#meeting-1:fedoraproject.org log

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:24

!startmeeting EPEL (2025-04-2)

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:31

Meeting started at 2025-04-02 18:00:24 UTC

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:31

The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-04-2)'

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:31

!meetingname epel

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:00:31

!topic aloha

<@meetbot:fedora.im>

18:00:39

The Meeting Name is now epel

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:00:58

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:00

Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:01:00

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:03

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:01:07

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:09

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

<@dherrera:fedora.im>

18:01:12

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:13

Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

<@dgomez:fedora.im>

18:01:19

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:20

David Gomez (dgomez)

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:01:21

!hi

<@elguero:fedora.im>

18:01:22

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:23

Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:01:23

!hi

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:01:23

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:24

None (elguero)

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:25

Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:01:25

Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:02:04

!hi

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:02:05

Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:02:54

Hi Neil Hanlon Conan Kudo Michael L. Young Michel Lind UTC-6 David Gomez Davide Cavalca Robby Callicotte Jonathan Wright and Carl George

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:03:35

Wow, everyone joined in the first minute ... makes my saying Hi back a bit longer this week. :)

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:04:06

efficient!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:04:19

David Gomez: and Michael L. Young , we don't usually see you. Are you here for a specific reason or just to be here?

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:04:28

morning

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:04:49

Morning nirik

<@elguero:fedora.im>

18:05:37

Here to be here and hopefully participate at some point.

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:06:01

Some new ~~victims~~ contributors I'm hoping to onboard 😃

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:06:29

Michael L. Young: Sounds good. You are always welcome.

<@dgomez:fedora.im>

18:06:42

Same as Michael :)

<@elguero:fedora.im>

18:06:47

Troy Dawson: Thank you!!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:01

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

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:01

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

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:07:57

Sorry for the delay, pagure is being slow for me today.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:08:09

it's been on the struggle bus for a few weeks now

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:08:21

AI scrapers most likely

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:08:26

!epel 324

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:08:28

● **Assignee:** carlwgeorge

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:08:28

● **Last Updated:** 9 minutes ago

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:08:28

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

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:08:28

**epel #324** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/324):**EPEL 10 minor version upgrade path**

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

18:08:28

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:08:58

Well, I know we have 324 marked for the meeting, so I'll just go for that first.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:09:22

we discussed this a bit in the office hours, but i'll give a summary for those that missed it

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:10:50

our current epel10 structure is expected to cause upgrade problems going between rhel minor versions (e.g. rhel 10.0 to 10.1). it also will put a bit of strain on the mock and packit maintainers.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:11:06

And copr

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:11:20

yup, that too (those folks are on the same team)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:11:41

And potentially others that might have to change setting each release, when they haven't in the past.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:11:51

this issue is my attempt to come up with a plan to adjust the epel-release and mirrormanager structure to solve these problems

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:11:57

OK, I'll shut up and let you talk. :)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:13:58

generally the feedback i've gotten so far is these changes seem complicated, so option 1 is we do nothing and keep the current structure. we'd want to document that to upgrade between minor versions you can do a two step upgrade (`dnf -y update redhat-release && dnf -y update`) or manually set releasever to the next minor to work around dep resolution problems every six months (`dnf -y --releasever 10.1 update`).

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:14:36

the drawbacks to that are 1) breaking dnf-automatic and 2) most people don't read the docs

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:14:40

or dnf update; dnf update right? (if there's nothing that breaks the first one)

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:15:24

right, that would work if you don't have dep problems. like if you just have htop installed, it would probably work. if you have plasma, you'll likely have problems.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:17:16

option 2 is we do this plan i described in the issue, or something similar

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:19:16

so does anyone have any questions, or is this ready for a vote?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:19:57

The vote would be for option 1 or 2 correct, and we'd settle the details at a later date?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:20:27

well the details are pretty well established in that issue, unless people want to bikeshed on the `-z` string

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:20:59

i guess you could split it into a vote of "do nothing" vs "do something", then vote on this specific plan

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:21:28

Please, no bikeshedding today (at this meeting) ... I think no matter what is chosen, someone will disagree ... I'd prefer we do a vote to know what direction to go.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:21:46

And then bikeshed after we know the direction.

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:21:52

IMO the mirrormanager redirect plan makes sense and it seems like a good use of that feature. Confusing? Perhaps a bit. But the tradeoff I think is a worse UX

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:21:54

you can blame me, i only finished writing it up last night

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:22:12

My understanding is this for the most part only impacts rhel. Can clarify the expected impact for centos stream users?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:22:21

indeed, for maintainers and users nothing should change, install epel-release and then install packages

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:22:25

My understanding is this for the most part only impacts rhel. Can you clarify the expected impact for centos stream users?

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:22:28

and +1 to @Conan Kudo 's in-thread request for symlink directories

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

18:22:56

and +1 to @Conan Kudo 's in-issue request for symlink directories

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:23:40

should be no impact at all, they will keep requesting the `epel-10` repo from mirrormanager

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:23:59

nirik: We could delay for another week if you feel it is needed. Jonathan Wright isn't here either, although I believe he's made it clear which way he wants to go.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:24:12

I'm here ^

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:24:25

Thanks, that's what I wanted to hear :)

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:24:31

I said !hi earlier :) Yes I feel like my views are known on it so I've had nothing else to add thus far.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:24:40

Ha! .... so many people came in at once, I lost track. :)

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:25:08

I'm good with the carl plan

<@smooge:fedora.im>

18:25:12

its ok we like to sneak in that way

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:25:39

at this point I think I can just say we trust Carl enough and should not micromanage the details

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:25:54

my understanding is that view is firmly "do something", and probably fine with whatever the implementation is?

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:25:55

Agreed

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:26:10

no need to delay for me. I think the plan is sound, just haven't looked at the exact details, but that can be tweaked when implementing.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:26:19

yup

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:26:21

I'm ok with the proposed plan in the ticket

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:26:39

My view is option 2, I guess - don't require 2 updates, don't hurt UX. That's the tl;dr of it.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:26:55

OK, then let's do a vote. I guess instead of +1 or -1, we do 1 or 2

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:27:10

sorry, what are the options?

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:27:12

Can you define what option 1 and 2 mean, for clarity.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:27:15

Can you define what option 1 and 2 mean, for clarity?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:27:27

1 - do not change, but document things 2 - Carl's proposal in issue 324

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:27:36

(I have an aversion to opening pagure during meetings nowadays)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:27:43

ok, option 2

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:27:48

option 2

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:27:49

we could keep it simple and say a -1 is do nothing, and +1 is do the ticket plan

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:27:54

option 2

<@davide:cavalca.name>

18:28:09

option 2

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:28:50

option 2 seems reasonable

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:29:00

option 2

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:30:08

Carl George: I know it's your proposal, but you've also said you could go either way ... are you still on the fence?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:30:26

i lean towards the plan in the ticket, option 2

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:31:47

!agreed - Proposal in epel issue 324 has been agreed upon the path forward. 7 for it, 0 against it

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:32:01

!agreed - Proposal in epel issue 324 has been agreed upon as the path forward. 7 for it, 0 against it

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:32:16

cool, i'll get with releng to start the implementation

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:32:23

Sounds good.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:32:30

Anything else before we move on?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:33:06

nope, let's go

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:33:48

!topic EPEL 10

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:03

Beyond what we just talked about, are there any other EPEL 10 issues that need to come up?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:34:31

And ... should we keep this in the agenda? Or are we past it.

<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>

18:34:59

Barring any technical difficulties Carl George runs into with the proposal in the ticket it sounds like we're past it.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:35:23

I agree, I'll take it out of the agenda.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:35:29

!topic Old Business

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:35:53

Is there any old business that needs to come up?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:36:14

how about the selinux thing?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:36:46

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-ee3ba0de35

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:36:46

Which part of it?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:37:29

mainly an update about when that is going stable (tied to the main selinux-policy getting published i think), and also how we're going to tag it forward

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:38:04

note that the Recommends will not work

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:38:20

That's true ... we hadn't brought up the selinux stuff, but linking the epel-release to "latest" is an older business.

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:39:02

Recommends does not work because the initial install will not satisfy the dependency, and DNF will automatically exclude the Recommends going forward because it assumes that you don't want it

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:39:21

So, it's not really that recommends doesn't work, it's that selinux-policy-epel has a "Conflicts: selinux-policy <= (what's currently released)"

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:40:05

i will point out these are two separate scenarios, initial install vs upgrading epel-release

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:42:16

Well, until selinux-policy get's updated (at it is at least one more week), selinux-policy-epel can't be installed.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:42:35

Anyway, Carl, what did you want to discuss about the package?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:42:59

i wanted to bring up the tagging dance we'll need to do

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:43:05

!link https://pagure.io/epel/issue/318

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:44:18

the script that creates the latest symlink was recreating it every minute, for the epel-release in 10.0 and 10.1, causing 404s for users. we adjusted the script to not replace the symlink if the filename is the same.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:45:14

but for epel-release updates going forward, if we update in two minor versions, we get two different file names, and then will have the symlink churn problem again. so until we improve the logic in that script, what we need to do is build for the oldest minor and then tag it for the newer minor manually.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:45:54

i certainly don't want to make this a standard workflow for any package, but i'm ok with this as an exception process for epel-release, at least for now

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:46:35

I think "For now" is the right phrase. At some point, the two might diverge, although I hope not.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:47:00

yeah i would like for the latest url be the same for everyone

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:47:11

hopefully the script could be adjusted before it becomes needed?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:47:58

But thank you for pointing it out. I believe everyone that is owner of that package is in this meeting. Please remember to just build for the oldest, and get that one tagged into both tags.

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:48:15

relevant code that would need adjustment https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/blob/main/f/roles/bodhi2/backend/files/new-updates-sync#_471-527

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:48:46

ideal scenario is we change that code to create the latest symlink only for the oldest minor version

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:49:34

I have an item for Open Floor ... are we done, or do we need more discussion?

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:50:10

good here, this was just an awareness item

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:50:15

!topic General Issues / Open Floor

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:50:45

I have one thing

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:50:46

This is also, sorta for awareness. The Fedora Spring Election is coming up, thus we have our Elections.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:51:19

I'll go after Troy

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:52:44

I don't have the link, and I should have, but I believe Carl, Me, Nirik, and Jonathan did elections last year. So I think it's Michel, Neal, and Davide this year, plus anyone else who wants to run. But there will only be 3 people elected.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:53:07

Again, just for awareness, and with that, I'll pass it to Michel Lind UTC-6

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:53:08

oof

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:53:08

!link https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedora-linux-40-election-results/

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:11

so if people want they can wipe out all the Hyperscale people :P

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:19

!link https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search=10-4&packages=epel-rpm-macros&status=pending&status=testing

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:29

this papers over the cmake %ctest macro issue that affects epel10

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:53:55

tl;dr `%ctest -- ...` will just break. I filed an MR for c10s too and the link is in the macro file

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:14

I'm done, Carl George ?

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:54:34

I thin it was nirik that had something.

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:54:39

oh yeah, sorry

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:54:47

I think it was nirik that had something.

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:54:53

nirik: Go for it.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:55:02

just a sec.

<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>

18:55:36

https://pagure.io/epel/issue/325

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:56:51

dew it

<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>

18:56:54

seems fine to me

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:57:01

yes please

<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>

18:57:29

agree

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:57:35

is it being submitted to Stream too?

<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>

18:57:41

do we also need to backport the %arm32 and %arm64 macros too?

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:58:19

(to redhat-rpm-config I mean)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:59:10

(ah for clarity I think it's missing from epel9)

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:59:17

(ah for clarity I think it's missing from stream )

<@salimma:fedora.im>

18:59:28

(ah for clarity I think it's missing from stream 9 - so I think no, it won't happen)

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

18:59:43

Looks like our time is up.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:00:00

salimma has already given cookies to tdawson during the F41 timeframe

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:00:11

rcallicotte gave a cookie to tdawson. They now have 84 cookies, 7 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:00:21

Thank you all for the good discussions, and for the decisions. It will help us move forward.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:00:24

ngompa has already given cookies to tdawson during the F41 timeframe

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:00:30

And thank you all for all you for for EPEL and it's community.

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:00:30

dgomez gave a cookie to tdawson. They now have 85 cookies, 8 of which were obtained in the Fedora 41 release cycle

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:00:39

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

<@zodbot:fedora.im>

19:00:40

neil has already given cookies to tdawson during the F41 timeframe

<@nhanlon:beeper.com>

19:00:46

Thanks for running, Troy!

<@tdawson:fedora.im>

19:01:12

!endmeeting