<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:13
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-04-30)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:14
Meeting started at 2025-04-30 18:00:13 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:15
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-04-30)'
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:19
!topic aloha
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:19
!meetingname epel
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:19
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:00:49
morning (here, but also doing other stuff)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:01
Morning nirik
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:01:25
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:26
Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:01:38
Hi Robby Callicotte
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:01:49
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:01:57
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:02:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:02:07
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:02:17
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:02:18
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:02:26
Davide and I just came back from breakfast
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:02:32
Hi Conan Kudo Carl George and Michel Lind UTC-8 until 5/5
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:02:52
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:02:54
Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:14
Hi Diego Herrera
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:04:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:04:11
None (elguero)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:20
Hi Michael L. Young
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:05:00
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:01
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:17
Hi Davide Cavalca
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:26
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:26
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:47
The only open issue we have is #328
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:54
!epel 328
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:54
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:54
● **Opened:** 2 weeks ago by ngompa
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:54
● **Last Updated:** a week ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:54
**epel #328** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/328):**Figure out getting selinux-policy-epel autoinstalled**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:54
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:06:26
I believe we were waiting for Conan Kudo to do some testing, but I'm having a hard time remembering what.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:27
testing the weak dep stuff
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:42
I did test it, and the reverse weak dep works
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:31
oh wait no it doesn't
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:31
So if the reverse weak dep works, what is the plan?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:44
I mixed up my records
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:04
I tested two cases: forward from epel-release via upgrade and reverse purely from selinux-policy
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:35
the first case works, the second case doesn't
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:09:56
can you rephrase/elaborate on those test cases, the words aren't parsing in my brain
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:10
basically, we currently have two different weak dep cases in the repository right now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:21
the forward case (epel-release recommends selinux-policy-epel)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:34
and the reverse case (selinux-policy-epel supplements selinux-policy)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:50
the forward case accidentally works because nobody updated epel-release in centos extras
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:11:07
which only applies to centos, not rhel
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:11:10
yes
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:11:32
and would be wiped on on the next rebuild in extras
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:11:42
yup
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:49
Hmm... I thought I did update it in centos-extras ... I must have missed a step.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:12:12
the reverse case doesn't work and I don't know why
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:12:34
reinstalling selinux-policy-targeted doesn't trigger it either
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:12:55
is this a bug in DNF?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:13:18
this is with the repo containing the package enabled on the current system, presumably
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:13:36
oh no
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:14:02
I just read carefully the description of exclude_from_weak_autodetect
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:14:18
what happened?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:14:42
it disables reverse weak for installed packages too
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:14:59
> If enabled, DNF will autodetect unmet weak dependencies (recommends or supplements) of packages installed on the system. Providers of these weak dependencies will not be installed by dnf as weak dependencies any more (they will still be installed if pulled in as a regular dependency).
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:27
`dnf rei --setopt=exclude_from_weak_autodetect=0 --exclude=epel-release selinux-policy-targeted` in a container triggers what I want
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:15:28
but if we use supplement then it should never be unmet right
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:15:37
oh it was alread considered unmet before from the forward path?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:41
yes
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:02
so basically for introducing a new package never ever use forward dependency when the package is still uninstallable
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:16:04
basically, all weak relations are not processed, not just forward ones
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:16:26
so the global state by libsolv automatically factors out weak dependencies
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:28
if we always use supplement, it will work just fine from now on? (for new packages)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:16:31
including reverse ones
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:16:43
!hi
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:44
but I thought they are only ignored if they are unavailable once
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:16:45
Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:16:50
what a mess
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:16:50
we need a fix in libsolv to... erm... resolve this
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:17:15
if there's a new package that's never ever asked for as a weak dep but was unavailable, reverse weak dep should work for that package right?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:17:20
it does not help us now, but for the future
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:17:25
that's what I thought too, but it appears to be more comprehensive than that
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:17:43
so... it means the docs is a lie and weak deps never actually works?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:17:47
I'm confused now
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:18:15
no, it means that when the solver computes the solution, it factors in installed state per package for weak influences
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:18:16
i wonder if we argue the fact that this is going to result in a whole lot of issues and cases being filed against selinux-policy that we can convince them to reverse course
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:18:19
including reverse ones
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:18:39
which... actually makes sense, but it means this split is completely unworkable
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:19:11
so... what is a case right now where weak dep would work? and why is our current situation different from that case
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:19:25
selinux-policy isn't initially installed
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:19:30
that is the only case where it works
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:19:36
(aside from the image build case)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:20:05
wait, so if selinux-policy is already installed, and you install epel-release via url, will it pull in selinux-policy-epel?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:20:10
nope
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:20:29
then i don't understand what "the only case where it works" is then
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:20:38
selinux-policy, once installed, becomes ineligible for _all_ weak rules
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:20:49
why?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:21:00
if you have epel-release _already_ installed, then you install selinux-policy, then -epel one will also be installed
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:21:01
because it used to not have weak deps and now it does?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:21:11
my gosh
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:21:19
because of https://www.mankier.com/5/dnf5.conf#%5BMain%5D_Options-exclude_from_weak_autodetect
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:21:24
right, now I sort of get it, but I was hoping that's not the case for reverse dep
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:21:30
me too
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:21:37
that's dnf5, does dnf4 behave the same way I guess?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:21:42
it's libsolv, so yeah
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:21:44
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:22:08
can we add it to epel-release instead
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:22:11
oh we can't
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:22:12
I'd have to double check, but I don't think dnf4's version of the man page was so explicit
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:22:21
we can't for existing users for the same reason
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:22:35
e.g. epel-release Recommends: selinux-policy-epel if selinux-policy
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:22:45
that would work on fresh installs but again not on upgrade
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:23:01
oh nope same doc in dnf4 version
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:14
Why not on upgrade?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:23:22
it doesn't work for fresh installs because the repo doesn't exist
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:23:30
it works on upgrades from a version without it to a version with it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:23:41
and... that's pretty much it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:24:11
there is no reasonable way to make this split work without all of us hating ourselves in the process
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:16
It works with this quarters CentOS Stream Live images, but that's because I forced the packages in there.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:24:20
this sounds so very confusing
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:24:32
proposal: we file an issue describing the flaws with this and ask the selinux-policy maintainer to reverse the change
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:24:40
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:24:42
please
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:24:46
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:24:49
my brain hurts reasoning through this
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:24:58
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:24:59
+1 indeed (but I don't suspect it will help much)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:25:02
and yet i think you understand it better than the rest of us
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:25:17
I'll put the details in the ticket after the meeting
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:25:25
I will _try_ to explain it
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:37
Thank you.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:25:53
if you want to write up the issue i'm happy to help proof read it and shape the phrasing around the support angle
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:25:59
this is like the anaconda accessibility thing, actually thinking through the solution hurts my brain
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:26:02
can we not just have selinux-policy Requires (not recommend) selinux-policy-epel if epel-release ?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:26:15
then it will work right? just avoid using weak deps but use conditional deps
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:19
then the initial install we have documented doesn't work
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:26:20
nope.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:26:32
that results in a broken dependency in the world state
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:26:32
because when you install epel-release you don't have the epel repos available
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:26:44
since epel-release exists in the transaction, but the repo doesn't
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:26:57
Requires(repo): epel
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:26:57
but the next dnf update will pull in selinux-policy-epel right?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:27:10
you can't install the repo package in the first place
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:27:15
it will be a broken dependency
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:27:16
nope, that's what neal tested
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:39
- selinux-policy installed. no epel-relese so selinux-policy-epel not pulled in
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:39
- dnf update. now selinux-policy-epel is pulled in? or not I guess, until it's updated
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:39
- install epel-release. still fine because selinux-policy is not being updated
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:27:44
yeah... I think it's not worth dealing with this mess
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:27:53
there is no functioning case except image builds where everything is available
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:27:55
I know, we can add the hard requires and tell people to --force --nodeps </joking, please don't do this>
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:28:09
nfw am I going down that road
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:28:19
this is how we get epel blackballed by GSS
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:28:26
cheat and have selinux-policy-epel provides selinux-policy at a higher version but require selinux-policy-core at the current version
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:28:34
I'm going to put a timebox on this, so 3 more minutes.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:28:37
and make selinux-policy provide this virtual core package :P
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:28:49
GSS?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:28:58
Red Hat Global Support Services
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:29:04
I tell you this discussion makes me want to disable and remove selinux completely from my systems
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:29:15
Another thing to mention to them: selinux-policy and selinux-policy-epel have to be kept in sync... if they aren't one could be completely broken.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:29:17
it already is a PITA because any policy update seems to force a relabel and make the transaction crawling
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:29:27
yeah i wonder if we aren't getting more complaints just because of the number of people that outright disable it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:29:29
that is _also_ not mandatory either
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:29:44
forcing relabels all the time is expensive and not actually required
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:29:53
right. but some packages do that
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:30:02
including packages installed as a dependency that I don't directly care about
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:30:23
yeah it's because the docs on how to handle policy modules are not great
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:30:34
they never left draft status and were never formally reviewed for sensibility
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:31:18
maybe the best path forward is to push back to the maintainer as this seems unworkable?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:20
OK, I'm timeboxing this discussion. I believe Conan Kudo was going to writeup his findings in the issue ... and we can discuss in the issue, or again next week.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:31:38
I'll do a writeup, Carl George will push back on the existence of this
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:50
Sounds good to me.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:01
Thank you all for the work and discussion on this.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:32:10
ugh
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:21
That was the only issue marked with meeting, so I'm going to move to Old Business.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:29
!topic Old Business
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:38
Does anyone have any old business they want to bring up?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:33:46
!epel 325
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:47
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:47
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:47
**epel #325** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/325):**Add x86_64 macro to epel-rpm-macros**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:47
● **Opened:** a month ago by naccyde
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:33:47
● **Last Updated:** a month ago
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:33
Oh ya ... hmm ... I wonder why nobody has marked that one with meeting.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:34:46
eh, meeting label, old business, whatever
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:34:51
Carl George: Do you want to elaborate for those that haven't read it.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:34:59
it's on my todo list... but my todo list is... long
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:35:30
%x86_64 basically pulls in all the x86_64 variants
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:35:51
it's available in Fedora but not in STream so it's a PITA for people who maintain a single spec and already started using it
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:35:52
there is an x86_64 macro defined in fedora and el10, and it would help packagers to not need to know it isn't defined in el9/el8 if we define it in epel-rpm-macros
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:36:18
it is in cs10, just not cs9
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:36:29
I thought it seemed pretty uncontroversal...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:36:48
it's not controversial, someone just has to check it into epel-rpm-macros for el8 and el9
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:36:58
yeah it should be a straightforward thing once you have time to get to it, or if someone wants to take it off your hands
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:36:59
yup
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:37:19
if you like i can do that
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:22
Yep, now that I re-read, it looks like nirik said he would do it, but it looks like he is a bit swamped.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:37:53
Carl George: that would be lovely.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:38:40
Thank you Carl George
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:38:41
i'll try to knock it out later today
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:39:04
Anything else for this? Or any other Old Business?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:39:17
I have a timeline question about the election
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:39:23
when is the close of the nomination period?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:39:43
May 8
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:39:52
and when do we do interviews?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:03
!link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-41/f-41-elections-tasks.html
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:40:06
do we have to update our questions or is the question from last time still ok
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:40:07
Aoife is supposed to poke us with a stick
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:40:41
Unless anyone objects, I think the questions from last time will do.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:40:51
what _was_ the questions?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:41:15
let me look them up
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:33
!link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-42/f-42-elections-tasks.html
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:41:37
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/epel-steering-committee-election-interview-with-robby-callicotte-rcallicotte/
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:41:42
This time with the correct link. :) Sorry about that.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:41:46
that was Robby's interview, so the questions are valid
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:18
For those that don't want to follow the link the questions are:
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:20
Q: Why are you running for EPEL Steering Committee member?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:20
Q: What is your background in EPEL? What have you worked on and what are you doing now?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:43:50
And to answer previous questions:
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:02
Nomination period ends May 8, 2025
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:18
Interviews start: May 8, 2025
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:44:32
oh snap, next week
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:45:16
The interviews end on May 15, 2025
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:45:50
Voting starts on May 19, 2025
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:46:03
looking at when I'm flying out for devconf
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:46:15
ah, Summit I mean
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:46:30
Summit is May 19, so I guess the timing works out
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:47:15
wow May got here super fast
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:30
Yep, May is tomorrow.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:50
Yep, let's move to open floor.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:55
!topic General Issues / Open Floor
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:48:01
Go for it nirik
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:48:28
Are any epel folks going to be at flock? are there any epel talks or panels?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:48:37
yes
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:48:39
I'll be at flock
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:48:43
I guess I could just look at the scheule for the second part
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:48:51
there is an epel hackfest i'm running
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:49:03
I won't be at flock but I'll be at devconf
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:09
looks like a state of epel and a hackfest. yeah
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:49:10
I just found out that I'll be there. Carl and I are doing the "State of EPEL" and an "EPEL Workshop"
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:49:26
oh yeah, state of epel too
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:49:28
cool. I should be there if anyone needs me for anything.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:50:02
nirik: awesome. Always good to see you in person.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:50:09
i'm open to suggestions for hackfest topics. i don't have a firm plan, other than i want to carve out 15-20 minutes specifically for newcomers to ask questions and get onboarded.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:50:28
yeah, looking forward to seeing you all too! (who are there)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:51:14
are we doing anything EPEL related in Summit and DevConf?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:51:28
I guess there'll be the community booth at Summit
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:51:54
i'm doing a talk about epel (combined with amy's talk about centos), and will have a designated q&a "ask the expert" thing tied to the talk at the booth
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:52:17
brian stinson told me he also wants to be present at that, for $reasons
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:53:20
^^ That's at summit
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:53:30
oh good clarification
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:53:36
I won't make it to DevConf
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:53:41
same
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:53:46
same
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:53:48
me either. ;(
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:53:48
it's getting harder and harder to get everyone in the same place
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:54:30
Davide and I will be at Summit and DevConf but not Flock
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:54:36
i'd be happy to host an epel birds of a feather session at texas linux fest if folks feel like visiting austin in october
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:55:01
Has it cooled off in October?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:14
compared to july/august? absolutely
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:55:33
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/usa/austin/climate
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:55:40
compared to october in washington, not so much lol
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:55:43
61-83 - I'm definitely not taking my family
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:56:06
Haven't planned that far ahead yet, but September/October is usually fairly busy
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:56:07
(not sure I can make it anyway, can't keep traveling every month)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:56:40
Anything non-travel related that people wanted to bring up in Open Floor before we close?
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:57:01
I got something small
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:57:17
Diego Herrera: Go for it
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:57:55
I've been working into turning some of the minor branching scripts that we use in infra into ansible playbooks :) I have a first draft of that work now ^^
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:58:00
https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/2593
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:58:27
I also implemented Davide Cavalca 's pr from last meeting into them :)
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:58:45
Thanks!
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:59:18
if you want to check 'em there is the link ^^, first time doing this on fedora, so I might ask releng help on reviewing them
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
18:59:33
that's it from me ;)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:59:49
i'm in the middle of reviewing, but agree that releng feedback will be more important
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:59:53
Diego Herrera: Thank you very much for working on that.
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:00:20
salimma gave a cookie to dherrera. They now have 25 cookies, 1 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:00:37
tdawson gave a cookie to dherrera. They now have 26 cookies, 2 of which were obtained in the Fedora 42 release cycle
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:00:59
Looks like our time is up.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:23
Thank you all for the very good discussions. And especially thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:54
I look forward to seeing some of you at Flock, and possibly my odd visit to Boston in May.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:01:54
thanks Troy!
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:02:06
I'll talk to you next week, if not sooner.
<@dherrera:fedora.im>
19:02:11
( ... ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) )
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:02:46
!endmeeting