#meeting-1:fedoraproject.org log

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:09

!startmeeting EPEL (2025-02-05)

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:01:10

Meeting started at 2025-02-05 18:01:09 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:01:10

The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-02-05)'

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:16

!meetingname epel

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:01:16

!topic aloha

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:01:17

The Meeting Name is now epel

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:01:32

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:34

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:02:02

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:02

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:02:35

Hi Diego Herrera and Michel Lind 🎩 UTC-6

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:02:45

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:46

Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:02:58

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:59

Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:03:02

morning

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:03:09

Hi Carl George and Robby Callicotte

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:03:14

Morning nirik

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:04:40

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:04:41

Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:04:53

Hi Jonathan Wright

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:05:15

all the FOSDEM crew are here! (Davide is on vacation)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:15

!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:15

!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:15

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:28

There is one open issue this week

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:33

!epel 313

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:34

**epel #313** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/313):**EPEL 10 dnf variables problems**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:34

● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:34

● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:34

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:05:34

● **Last Updated:** a day ago

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:05:55

I had missed the past couple of meetings, so we might have already talked about this.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:01

Carl George: Do you have an update?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:07:28

for this issue the libdnf pr was merged upstream, the dnf one is still open. my plan this week is to build test rpms of those, along with redhat-release, to confirm the fix. once they're fully merged upstream i'll work with evan (dnf dev) to get them into c10 and queued up for rhel10.0 ga

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:08:13

Cool.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:08:28

There is still some steps to go, but it's farther along than I knew about.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:09:07

fixing packagekit may take a bit longer, but i can accept that as long as dnf works

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:09:36

Yep, me too.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:10:49

can we temporarily disable packagekit if it's not fixed?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:11:25

It's really only going to hit RHEL users ... and I believe, only when they get to RHEL 10.1 ... so I think we've got time.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:12:17

no, packagekit will be shipped, and it uses an interface that doesn't recognize the new vars

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:12:36

Unless I misunderstood (which has happened before)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:13:15

if you mean the dnf side, it also affects 10.0. if you mean the packagekit thing, it already affects c10 because releasever_major is also not recognized.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:15:01

Ah, True ... but I believe for CS10, it's ok, because it just comes out as "10" instead of 10.0 .... oh ... you are right ... RHEL 10.0 users are going to be pointed to 10, and there might be some packages there that need the newer libraries that are in CS10.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:15:34

right, for dnf it will work on rhel, but pointing to a repo that may not work

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:15:55

which is what the rhel10 beta is doing right now

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:17:33

So, at this point, is there anything else we need to discuss? Or any other questions people have?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:17:54

nothing else from me, happy to take any questions

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:18:21

I'll give it a minute or so, and if there aren't any more questions, I'll move on.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:19:24

Sounds like no more questions, let's move on.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:19:37

!topic EPEL 10

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:20:05

I see we have one issue open about EPEL 10

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:20:15

!epel 304

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:20:16

**epel #304** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/304):**EPEL 10.0 mass branching**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:20:16

● **Assignee:** dherrera

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:20:16

● **Last Updated:** a day ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:20:16

● **Opened:** 3 months ago by carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:20:16

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:20:47

I know I asked about it in the other meeting, but so we have it hear, Diego Herrera did you want to give us an update on this?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:21:08

I know I asked about it in the other meeting, but so we have it here, Diego Herrera did you want to give us an update on this?

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:22:49

yeah, I have a Draft PR up for the docs regarding the 10.1 branching. I basically based myself on the Fedora one and removed all the things that dont apply for our usecase. I'm still working on it, but any help or feedback is appreciated :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:23:23

Cool. I've been looking through it ... many steps.

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:23:41

and it's a lot less steps than the Fedora one xD

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:23:46

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:24:35

We talked about tagging all the epel-10.0 to epel-10.1 using bodhi ... what was the command to do that? Since I don't remember the command, I'm having a hard time finding it in the SOP.

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:25:23

I think that one is on Carl George 's hackmd... I should check that too

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:25:56

is it line 208 in the PR? `bodhi releases create`?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:26:40

That's what I was looking through, but I don't see any line that says something like copy the old ones over ...

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:26:54

But maybe it's implied.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:26:54

in fedora thats done by a koji clone tag

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:26:57

`koji clone-tag --all --latest-only epel10.0 epel10.1`

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:27:00

that it's not in the PR yet

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:27:04

yeah, that. ^

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:27:36

oh yup yup

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:28:38

Diego Herrera: Would you like that in a comment so you remember? Or do you think you'll remember to put it in?

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:28:57

I'm just about to add it as a comment in the issue :D

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:29:28

Thank you very much for getting this written up.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:29:45

Diego Herrera: Thank you very much for getting this written up.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:29:55

oh, I had one thing on this...

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:30:08

me too, after you

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:30:32

just a thought... we should see (if they are willing) to make sure Carl George and Diego Herrera have the needed acces/etc to actually do these things. ;)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:31:09

i've got koji admin so that covers a bunch of it

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:32:15

yep. Just want to make sure you can do it instead of waiting on fedora releng to have cycles. ;)

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:32:17

I don't think I do, but I'm willing to help on this if needed :)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:33:12

since this will be the very first time we do it, it would certainly be nice to have fedora releng folks on standby for questions

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:33:31

definitely.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:34:19

my thing was semi-related, is staging koji in a place where we can do a trial run, or should we request a sync up?

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:39:35

either way. the sync shouldn't be hard, just needs time to run

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:39:46

probibly we should sync it again since we have branched now anyhow

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:41:08

Any other EPEL10 items before we move on?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:41:27

Sorry for the lag, I got pulled away for a few minutes there.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:41:45

!topic Old Business

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:42:10

Do we have any Old Business we need to go over?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:42:43

smooge came to the office hours meeting 😁

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:43:34

Sounds like all our old business was taken care of. :) .... moving on.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:43:49

!topic General Issues / Open Floor

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:44:10

I am so slow with age I missed Old Business

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:44:27

I have one for open floor but I can wait on smooge

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:44:30

what time is it? why is it so cold in here?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:44:34

Stephen J Smoogen: You are so old, that you're new again. So you landed in the right place.

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:45:02

ok that is it from the old business since Troy beat me with VMS during office hours

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:45:09

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:45:14

Jonathan Wright: Go for it.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:45:50

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:45:50

https://github.com/AlmaLinux/ALESCo/pull/2

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:45:50

I mentioned a while back we're looking at rebuilding EPEL for x86 v2 in Alma. We have an official RFC for it now. If anyone has any comments or concern please let us know.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:46:14

Last time I brought it up carl brought up a naming concern which I think we've mitigated as much as possible within the proposal

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:46:44

That's all I've got :)

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:46:59

our tsc will tenatively vote on the RFC Feb 5.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:47:02

*march 5

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:47:28

I agree with Carl that the disttag needs to be different FWIW

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:48:11

yup, one of the main drawbacks listed in the rfc is potential confusion with the real epel, and a different disttag is a simple way to help with that

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:48:12

even though the source is the same, there might be bugs caused by either slight buildroot differences, *or* even ... different compiler output with the slightly different target architecture

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:50:07

ideally the architecture can be changed but I sense that will break a lot of assumptions :)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:50:21

Thank you Jonathan Wright . It will be interesting to watch that.

<@music:fedora.im>

18:50:28

I co-maintain a package that needs to tell its build system explicitly about the minimum available CPU feature set, and which benefits significantly from any increase in those features. In EPEL10, that’s x86_64-v3, and it will *not* build from the EPEL10 branch on x86_64-v2 as-is. It would be easy to patch that with another conditional for this special alma-x86_64-v2-epel, but… how? What should the conditional be? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stockfish/blob/epel10/f/stockfish.spec#_80

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:51:00

I didn't know we had any such cases in epel. This is a great thing to know about and think about.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:51:12

Oohh ... that is a very good question.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:51:21

i think the arch is different (`x86_64_v2`), but that won't be captured in the normal nvr format that the bugzilla template asks for

<@music:fedora.im>

18:51:26

It is a little weird, and it might be the only such case, but it’s legitimate.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:51:38

music: would you mind commenting this on the GH issue? Otherwise I can paste it through for you.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:51:55

can we... change the Bz template?

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:52:17

Conan Kudo: was thinking that this should be done to include arch.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:53:14

maybe, but since people are used to the current template i worry the arch would still regularly get left out. the disttag approach wouldn't.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:53:32

In one of the talks, I believe they said changing %ifarch x86_64 to %ifarch%{x86_64} would help with things like that.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:54:25

yeah, i think a change proposal was the suggested way to deal with this since a bunch of packages do it the wrong way. having just got back and now being sick with conference crud, haven't had a chance to think much on this yet

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:54:34

a conditional specific to architecture would we allowed by the packaging guidelines, something alma-specific would not be

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:54:40

We can continue to talk about this, but we only have 5 minutes left. Was there any other Open Floor items people wanted to bring up?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:54:43

a conditional specific to architecture would be allowed by the packaging guidelines, something alma-specific would not be

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:57:21

That sounds like a "nothing from me"

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:58:00

Since we've gone quiet, and I know a few of us aren't feeling well, I'm going to close the meeting.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:58:31

Thank you all for the good discussions, and for all that you do for EPEL and it's community. You are all wonderful people.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:58:40

I'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:59:02

!endmeeting