16:01:15 <sgallagh> #startmeeting FESCO (2016-09-30) 16:01:15 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Sep 30 16:01:15 2016 UTC. The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:15 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2016-09-30)' 16:01:15 <sgallagh> #meetingname fesco 16:01:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 16:01:15 <sgallagh> #chair maxamillion dgilmore jwb nirik paragan jsmith kalev sgallagh Rathann 16:01:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: Rathann dgilmore jsmith jwb kalev maxamillion nirik paragan sgallagh 16:01:15 <sgallagh> #topic init process 16:01:20 <kalev> morning 16:01:22 <jwb> hi (again?) 16:01:22 <maxamillion> .hello maxamillion 16:01:22 <jsmith> .hello jsmith 16:01:22 <sgallagh> Sorry, bad copy-paste 16:01:22 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com> 16:01:25 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com> 16:01:26 <nirik> .hello kevin 16:01:28 <zodbot> nirik: kevin 'Kevin Fenzi' <kevin@scrye.com> 16:01:42 <sgallagh> .hello sgallagh 16:01:43 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com> 16:01:52 <jsmith> FWIW, I'll only be here for the first 30 minutes or so, and then I'm driving to the airport 16:01:59 <jsmith> Sorry about that :-/ 16:02:37 <t8m> can you please start with the OpenSSL 1.1.0 rebase change ticket - I'd need to leave early 16:03:45 <t8m> .hello t8m 16:03:46 <zodbot> t8m: Sorry, but you don't exist 16:04:03 <t8m> t8m = Tomas Mraz <tmraz@redhat.com> 16:04:21 <sgallagh> t8m: zodbot expects your FAS ID 16:04:27 <t8m> ah ok 16:04:33 <t8m> .hello tmraz 16:04:34 <zodbot> t8m: tmraz 'Tomáš Mráz' <tmraz@redhat.com> 16:05:12 <sgallagh> OK, we have six people, so I guess we can start. 16:05:38 <sgallagh> #topic #1629 F26 System Wide Change: OpenSSL 1.1.0 16:05:38 <sgallagh> .fesco 1629 16:05:41 <zodbot> sgallagh: #1629 (F26 System Wide Change: OpenSSL 1.1.0) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1629 16:06:19 <sgallagh> t8m: Is this going to need a mass-rebuild? 16:06:26 <sgallagh> (or a large side-tag?) 16:06:41 <kalev> I think the proposal makes sense to me; F26 timeframe sounds about right and the compat package which avoids a flag day with switching over sounds like a good plan as well 16:06:50 <sgallagh> Oh, sorry. I see it under Release Engineering now 16:06:58 * nirik is in favor, +1 16:07:01 <t8m> the question is what are the requirements for the side tag 16:07:21 <kalev> I don't think there's a need for a side tag as long as the compat package and new openssl are built at the same time 16:07:33 <jsmith> +1 from my side -- I don't see anything concerning about this change 16:07:37 <sgallagh> t8m: a side-tag is a good way to do things if you want all of the rebuilt packages to land together 16:07:40 <kalev> +1 from me as well 16:07:49 <t8m> I mean - my current plan is to not have -devel subpackage for the compat package 16:07:52 <sgallagh> But if there's a compat package that will work without a rebuild, then it's not strictly needed 16:08:28 <sgallagh> t8m: Hmm, well that does mean that anyone who wants to update their package is forced to move to 1.1.0 16:08:32 <t8m> and that means there will be a window when some packages can not be rebuild because they would need patch to be buildable with 1.1.0 16:08:38 <t8m> yes 16:08:38 <sgallagh> Which, for minor updates, might not be ideal. 16:08:40 <kalev> yeah, makes sense to do it without a -devel subpackage to make sure everything switches over 16:08:47 <sgallagh> So it may be worth discussing. 16:08:59 <sgallagh> kalev: Depends on how hard the switchover is 16:09:02 <nirik> t8m: do you have any sense of how hard it will be ? 16:09:15 <nirik> is it just changing some calls/names? or is everything different? 16:09:20 <t8m> it depends on the package's use of openssl 16:09:29 <t8m> for most the changes are pretty trivial 16:09:29 <sgallagh> For example, if some package needs to patch a CVE, they won't be able to do it without fixing up to support 1.1.0 16:09:35 <t8m> yes 16:10:11 <t8m> if it uses some long-ago deprecated things like krb5 did - it is a little bit harded to switch to new API 16:10:41 <sgallagh> t8m: OK, so what's the common case? Is it that >50% of packages would work with a trivial rebuild? 16:11:04 <sgallagh> Will most packages work with very minor patching? 16:11:14 <sgallagh> Or is it genuine porting work for everyone? 16:11:46 <t8m> sgallagh, active upstreams are already patched, for most packages - I'd say >50% deps it is trivial 16:11:58 <sgallagh> t8m: Please define trivial 16:12:07 <sgallagh> Small code edits or simple rebuild? 16:12:15 <t8m> small code edits 16:12:19 <sgallagh> ok 16:12:49 <sgallagh> And the OpenSSL maintainers are volunteering to assist where needed, so I suppose I'm +1 to the plan as-is 16:12:51 <t8m> simple rebuild would work only in case I'd ship deprecated apis in 1.1.0 which I do not want to. 16:13:31 <jwb> I'm +1 16:13:38 <nirik> is there any planned day/time to land this? 16:14:03 <t8m> I'd like to do that once the compat package is reviewed 16:14:06 <sgallagh> I'd recommend landing it in Rawhide as soon as possible (if not sooner) to give it maximum time to shake out 16:14:11 <t8m> yeah 16:14:23 <nirik> I'd recommend picking a date and announcing in advance... 16:14:27 <kalev> t8m: I can help with reviewing the compat package if you want, I've got some experience with those 16:14:32 <nirik> and have that date not be friday or the weekend. 16:14:32 <t8m> nirik, will do 16:15:07 <sgallagh> t8m: Assuming kalev helps you get the compat package ready in time, maybe announce for Wednesday? 16:16:02 <t8m> sgallagh, you mean wednesday next week? I am not sure I am fully ready for that. But the next wednesday would work for me 16:16:38 <sgallagh> t8m: Sure 16:17:07 <sgallagh> I count +4 right now, nirik, kalev, jwb and myself. 16:17:14 <sgallagh> jsmith, maxamillion? 16:17:20 <jsmith> I already said +1 16:17:24 <t8m> I'll submit the compat package for review some time next week 16:17:25 <maxamillion> +1 16:17:32 <t8m> and announce the plan too 16:17:41 <sgallagh> jsmith: Thanks, I missed it 16:17:42 <maxamillion> sorry, was catching up on the backlog .... attempting to multitask 16:18:12 <t8m> btw any preference on the compat package name? - openssl110 would continue the naming of older openssl compat packages 16:18:17 <sgallagh> #action OpenSSL 1.1.0 Change is approved, will be landed alongside 1.0.2 compat package in Rawhide as soon as possible (+6, 0 ,-0) 16:18:31 <t8m> but compat-openssl would be more aligned with other packages 16:18:49 <sgallagh> t8m: compat-openssl110 ? 16:19:07 <sgallagh> (not joking, I think that would be the most clear name) 16:19:12 <nirik> is it intended to keep that around after things move? or drop it? 16:19:15 <kalev> t8m: compat-something I think. this is usually the naming for ABI compatibility libraries that don't ship a -devel subpackage 16:19:21 <t8m> ok 16:19:50 <t8m> nirik, I think we should keep it for third parties 16:20:09 <nirik> ok. if you like. ;) 16:20:09 <kalev> yeah, I agree, should keep it for at least one release so that 3rd party repos have time to switch over 16:20:27 <kalev> same as we did for gnutls a few releases back 16:20:37 <jwb> should be longer than one release 16:21:03 <t8m> we'll have to keep it in rhel "forever" but that is not too relevant to Fedora 16:21:39 <t8m> I would not have problem keeping it at least until upstream discontinues 1.0.2 support 16:21:39 <sgallagh> I'd suggest keeping it until there is no longer a Fedora to upgrade from that shipped 1.0.2 as the primary choice 16:21:53 <t8m> sgallagh, that works for me 16:22:06 <sgallagh> So keep it in F26 and F27, then drop it for F28? 16:22:20 <maxamillion> sgallagh: makes sense, +1 16:22:22 <kalev> sounds like a good plan, +1 16:22:27 * nirik is happy to leave it to t8m, was just curious. ;) 16:23:06 <t8m> thanks for the approval 16:24:01 <kalev> t8m: I think I would call it compat-openssl10 actually, as the sonames are libssl.so.10 and libcrypto.so.10, but up to you of course 16:24:11 <sgallagh> #info The compat package will be retained at least for the duration of F27. After that, it will be at the maintainer's discretion. 16:24:43 <sgallagh> (Is that fair?) 16:24:53 <kalev> yup 16:24:56 <t8m> no problem with that 16:25:07 <sgallagh> Great. Anything else on this topic, then? 16:26:25 <sgallagh> #topic #1626 Release blocking deliverables for Fedora 25 16:26:25 <sgallagh> .fesco 1626 16:26:26 <zodbot> sgallagh: #1626 (Release blocking deliverables for Fedora 25) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1626 16:26:29 <t8m> bye 16:27:17 * nirik shakes his head at this one. ;( 16:27:18 <sgallagh> So, this is very concerning to me. 16:27:24 <jsmith> Worried that we still haven't heard from the Cloud WG... 16:27:25 <sgallagh> Only one WG has bothered to reply. 16:28:08 <jsmith> (Half-serioius) Proposal: Threaten not to produce their deliverables if they don't respond. 16:28:10 <jwb> kushal said last time we met that the list that was sent out was correct 16:28:15 <jwb> for Cloud 16:28:17 <nirik> well, Workstation did too 16:28:27 <jwb> however, nobody actually followed up in the ticket or with jkurik 16:28:55 <jwb> jsmith: empty threats don't go over well. and if we turned them off, we'd have to turn them back on in a crisis state later 16:28:58 <sgallagh> Proposal: Starting with F25: any image not approved by the appropriate group before Alpha Freeze is *not blocking* for that release. 16:29:12 <sgallagh> Let's avoid this next time around and/or force the issue. 16:29:20 <maxamillion> sgallagh: +1 16:29:31 <sgallagh> err, that should read F26 16:29:54 <maxamillion> right yes ... I transposed it in my head for some reason 16:29:56 <jsmith> jwb: While I typically don't agree with the "name and shame" idea for individuals, I have no qualms about doing that for WGs/SIGs 16:31:10 <nirik> I know a while back when we first started generating that release deliverables page we set some deadline for it... 16:31:17 * nirik looks for the ticket 16:31:30 <sgallagh> nirik: It was Alpha Freeze, I'm 90% sure 16:33:02 <nirik> We agreed to have a list of release deliverables for F23 at least two weeks before the Alpha Freeze with release blocking deliverables marked 16:33:11 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1427#comment:12 16:33:19 <jsmith> Anyhoo, I have to run to the airport. Please consider me +1 on whatever you decide on this issue, +1 on the DNF ticket, and +1 to jkurik's proposals on the Changes not in ON_QA ticket. 16:33:39 <sgallagh> nirik: Right, but I don't think we specified a penalty. Hence my proposal above. 16:34:27 <nirik> I guess I am in favor, but I think it might lead to some anoyance... people asking for image blah even though it's not release blocking... 16:34:31 <nirik> but we can give it a go 16:34:54 <sgallagh> nirik: Well, if it's not release-blocking, rel-eng can just go ahead and say "no, try next release" 16:35:41 <maxamillion> with citation of FESCo's decision (pending there is one) 16:35:47 <nirik> sure. 16:36:55 <sgallagh> Alright, so let's talk in present-day terms. 16:37:23 <sgallagh> I for one am not confident that anything that didn't get a formal approval is being maintained well enough to treat as blocking, personally 16:37:32 <jwb> i'm not in favor of this 16:37:33 <sgallagh> But that's likely going to prove an unpopular position :) 16:38:09 <jwb> in reality, what will likely happen is rel-eng will say no, they'll get cast as the bad guy, there will be a scramble to turn stuff back on, and then they'll be left with even more work 16:38:28 <jwb> i'd rather FESCo just hound people continuously until someone gives a definitive answer 16:38:56 <nirik> who is our cloud liason currently? 16:39:22 <maxamillion> kushal? 16:39:34 <jsmith> jberkus? 16:39:56 <maxamillion> I'm in the Cloud WG but don't consider myself a representative of it in any official capacity ... I supposed I can become that if necessary 16:40:07 <maxamillion> I basically just show up and try to help out when I can 16:40:14 <kalev> can you bring it up at next Cloud WG meeting? 16:40:22 <maxamillion> kalev: certainly 16:40:39 <kalev> let's just leave it at that and move on and give Cloud WG some more time? 16:40:48 <nirik> well, when we started the working groups, we agreed to have a fesco member as liason to each of them... to ask them stuff fesco wanted and bring up things to fesco they wanted. 16:40:50 <sgallagh> kalev: We're in beta freeze right now 16:41:01 <sgallagh> If it comes up, what (if anything) do we slip on? 16:41:27 <kalev> just assume same things are blocking than what was in last release? 16:43:58 <kushal> I am iirc. 16:44:13 <kushal> sorry in between too many things, thus being late. 16:44:36 <maxamillion> kushal: +1 16:44:56 <kushal> Cloud base image is the only blocking deliverable. 16:44:59 <kushal> Atomic is not. 16:45:01 <maxamillion> kushal: I'll follow up with you off-meeting, but basically we need a Cloud WG response to https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1626 16:45:17 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Program_Management/ReleaseBlocking/Fedora25 16:45:24 <kushal> Oh, I thought I replied last week. 16:45:38 <kushal> I was pointed out to that in the last week 16:45:44 <kushal> not sure what happened to my mail 16:45:50 <kushal> will reply once again to him. 16:47:03 <sgallagh> OK, and jwb: did you want to speak for Workstation? (Are you still the liaison, or did we ask stickster to step in there?) 16:47:10 <jwb> that's stickster 16:47:19 <jwb> kalev could likely cover too? 16:47:37 <nirik> AGREED: The list as it currently stands is fine for Fedora 25. The getfedora.org website should not offer 32-bit x86 media for Server. 16:47:42 <nirik> ^ there 16:47:49 <nirik> oops. thats the wrong one 16:47:53 * nirik needs more coffe. 16:48:56 <nirik> they basically said the list was fine but then started asking about workstation ostree. 16:49:02 <kalev> Workstation's deliverables for F25 are exactly the same as we had for F24. the atomic workstation image isn't planned to be release blocking 16:49:05 <sgallagh> oh, right 16:49:33 <nirik> so, I think hopefully we are ok on this and should move on? 16:49:38 * kalev agrees. 16:49:54 <Southern_Gentlem> ? 32bit is no longer release blocking correct? 16:50:08 <kalev> correct 16:50:11 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: it hasn't been since f24 16:50:36 <sgallagh> OK, let's move on, then 16:50:49 <sgallagh> #topic #1628 F26 System Wide Change: DNF 2.0 16:50:49 <sgallagh> .fesco 1628 16:50:51 <zodbot> sgallagh: #1628 (F26 System Wide Change: DNF 2.0) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1628 16:51:43 <nirik> so, they built dnf 2.0 in rawhide yesterday. 16:51:55 <nirik> but there was at least lorax that was not at all ready for it. 16:52:20 <nirik> There is a lorax patch now (and I think a build just went by) 16:52:28 <nirik> and anaconda has a patch and should be doing a build. 16:53:01 <nirik> did we already approve this in a previous meeting? 16:53:04 <maxamillion> I'm not the biggest fan of this change, but given this statement from the wiki page "DNF-2 is the upstream DNF version, the only version actively developed." ... there's not really much option to not roll with it at least at some point 16:53:15 <maxamillion> nirik: we might have? 16:53:21 <maxamillion> nirik: it does sound a little familiar 16:53:28 <maxamillion> I think we at least discussed it 16:53:39 <kalev> I think we did, yep 16:53:46 <jwb> we approved it last meeting 16:54:30 <jwb> oh, wait 16:54:50 <nirik> well, hopefully we will have a rawhide tomorrow... I'm not sure what all else will break 16:55:09 <nirik> (we didn't have one today due to the lorax changes not having landed) 16:55:33 <jwb> yeah, we approved it last meeting 16:55:37 <jwb> 16:35:01 <jwb> #approved DNF2.0 Change for F26 is accepted (1:8, 0:1, -1:0) 16:55:46 <jwb> https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-09-16/fesco.2016-09-16-16.06.log.html 16:55:51 <nirik> also, dnf 2.0 broke for me right away not understanding the "type=rpm" in repofiles... which they quickly fixed 16:56:06 <nirik> but it bodes ill to me that they tested. ;) 16:56:30 <kalev> I think it has a test setup that's based on F24 16:56:57 <nirik> could be. that type thing only landed in rawhide recently I think 16:58:40 <nirik> anyhow, I guess we will move forward and try and get everything working. 16:58:49 <nirik> it's a neverending battle. ;( 16:59:07 <sgallagh> OK, so nothing to see here, move along? 16:59:13 <sgallagh> #info this was approved last week 16:59:23 <sgallagh> #topic #1630 F25 Changes not in ON_QA status (<100% completed).fesco 1630 16:59:23 <kalev> anyway, I'm glad that we have a compose that breaks when things aren't really working, as opposed to end users getting a dnf that doesn't work at all 16:59:27 <sgallagh> #undo 16:59:27 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.items.Topic object at 0x462616d0> 16:59:31 <sgallagh> #topic #1630 F25 Changes not in ON_QA status (<100% completed) 16:59:31 <sgallagh> .fesco 1630 16:59:32 <zodbot> sgallagh: #1630 (F25 Changes not in ON_QA status (<100% completed)) – FESCo - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1630 17:00:26 <sgallagh> Hmm, in retrospect I think this one was talking about maxamillion rather than adamw. 17:00:28 <sgallagh> What's the word? 17:00:29 <maxamillion> The Rel-Eng Atuomation Workflow Engine has been proposed to the Infrastructure Team and is currently undergoing code review and security audit before deploying but I have demonstrated it in working fashion 17:00:35 <maxamillion> Automation* 17:01:19 * kalev doesn't have any insight into any of the three changes. 17:01:21 <maxamillion> puiterwijk is currently looking into it and I'm awaiting the review to complete before we can deploy ... from there to the best of my knowledge it's just a matter of getting it deployed 17:01:37 <maxamillion> I'll update the BZ for the change, I should have done so last week 17:03:34 <maxamillion> is that good enough for an ON_QA status? 17:04:15 <sgallagh> maxamillion: If it's not deployed, I'd kind of say probably not. That being said, where is the interest in this to end-users? 17:04:40 <sgallagh> /me wonders why this is a Change, exactly. 17:04:42 <nirik> yeah, I am not sure this even really needs to be a change? 17:05:05 <nirik> but hey, we approved it a while back so... 17:07:00 <sgallagh> I mean, if it was going to replace some part of the release pipeline, I could see it 17:07:05 <sgallagh> But it looks additive 17:07:59 <maxamillion> it's currently additive, eventually it will replace things ... it won't have any real user facing anything, the main idea for filing the Change was for the sake of visibility ... a lot of RelEng stuff flies under the radar 17:08:28 <sgallagh> maxamillion: Fair enough 17:08:45 <sgallagh> Let's call it ON_QA, then 17:09:10 <maxamillion> +1 thanks 17:10:40 <sgallagh> So for the GHC one, I propose we wait a week for updates, as jkurik recommends. 17:10:51 <maxamillion> sgallagh: +1 17:10:55 <sgallagh> And also that we enact the Contingency Plan on the RPM autoprovides 17:10:59 <nirik> yep. 17:11:04 <nirik> +1 for that 17:11:42 <maxamillion> +1 for Contingency Plan 17:12:13 <kalev> the contingency plan is to just not announce the change, right? 17:12:30 <sgallagh> kalev: Not to put it in the guidelines, yes 17:12:40 <sgallagh> Or at least, the guidelines should say F26+ 17:13:43 <kalev> yeah, that may be a good call as it pretty much requires a mass rebuild for all package to pick up the autoprovides 17:13:48 <kalev> as I understand it. 17:13:58 <kalev> and we'll have one for F26 17:14:15 <sgallagh> Oh right, it's going to need macro changes. 17:14:27 <sgallagh> But that didn't land either, so this is just plain not done. 17:14:53 <sgallagh> Do we still have quorum, BTW? 17:14:55 <nirik> well, all python packages... but yeah 17:15:00 <jwb> sgallagh: i think so? 17:15:14 <sgallagh> jwb: Ah ok. I wasn't sure if you were still around. 17:15:29 <jwb> not much to add yet 17:15:38 <maxamillion> jsmith: left but he said he was +1 to everything left 17:15:41 <maxamillion> errr 17:15:50 <maxamillion> jsmith left but he said he was +1 to everything else * 17:15:56 <jwb> i'm +1 to everything that's been discussed on this topic thus far 17:15:57 <maxamillion> words and typing is hard 17:16:33 <sgallagh> #agreed Wait one week for information about GHC. Enact Contingency Plan on python autoprovides (+6, 0, -0) 17:16:50 <sgallagh> #topic Next Week's Chair 17:17:30 <sgallagh> Who wants it? 17:17:37 <kalev> I could do it next week 17:17:54 <sgallagh> #info kalev to chair 2016-10-07 meeting 17:17:58 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor 17:18:34 <kalev> how's the release coming along? any blockers that would need fesco's poking? 17:18:35 <sgallagh> Just a general note: the conversation that cmurf started on devel@ regarding Cloud and Server positioning is Important(TM). FESCo members should probably follow and chime in 17:18:49 <nirik> sgallagh: I have it marked, but have not yet had time to reply. 17:18:54 <sgallagh> Thanks 17:19:05 <nirik> https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/milestone/25/beta/buglist 17:19:21 <sgallagh> kalev: Blocker list is in remarkably good shape at the moment 17:19:30 <nirik> yeah, nothing too crazy 17:19:32 <nirik> yet 17:19:37 <sgallagh> (Which probably means no one is testing anything yet ;-) ) 17:19:52 <kalev> sounds great :) 17:20:13 <kalev> ohh, could people vote on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377741 FE status, please? 17:20:32 <kalev> as in, those that usually do that kind of voting :) 17:20:48 <sgallagh> kalev: Will do 17:21:05 <kalev> thanks 17:22:44 <sgallagh> Anything else? 17:23:10 <kalev> nothing from me 17:23:16 * nirik has nothing else off hand 17:24:34 <maxamillion> nodda here 17:24:41 <sgallagh> Thanks for coming, folks 17:24:45 <sgallagh> #endmeeting