2023-12-13 21:00:46 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !startmeeting EPEL (2023-12-13)
2023-12-13 21:00:47 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2023-12-13 21:00:46 UTC
2023-12-13 21:00:47 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2023-12-13)'
2023-12-13 21:00:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !meetingname epel
2023-12-13 21:01:01 <@michel:one.ems.host> !hi
2023-12-13 21:01:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:01:04 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic aloha
2023-12-13 21:01:52 <@smooge:fedora.im> hello 
2023-12-13 21:02:02 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep ... it's nice to know that it's done something, without having to have it say zotbot ...
2023-12-13 21:02:06 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !hi
2023-12-13 21:02:08 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:02:13 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-13 21:02:14 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:02:29 <@michel:one.ems.host> Davide is absent because of the board meeting, but sent an item for open floor
2023-12-13 21:03:05 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2023-12-13 21:03:06 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:03:17 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> o/ good to "see" y'all
2023-12-13 21:04:01 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-13 21:04:02 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:05:19 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic End Of Life (EOL)
RHEL 7 / epel-7 will go EOL on 2024-06-30
https://endoflife.date/rhel
CentOS Stream 8 / epel-8-next goes EOL in 2024-05-31
CentOS Stream 9 / epel-9-next goes EOL in 2027-05-31
https://endoflife.date/centos-stream

2023-12-13 21:05:40 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hmm ... I wonder if it puts that whole things in as the topic.
2023-12-13 21:05:58 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> hmm
2023-12-13 21:06:05 <@michel:one.ems.host> we'll have to check the logs
2023-12-13 21:06:23 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
2023-12-13 21:06:31 <@smooge:fedora.im> To make it less in the topic: Reminder you have 7 months to get off of EL7 and 6 months to get off CentOS Stream 8
2023-12-13 21:06:37 <@tdawson:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
2023-12-13 21:07:00 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i believe it does, remember the first matrix meeting we had got a topic of "epel !topic aloha"
2023-12-13 21:08:21 <@michel:one.ems.host> the joy of a Stream shop :)
2023-12-13 21:08:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2023-12-13 21:08:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2023-12-13 21:08:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Well, there are no open issues, so moving on to Old Business
2023-12-13 21:08:41 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic Old Business
2023-12-13 21:08:55 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Is there any old business this week?
2023-12-13 21:09:38 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It is strange to think that RHEL 8 will have been out for 5 years (6 months from now)
2023-12-13 21:10:01 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i guess i didn't tag the related issue for the meeting, but https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/allow-epel-packagers-sig-members-to-request-epel-next-branches-on-any-epel-package/98480
2023-12-13 21:10:11 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> !link https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/allow-epel-packagers-sig-members-to-request-epel-next-branches-on-any-epel-package/98480
2023-12-13 21:10:40 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh, that's right ... well ... it falls into either topic
2023-12-13 21:12:00 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> feedback so far has been positive
2023-12-13 21:12:36 <@michel:one.ems.host> ok, yeah, I think this could go further (the next logical step is letting epel-packager-sig do "NMU" builds) but definitely a nice first step
2023-12-13 21:12:44 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> should we vote or give it more time for discussion in the thread?
2023-12-13 21:12:52 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I think it is worded very well and clear (to me at least) and I agree with it.   and now I realize I didn't post that I agreed with it.
2023-12-13 21:12:53 <@michel:one.ems.host> in practice I wonder how many of us wear both epel-packagers-sig and provenpackager, or know a provenpackager that can do the dirty deed :)
2023-12-13 21:13:03 <@michel:one.ems.host> I think I'm good with voting now
2023-12-13 21:13:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Michel Lind: It doesn't matter if you are a proven packager, you can't branch for epel-next if you aren't on the package list.
2023-12-13 21:13:58 <@michel:one.ems.host> Troy Dawson: yes, but with Carl's proposal, you can but still can't build. but a provenpackager can build for you
2023-12-13 21:14:21 <@michel:one.ems.host> sorry for the accidental confusion, I think we all are saying the same thing
2023-12-13 21:14:29 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ah ... I see what you mean.  So have the epel-packager-sig member branch, and then the proven packager build.  
2023-12-13 21:14:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep
2023-12-13 21:14:38 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> teamwork!
2023-12-13 21:15:05 <@michel:one.ems.host> so... are we voting?
2023-12-13 21:15:33 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm good for a vote.  Carl George do you think you've gotten enough feedback yet?
2023-12-13 21:16:04 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> yes i believe so
2023-12-13 21:16:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> +1 for my own proposal, of course
2023-12-13 21:16:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> +1
2023-12-13 21:16:38 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> +1
2023-12-13 21:16:43 <@michel:one.ems.host> 
+1
2023-12-13 21:16:48 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2023-12-13 21:16:56 <@michel:one.ems.host> on track for unanimity
2023-12-13 21:17:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> +1
2023-12-13 21:17:22 <@smooge:fedora.im> ghost votes
2023-12-13 21:17:23 <@tdawson:fedora.im> nirik gave it a positive vote on the discussion, even though he isn't here.
2023-12-13 21:17:40 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> oOooOOoo
2023-12-13 21:18:04 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Stephen J Smoogen: Your ghost was a little too misty ... was that a positive or negative ghost vote?
2023-12-13 21:18:36 <@smooge:fedora.im> 👻 👍️
2023-12-13 21:18:44 <@dherrera:fedora.im> 👻👍️
2023-12-13 21:19:12 <@smooge:fedora.im> my votes do not count but I agree with the proposal
2023-12-13 21:19:29 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> checking the new voting rules, looks like this passes with 5 out of 7 votes, or +5/0/-0
2023-12-13 21:20:24 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !agreed The voting was unanimous with both council and communittee members.  Carl's proposal for issue 263 passed (allow epel-packagers-sig members to request `epel*-next` branches on any EPEL package)
2023-12-13 21:21:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm still getting my bearings for counting votes on Matrix ... It was easier to see that it was unanimous ... if I spelled that right.
2023-12-13 21:22:13 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Carl George: So, what are the next steps for this?
2023-12-13 21:22:40 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i'll work on an implementation for fedpkg, fedscm, and the branching toddler
2023-12-13 21:23:01 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> it should be basically the same
2023-12-13 21:23:18 <@zodbot:fedora.im> neil has already given cookies to carlwgeorge during the F39 timeframe
2023-12-13 21:23:24 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> take more cookies, damnit
2023-12-13 21:23:29 <@zodbot:fedora.im> tdawson gave a cookie to carlwgeorge. They now have 38 cookies, 4 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2023-12-13 21:23:38 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> also are we in f40 now?
2023-12-13 21:23:53 <@smooge:fedora.im> no
2023-12-13 21:23:58 <@smooge:fedora.im> not until the beta comes out
2023-12-13 21:24:00 <@zodbot:fedora.im> rcallicotte gave a cookie to carlwgeorge. They now have 39 cookies, 5 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
2023-12-13 21:24:04 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> ah. i see. thanks!
2023-12-13 21:24:58 <@smooge:fedora.im> well it depended in the past on how 'pdc' saw the 'current' release was which would move to N+1 sometime between beta and final
2023-12-13 21:25:07 <@smooge:fedora.im> how it is done post pdc I don't know
2023-12-13 21:25:20 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anything else for this before we move on  (Carl's proposal not cookies)
2023-12-13 21:25:22 <@smooge:fedora.im> sorry Troy Dawson you keep trying to type something
2023-12-13 21:25:31 <@smooge:fedora.im> nope 
2023-12-13 21:25:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other old business?
2023-12-13 21:26:09 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic General Issues / Open Floor
2023-12-13 21:26:24 <@michel:one.ems.host> I have one about HA vs EPEL
2023-12-13 21:26:26 <@michel:one.ems.host> one sec
2023-12-13 21:26:36 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Michel Lind: You said that davida had something for Open Floor?
2023-12-13 21:26:43 <@michel:one.ems.host> !link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251820
2023-12-13 21:27:10 <@michel:one.ems.host> Davide asked for pcs to be built, the maintainers initially expressed confusion because it's already in Fedora and HA, then said to avoid confusion how about having pcs-epel in EPEL
2023-12-13 21:27:44 <@michel:one.ems.host> on one hand, yeah that probably means we can even do it ourselves as a new package (but it's tedious keeping it in sync if needed), on the other hand... what is the downside having the exact same spec built for both HA and EPEL?
2023-12-13 21:28:30 <@smooge:fedora.im> can I speak plainly here?
2023-12-13 21:28:36 <@michel:one.ems.host> sure
2023-12-13 21:28:49 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> please
2023-12-13 21:29:19 <@smooge:fedora.im> HA is a complicated problem and always has been since it was removed from a base offering
2023-12-13 21:29:57 <@smooge:fedora.im> it seems to cause conflicts with customers and people who have HA from various 'grandfathered' contracts
2023-12-13 21:30:36 <@smooge:fedora.im> actually I am not going to speak plainly as my swearing on things would be much higher
2023-12-13 21:30:55 <@smooge:fedora.im> but basically I would avoid anything in that channel and just *-epel them
2023-12-13 21:31:22 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> There are already RH products like satellite that explicitly require not enabling EPEL because of conflicts, I don't know why HA would be special here
2023-12-13 21:31:26 <@michel:one.ems.host> given that we do have to deal with HA though... I guess the question is, what could we recommend if we care about customers that have both HA and EPEL enabled?
2023-12-13 21:31:40 <@michel:one.ems.host> oh interesting
2023-12-13 21:31:51 <@michel:one.ems.host> so the intersection is possible an empty set?
2023-12-13 21:32:05 <@smooge:fedora.im> let us just say that the HA customers are also likely heavily using EPEL things also
2023-12-13 21:32:09 <@dherrera:fedora.im> do we? HA is only a restriction for EPEL7 (at least from what I read from the docs)
2023-12-13 21:32:15 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> lets not bring linear algebra into this... 
2023-12-13 21:32:30 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> plain!
2023-12-13 21:32:54 <@michel:one.ems.host> don't worry, it's only set theory ;)
2023-12-13 21:32:57 <@michel:one.ems.host> no algebra involved
2023-12-13 21:32:58 <@smooge:fedora.im> and it isn't up to us to say they can't mix and match channels. Red Hat would have to tell their customers it isn't possible. 
2023-12-13 21:33:31 <@michel:one.ems.host> so ... let's assume people do have HA + EPEL enabled
2023-12-13 21:33:50 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> IMO, pcs-epel is needless duplication and extra effort for volunteer EPEL maintainers
2023-12-13 21:33:55 <@smooge:fedora.im> I am just going to say that I have had more than my share of 'discussions' on this since EL8 came out, and doing the -epel means probably about 20-200 less meetings for the RH people who work on EPEL
2023-12-13 21:34:18 <@michel:one.ems.host> yeah... that's probably the easy way out at the cost of slightly higher maintenance requirement
2023-12-13 21:34:42 <@michel:one.ems.host> so case by case, that might be the way out if the maintainer does not want to branch it
2023-12-13 21:34:43 <@smooge:fedora.im> but on the other hand, I am not the EPEL wrangler anymore.. 
2023-12-13 21:34:55 <@michel:one.ems.host> but as the EPEL committee do we have a stance on this?
2023-12-13 21:35:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Carl George: I'm not sure I understand the "duplication" part of what you are saying.  If you create a pcs-epel package, vs a pcs package ... how are you duplicating?
2023-12-13 21:35:14 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> I'm happy to replace you smooge in those potential meetings and tell folks they can propose changing the target base to include ha if they have a problem with it
2023-12-13 21:35:16 <@michel:one.ems.host> like, should we recommend something (use -epel, same spec but try and keep NEVRA below HA, etc.)
2023-12-13 21:35:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's... probably what we should do
2023-12-13 21:35:49 <@michel:one.ems.host> I agree with Carl it needs some duplicate efforst
2023-12-13 21:35:56 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> i'm in agreement with carl
2023-12-13 21:35:57 <@michel:one.ems.host> getting it reviewed, rebasing changes from Fedora, etc.
2023-12-13 21:35:58 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> A duplicate spec file that has to be kept in sync with the main one
2023-12-13 21:36:16 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> sounds like it would be a painful way to maintain the package
2023-12-13 21:36:21 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> thinking about it, 'make sure the nevra is below HA" already seems annoying
2023-12-13 21:36:22 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'd rather not step on the toes of the RHEL product subscribers since I _know_ from prior experience that they are usually heavy EPEL users
2023-12-13 21:36:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ohhh ... ok.  Instead of just branching the Fedora one ... sorry, my mind was thinking of "a whole new package"
2023-12-13 21:36:59 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> The alternative is to just go ahead and add ha to the target base (repos we don't allow conflicts with)
2023-12-13 21:37:09 <@michel:one.ems.host> yeah, I'd personally rather not have that either but if the maintainer in this case is also the RH HA maintainer, presumably they'll do it that way
2023-12-13 21:37:10 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> Right, but, is that our job to care about? We agreed to not continue EPEL for 7 past EOL, and this is in some ways analogous
2023-12-13 21:37:22 <@michel:one.ems.host> can customers use HA for free?
2023-12-13 21:37:26 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> No.
2023-12-13 21:37:29 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It's a paid addon.
2023-12-13 21:37:44 <@michel:one.ems.host> I need to ask Davide what this is for, but... ah if HA is paid and we can't conflict with it, that's... a bit sad
2023-12-13 21:37:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the difference is that this risks putting their supportability in jeopardy
2023-12-13 21:38:10 <@michel:one.ems.host> a lot more things will end up in Hyperscale, which while I contribute there too I'd rather it not bloat
2023-12-13 21:38:13 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> but again, this isn't our responsibility
2023-12-13 21:38:24 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> Whether it's paid or not doesn't really matter imo, we either allow conflicting with it or we don't
2023-12-13 21:38:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yes
2023-12-13 21:38:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> that's the core question
2023-12-13 21:38:47 <@davide:cavalca.name> multitasking, so I can't read the scrollback, but IMO this is similar to the corosync thing that came up before when we were packaging asterisk
2023-12-13 21:38:57 <@michel:one.ems.host> right, but if it's paid only not allowing conflicts limit what Stream users get
2023-12-13 21:39:04 <@davide:cavalca.name> afair there is no expectation that HA and EPEL will be coinstallable
2023-12-13 21:39:17 <@michel:one.ems.host> right now there is not, true
2023-12-13 21:39:39 <@michel:one.ems.host> Davide Cavalca: Stephen J Smoogen was saying the easy way out is to just do an -epel to not deal with the RH maintainers :P
2023-12-13 21:39:56 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> The way we deny it is making ha part of the target base.  Not doing that but still denying it (the pcs-epel route) is silly.
2023-12-13 21:40:12 <@davide:cavalca.name> we can do that, but it will still conflict as the binary packages won't be suffixed
2023-12-13 21:40:24 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> and, i also want to say I don't _envy_ making a RHEL employee (or employees) lives harder in any way.
2023-12-13 21:40:26 <@davide:cavalca.name> making the binary packages suffixed IMO doesn't make sense as it'd break dependencies
2023-12-13 21:40:34 <@tdawson:fedora.im> It's paid for RHEL users - stream users get it free - https://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/HighAvailability/x86_64/os/
2023-12-13 21:40:59 <@davide:cavalca.name> with kronosnet we did -epel because some components were shipped in CRB, so only a subset would go in epel
2023-12-13 21:41:13 <@davide:cavalca.name> but for pcs the whole thing would go in as no subpackages are shipped in RHEL afaict
2023-12-13 21:41:42 <@michel:one.ems.host> Davide Cavalca: do you need this as a dependency for somethign else, or maybe we should just mirror and use HA?
2023-12-13 21:42:26 <@davide:cavalca.name> we need this and corosync-qnetd, iirc one depends on the other
2023-12-13 21:42:42 <@michel:one.ems.host> oh fun
2023-12-13 21:42:52 <@davide:cavalca.name> with my meta hat, I'm wary of just using HA precisely because it's allowed to conflict with EPEL
2023-12-13 21:43:04 <@davide:cavalca.name> (also because we never tested it at all)
2023-12-13 21:43:29 <@michel:one.ems.host> if we make EPEL non conflicting with HA, we also need to make EPEL be able to use HA packages for dependencies, otherwise these can't be packaged in HA
2023-12-13 21:43:34 <@michel:one.ems.host> if we make EPEL non conflicting with HA, we also need to make EPEL be able to use HA packages for dependencies, otherwise these can't be packaged in EPEL
2023-12-13 21:43:59 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> IIRC, the RHEL devsub includes HA
2023-12-13 21:44:07 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> it does, yea
2023-12-13 21:44:08 <@michel:one.ems.host> right.. if we hash this out, it's potentially just a matter of testing HA to make sure Meta can use it
2023-12-13 21:44:25 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the only real concern with it is that a subset of content will simply not be installable on base RHEL
2023-12-13 21:44:31 <@michel:one.ems.host> does Rocky and Alma have HA too?
2023-12-13 21:44:33 <@davide:cavalca.name> I mean regardless of Meta, we need to figure out what we want to do in EPEL here
2023-12-13 21:44:53 <@davide:cavalca.name> I don't personally think it makes sense to make EPEL depend on all the optional channels
2023-12-13 21:44:59 <@michel:one.ems.host> yeah if we switch EPEL to have a no conflict policy with HA, I could imagine needing epel-ha for packages that depend on both
2023-12-13 21:45:03 <@davide:cavalca.name> like, do we really want to require SAPHANA and stuff?
2023-12-13 21:45:16 <@michel:one.ems.host> SAP Hana is in HA? ouch
2023-12-13 21:45:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the setup tooling is, yes
2023-12-13 21:45:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> there's a separate SAP channel with more RHEL-SAP stuff
2023-12-13 21:45:45 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> yeah
2023-12-13 21:45:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Although I understand the concerns Stephen J Smoogen brought up, I have to agree with Carl George that it is our policy that for EPEL 8 and 9 we don't worry about HA.  If they want to put HA onto regular RHEL, then we'll worry about it.
2023-12-13 21:46:17 <@smooge:fedora.im> point of information
2023-12-13 21:46:29 <@michel:one.ems.host> so in case the maintainer does not really want to branch for epel, best way is probably to just do an -epel right
2023-12-13 21:46:34 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't disagree with the sentiment, after all, we dropped the policy around the RHEL HA channel with RHEL 8 for that reason
2023-12-13 21:46:35 <@michel:one.ems.host> go Stephen J Smoogen 
2023-12-13 21:46:35 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i think we should take this to discussion.fpo, let everyone (include rhel folks) raise their points there
2023-12-13 21:47:14 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> but denying an epel branch isn't really appropriate, if they don't want to maintain it they can add maintainers that do
2023-12-13 21:47:22 <@smooge:fedora.im> when we made the decision about EL8 and EL9 on HA, neither of the 'free' accounts available had HA in it. Instead it was only available via subscription. We put the channels we didn't conflict with as ones which a developer or simple user would not find conflicts
2023-12-13 21:47:23 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> thanks Michel Lind - cheers 
2023-12-13 21:47:59 <@michel:one.ems.host> there's also the "escalate to rel-eng in 3 weeks" I guess
2023-12-13 21:48:03 <@smooge:fedora.im> that logic changes with the Developer Subscription as the channels it has would meet the 'a developer or simple user would find conflicts'
2023-12-13 21:48:08 <@michel:one.ems.host> IDK how upset the maintainers will get
2023-12-13 21:48:54 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> on the flip side, we have a weird situation where the free users can install all of EPEL but the paid users cannot
2023-12-13 21:49:05 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> on the flip side, we have a weird situation where the free users can install all of EPEL but the paid users cannot (if we depend on HA)
2023-12-13 21:49:43 <@smooge:fedora.im> agreed. 
2023-12-13 21:50:06 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> agree with Carl - we have communication channels (i.e., d.fp.o) where we can have these conversations w/o resorting to escalations, or what not
2023-12-13 21:50:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> this would be easier if the HA addon wasn't an addon anymore 😓
2023-12-13 21:50:23 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> Davide Cavalca: since i believe Michel Lind said this was your topic item, do you want to start the discussion thread?
2023-12-13 21:51:07 <@davide:cavalca.name> I can do that
2023-12-13 21:51:08 <@smooge:fedora.im> I am hesitant on this whole thing for 2 reasons: 1, this was a long running disagreement between me and Kevin on whether we should conflict or not. He wanted to keep things like they had been in 7 and I was like 'no one can see it so we should be able to do so'. 2, in allowing this it caused some major issues for some packages which were newer in EPEL than were in HA and it uhm broke a VIP.
2023-12-13 21:51:16 <@smooge:fedora.im> sorry VICustomer
2023-12-13 21:51:19 <@davide:cavalca.name> (apologies for not participating, I need to follow the board meeting now :p )
2023-12-13 21:52:13 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i see it both ways, and i'm actually fine with it either way, but doing something halfway between is what i'm not ok with
2023-12-13 21:52:14 <@smooge:fedora.im> so I would prefer if we either say we can't conflict/replace packages in HA like Kevin said in the first place or only allow for -epel ones
2023-12-13 21:52:20 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Time is getting short for the meeting, and it looks like Davide is going to create a discussion topic ... are there any other Open Floor items that people want to bring up?
2023-12-13 21:52:33 <@smooge:fedora.im> not from me
2023-12-13 21:53:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> my mind has flipped sides on that subject so much during this meeting, I'm ... huh ... can't think of a good analogy.
2023-12-13 21:53:35 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> .hi
2023-12-13 21:53:40 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> !hi
2023-12-13 21:53:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
2023-12-13 21:53:45 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> better late than never, right?
2023-12-13 21:54:01 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> o/ hey Jonathan
2023-12-13 21:54:01 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 😆
2023-12-13 21:54:03 <@tdawson:fedora.im> jonathanspw: You missed all the fun discussions. :)
2023-12-13 21:54:19 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> tldr?  see some stuff about ha vs epel
2023-12-13 21:54:39 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> blah blah blah rpms blah blah
2023-12-13 21:54:45 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh, I know something I was going to bring up.  How many people will be here next week?
2023-12-13 21:55:17 <@tdawson:fedora.im> And along with that, how many will be here the week after.
2023-12-13 21:55:18 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> i believe i will
2023-12-13 21:55:25 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> not the week after
2023-12-13 21:55:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'll be here
2023-12-13 21:55:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I will be here next week, but not the week after.
2023-12-13 21:55:44 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> i'll be here next week
2023-12-13 21:55:55 <@tdawson:fedora.im> OK, so, sounds like we have enough for next week.  
2023-12-13 21:55:55 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> 27th 50/50
2023-12-13 21:56:05 <@carlwgeorge:matrix.org> sounds like we're working up to cancelling the meeting on the 27th
2023-12-13 21:56:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya, I won't be here the 27th ... and it sounds like a majority won't be able to make it then.
2023-12-13 21:56:43 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> happy holidays
2023-12-13 21:57:18 <@michel:one.ems.host> I'm here next week
2023-12-13 21:57:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> 50/50 on the 27th, leaning toward probably not
2023-12-13 21:57:32 <@michel:one.ems.host> But not sure about 27
2023-12-13 21:58:07 <@tdawson:fedora.im> How about we just cancel the 27th, then ya'll will have one less meeting during that week. ;)
2023-12-13 21:58:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> worksforme
2023-12-13 21:58:23 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I knew we kept troy around for a reason
2023-12-13 21:58:48 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anything else before we close the meeting?
2023-12-13 21:58:58 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> nope
2023-12-13 21:59:25 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> thank you Troy as always :) 
2023-12-13 21:59:36 <@smooge:fedora.im> thanks Troy
2023-12-13 21:59:42 <@smooge:fedora.im> may you all have a good week
2023-12-13 21:59:47 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you all for coming, and for the good discussions.  It's nice if we're all able to take different sides of a discussion and it's still very civil and straightforward.
2023-12-13 21:59:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Talk to you next week.
2023-12-13 22:00:19 <@michel:one.ems.host> Thanks Troy!
2023-12-13 22:00:22 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !endmeeting