we are conduction during last week because of an outage of the fedora limequery account
20:57:05 <dherrera> but that is solved, so it should work as expected now :)
20:57:09 <dherrera> https://fedoraproject.limequery.com/epelsurvey2023
20:57:41 <nirik> \o/
20:57:44 <tdawson> dherrera: Did we loose results?   Meaning, If I took it before, should I do it again?
20:58:22 <dherrera> no, we didn't loose anything, it was actually a billing problem that prevented to receive more than 10 results per day
20:59:00 <tdawson> Ah ... ok.  Well, it's nice to hear we were getting more than 10 results a day. :)
20:59:11 <michel-slm> oh nice, I've been trying to fill out th esurvey
20:59:18 <michel-slm> 10 results per day :O
20:59:40 <michel-slm> can we get the marketing team to re-announce it? People were reporting it as inaccessible on Mastodon
21:00:32 <dherrera> yeah, i'll contact them after the meeting, I'll also send another mail on announce (this time with the correct link :9)
21:00:56 <tdawson> It looks like our time has come to an end.
21:01:18 <tdawson> Thank you all for coming and for the good discussions.  And thank you for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
21:01:31 <tdawson> #endmeeting