17:00:12 #startmeeting FESCO (2022-09-06) 17:00:12 Meeting started Tue Sep 6 17:00:12 2022 UTC. 17:00:12 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 17:00:12 The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions. 17:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2022-09-06)' 17:00:12 #meetingname fesco 17:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 17:00:12 #chair nirik, decathorpe, zbyszek, sgallagh, mhroncok, dcantrell, music, mhayden, Conan_Kudo, Pharaoh_Atem, Son_Goku, King_InuYasha, Sir_Gallantmon, Eighth_Doctor 17:00:12 #topic init process 17:00:12 Current chairs: Conan_Kudo Eighth_Doctor King_InuYasha Pharaoh_Atem Sir_Gallantmon Son_Goku dcantrell decathorpe mhayden mhroncok music nirik sgallagh zbyszek 17:00:24 .hello mhayden 17:00:25 mhayden: mhayden 'Major Hayden' 17:00:35 .hi 17:00:36 morning everyone 17:00:36 decathorpe: decathorpe 'Fabio Valentini' 17:00:46 .hello ngompa 17:00:47 Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 17:01:04 .hello2 17:01:05 dcantrell: dcantrell 'David Cantrell' 17:01:08 .hello churchyard 17:01:09 mhroncok: churchyard 'Miro Hrončok' 17:01:21 .hello gotmax23 17:01:24 gotmax[m]: gotmax23 'Maxwell G' 17:01:53 lets wait just a minute or so more for any other folks. 17:02:48 .hi 17:02:49 salimma: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' 17:02:53 .hello2 17:02:54 bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' 17:03:15 ok, lets go ahead and get started. ;) 17:03:23 👋 17:03:25 #topic #2859 F37 incomplete Changes: 100% complete deadline 17:03:25 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2859 17:03:42 .hi 17:03:43 sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' 17:03:59 so lets see.... 17:04:46 do we want to go thru these one by one? just give more time? 17:05:34 or punt all incomplete ones to f38 and do contingency? 17:05:42 nromally, we go one by one for the system ones 17:05:57 doesn't look too bad this time 17:06:19 ok, lets do that then... 17:06:23 however, I propose that the system wide changes with beta freeze contingency deadline should be defered 17:06:31 ah, ok. 17:06:31 but we should check if they ar enot in fact done 17:06:36 s/ar/are/, s/enot/not/ 17:06:59 LegacyXorgDriverRemoval 17:07:49 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xorg-x11-server/commits/rawhide does not indicate any change 17:07:57 I don't see anything that looks like this in those commits. 17:07:58 yeah. 17:08:00 drop_NIS_support_from_PAM 17:08:18 "Adapt the pam spec file to build without support for NIS(+)." 17:08:34 i'm beginning to wonder if we should start the nonresponsive maintainer process for besser82 :/ 17:08:41 I see no relevant commits in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pam/commits/rawhide 17:08:41 yeah.... 17:08:47 I haven't seen Bjorn around in a while 17:09:09 hopefully he's just busy. 17:09:14 retire_NIS_user_space_utils 17:09:29 listed packages were not retired 17:09:35 I think if the pam change hasn't happened, the userspace ones didn't either 17:09:35 JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic 17:09:58 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-latest-openjdk/pull-request/98#request_diff was merged 17:10:27 side note: I think the Xorg Legacy Driver removal happened ... I don't see vesa_drv.so or fbdev_drv.so files here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=31373185 17:11:04 they are in their own packages I thought? 17:11:28 Fabio Valentini: but do you see them in f36? 17:11:38 I am nto sure how to check the Java thing properly 17:11:51 xorg-x11-drv-vesa ? xorg-x11-drv-fbdev 17:12:05 that's what I thought too 17:12:16 common denominator of all the change proposals is that the How To Test section gves no cle about how to test if this happeened :( 17:12:18 oh, nirik is right. 17:12:21 yeah, not sure on java. 17:12:29 the description in the Change page is wrong then. 17:12:37 The last one is Cloud Editon... 17:12:59 decathorpe: well, I think the change is removing the support code in the server to even open those? 17:13:30 or I can'T read. 17:13:31 * common denominator of all the change proposals is that the How To Test section gives no clue about how to test if this happened :( 17:13:47 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/java-17-openjdk/c/b6fe10006550dde2aee2763c06dd2f0143850dfa?branch=rawhide 5 days ago 17:13:48 davdunc: ping 17:13:48 Eighth_Doctor: Ping with data, please: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_naked_pings 17:13:57 .hello2 17:13:57 davdunc[m: Error: Missing "]". You may want to quote your arguments with double quotes in order to prevent extra brackets from being evaluated as nested commands. 17:14:19 Java seem to have only happened in rawhide 17:14:25 mhroncok: good find. 17:14:42 zodbot has a syntax error, it seems 17:15:12 .hello2 17:15:12 Hence, I propose that the system wide changes with beta freeze contingency deadline should be deferred to F38 17:15:12 davdunc: davdunc 'David Duncan' 17:15:16 there. 17:15:18 it's because [ ] is a 'expand this' call to supybot, and davdunc[m's nick doesn't match closing ] 17:15:26 that is all listed System-Wide Changes except Return Cloud Base to Edition Status 17:15:51 You just need `.hello davdunc` 17:15:57 If you're using Matrix 17:16:00 mhroncok: +1 17:16:15 ah. I just make sure my Matrix is always mapped to a valid IRC nick :) 17:16:19 mhroncok: +1 17:16:32 :) thanks gotmax[m] I just need to fix my nick, but yes. That's a good workaround. 17:16:48 that's why I use `.hello ngompa` 17:16:49 davdunc: what can you tell us about the Cloud Edition status change? are websites/docs updated? not sure what else there was to do there. 17:16:59 also for a while, it couldn't read my nick map :) 17:17:20 I still have [m] in my Matrix nick, because I occasionally use IRC 17:17:48 nirik: we have updated some docs for the project and we have more to do. We have a guidelines document from mhayden that's in review now. 17:17:53 gotmax (He/Him): you can have multiple Libera nicks grouped together - and FAS let you register three nicks 17:17:55 LLVM-15 has condingency at FinalFreeze - punt 17:18:13 Michel Alexandre Salim 🎩: you can have way more than 3 :) 17:18:19 davdunc: yeah, we probably need a mini-hackfest to run through the remaining items 17:18:25 * davdunc I have been working with the websites group to determine what I need to do for the updates and I have not been given any additional tasks to complete. 17:18:31 IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild has contingency deadline: Beta -- I propose if this land in beta, it lands in F37, else it is defered to F38 17:18:32 discussion of nicks in FAS are probably off-topic for this meeting 17:18:57 mhayden: I'd like that 17:19:23 mhroncok: seems reasonable. I know there's been activity on this, but I am not sure what the current status is. 17:19:31 and Preset_All_Systemd_Units_on_First_Boot says "This can be done at any time up to the release." but I'd rather do it in beta and not later 17:19:47 but, let's vote on the system wide proposal? 17:19:57 mhroncok: so, then, proposal is: 17:20:16 I count +3 nirik Fabio Valentini and me 17:20:49 All incomplete changes except Cloud Edition and IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild are deferred to f38 and should execute any contingency plans they have (if needed). 17:21:13 mhroncok: +1 17:21:28 +1 here, too 17:21:52 ok, thats enough to pass... other votes? 17:22:40 #agreed All incomplete changes except Cloud as Edition and IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild are deferred to f38 and should execute any contingency plans they have (if needed). (+5,0,0) 17:22:46 nono 17:22:46 +1 17:22:50 no? 17:22:52 LLVM 17:22:53 #undo 17:22:53 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by nirik at 17:22:40 : All incomplete changes except Cloud as Edition and IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild are deferred to f38 and should execute any contingency plans they have (if needed). (+5,0,0) 17:23:16 The proposal was: "the system wide changes with beta freeze contingency deadline should be deferred to F38" 17:23:17 #agreed All incomplete changes except Cloud as Edition, IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild and LLVM15 are deferred to f38 and should execute any contingency plans they have (if needed). (+5,0,0) 17:23:27 #undo 17:23:27 Removing item from minutes: AGREED by nirik at 17:23:17 : All incomplete changes except Cloud as Edition, IoTArtifactsWithOSBuild and LLVM15 are deferred to f38 and should execute any contingency plans they have (if needed). (+5,0,0) 17:23:32 that would include the IoTArtifacts one too, right? 17:23:32 for the self contained ones I have yet to spell it 17:23:45 * nirik sighs 17:24:14 so, if thats the proposal, I am not sure I am +1 to it. 17:24:24 If you want one unified statement, gimme a sec 17:24:33 did we not want to give Return Cloud to Edition status more time? 17:25:12 the Edition status one is largely paperwork and marketing 17:25:17 rather than any code work 17:25:19 right. 17:25:45 also I suppose if davdunc has no action items left it could just be marked on qa? 17:26:05 LegacyXorgDriverRemoval, Drop NIS(+) support from PAM, Retire the NIS(+) user-space utility programs and Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib system-wide changes are defered to F38. Return Cloud Base to Edition Status and LLVM 15 still have time to land in F37. Build Fedora IoT artifacts with osbuild and Preset all systemd units on first boot can land in Fedora 37 only if they make it to the beta 17:26:05 release, otherwise they are deferred to Fedora 38. 17:26:32 I think I am good for now, but will keep up the momentum. 17:26:47 we can veote individually, if anything in there is controversial 17:27:09 one kind of side point.. iot actually releases on it's own schedule. It's not built with the rest of beta... so their beta is when they say it is and qa tests it... 17:27:11 s/veote/vote/ 17:27:34 I'm +1 to that proposal 17:27:43 Sounds good to me 17:28:03 * Eighth_Doctor sighs 17:28:29 how did that get allowed? 17:28:36 we pushed back on CoreOS specifically because of the problems doing that causes 17:30:10 my understanding is that IoT releases on its own compose, but not its own schedule 17:30:20 okay, that makes more sense 17:30:21 that's basically what CoreOS does too 17:30:53 lack of visibility aside, as long as they're aligned on our schedule, then it's mostly fine 17:30:57 I'm not sure I have time or energy to find references right now. 17:31:37 anyhow, votes? 17:31:49 we have spent 30min on this and have a number of other items. ;( 17:33:54 is this still on? 17:34:07 I am not sure 17:34:38 so, I see +3... mhroncok, decathorpe and me... 17:34:50 +1 17:35:10 I think so? 17:35:56 #agreed LegacyXorgDriverRemoval, Drop NIS(+) support from PAM, Retire the NIS(+) user-space utility programs and Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib system-wide changes are defered to F38. Return Cloud Base to Edition Status and LLVM 15 still have time to land in F37. Build Fedora IoT artifacts with osbuild and Preset all systemd units on first boot can land in Fedora 37 only if they make it to the beta 17:35:56 release, otherwise they are deferred to Fedora 38. (+5,0,0) 17:36:04 Weren't you going to vote for delaying each Change individually? 17:36:36 only if something was controversial? 17:37:08 I have no idea. i posted a proposal. Only @nirik voted 17:37:24 if you folks really want to vote individually, be explicit about it 17:37:47 Looks like matrix <->irc is lagging or something 17:37:47 mhroncok has good list comprehension. :) 17:38:13 :) 17:38:21 * gotmax[m] sighs 17:38:27 anyhow, accepted... lets move on 17:38:31 #topic #2857 Change proposal: Minizip Renaming 17:38:31 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2857 17:39:05 it's just dropping irc stuff randomly. ;( 17:39:10 #2857 Change proposal: Minizip Renaming 17:39:10 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2857 17:39:35 Wait I don't think there was an `#agreed` for mhroncok revised proposal 17:39:37 Change owners updated this. Does anyone want to discuss it? or just vote in ticket? 17:39:40 I am not sure what exactly was accepted, sorry 17:39:40 * for mhroncok's revised 17:40:06 Yes, there was. on irc. It's not showing up on matrix. 17:40:06 sorry, I might drop off, there's an insane thunderstorm going on right now 17:40:21 12:35:56 #agreed LegacyXorgDriverRemoval, Drop NIS(+) support from PAM, Retire the NIS(+) user-space utility programs and Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib system-wide changes are defered to F38. Return Cloud Base to Edition Status and LLVM 15 still have time to land in F37. Build Fedora IoT artifacts with osbuild and Preset all systemd units on first boot can land in Fedora 37 only if 17:40:21 they make it to the beta 17:40:21 12:35:56 release, otherwise they are deferred to Fedora 38. (+5,0,0) 17:40:45 +1 17:40:45 thanks and sorry for the confusion 17:41:13 https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-09-06/fesco.2022-09-06-17.00.log.txt is what zodbot 'sees' 17:41:49 https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-09-06/fesco.2022-09-06-17.00.log.txt is what zodbot sees 17:42:06 ok, perhaps it's back in sync now? 17:42:07 I don't think they amended the proposal 17:42:28 They just replied to zbyszek and my comments on the ML and asked what we thought 17:42:48 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/TQKOJ2453HU2HKB74S4V44YYBFOCVWZA/ 17:43:07 ok. Shall we just continue in ticket for this one? Or is there any discussion anyone would like to have? 17:43:51 Simply renaming minizip to minizip-compat is pretty benign 17:44:08 s/compat/ng/ 17:44:11 continue in ticket 17:44:29 #info continue discussion in ticket. 17:45:05 Probably a good idea to wait for a revised proposal 17:45:09 So, there's 2 changes that have 0 activity after 5 days, so I thought I would bring them up here in case anyone had thoughts. 17:45:26 #2862 Change: pcre deprecation 17:45:26 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2862 17:45:35 #topic #2862 Change: pcre deprecation 17:45:37 yeah 17:46:29 * nirik[m] waits for the bridge 17:46:41 * mhroncok was busy with other stuff, haven't yet read the proposal/feedback 17:47:29 I don't like the next retirement change, but meh on deprecating 17:47:45 deprecation is easy enough to implement 17:47:47 but I'm meh about the whole thing 17:47:48 yeah, this one seems ok, retirement... not so much 17:48:03 ok, so we can continue in ticket here too. 17:48:09 How likely is it for new packages to still use this? 17:48:21 somewhat likely 17:48:28 no telling. 17:48:40 I don't think we should block new packages just because the current maintainers don't want to maintain it 17:48:41 Plenty of other people expressed interest 17:49:02 I'm fine with that as well 17:49:05 right, if they don't have capacity, someone else could take it over... 17:49:54 #topic #2863 Change: libsoup 3: part two 17:49:54 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2863 17:50:08 this is the other change with no comments for a bit.. ;) 17:50:17 and if it's actually not easy to port to pcre2, then it becomes a bigger problem 17:50:41 If they don't have capacity to maintain pcre, how are they going to port 134 packages? 17:51:13 There's a lot of important stuff in that list 17:51:15 gotmax[m]: they aren't. They are going to file bugs asking maintainers/upstreams to do so 17:51:25 (at least my understanding is that) 17:51:39 I did my own query, because their's was inaccurate 17:51:56 the RHEL team has to maintain pcre for the next decade at least for security fixes 17:52:00 so there's that at least as a source for maintenance 17:52:21 if I could go back in time, I'd just ask upstream to not do libsoup3, all the fallout from these was so not worth it 17:53:08 > gotmax[m]: they aren't. They are going to file bugs asking maintainers/upstreams to do so 17:53:08 That's worse 17:54:22 worse than what? I'd guess a lot of those projects would be fine to move to pcre2... but also likely not on a timetable. 17:54:40 "We will remove libsoup 2 and all packages that still depend on it." that's rather harsh, isn't it? 17:54:43 this bridge lag is making it very difficult. 17:56:09 * mhroncok runs a --recursive repoquery for libsoup 17:56:33 nirik: Honestly, I don't know what I meant by that... 17:56:53 how about we keep discussing this one on list/ticket also... and go to the last issue... 17:57:08 dnf repoquery --whatrequires libsoup --latest-limit 1 --arch 'noarch,x86_64' --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo=rawhide --recursive | wc -l 17:57:14 1407 17:57:22 * gotmax[m] urges nirik to come over to the dark side 17:58:00 #topic #2864 Firejail needs a new maintainer 17:58:00 https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2864 17:58:05 I'll just leave this here. the bridge thing makes this meeting quite exhausting and I need to leave in 3 minutes anyway 17:58:08 gotmax (He/Him): I am here, but unless everyone is on this side... 😉 17:58:23 the whole libsoup thing was a terrible idea 18:00:11 So, on this the maintainer answered on aug 24th... so they are sometimes active. I guess we ping them in the ticket there ? 18:00:12 Not sure what we can do about Firejail except ask the maintainer nicely to orphan it 18:00:12 I'm not sure what there really is to do here. Tell them to initiate the nonresponsive maintainer process? 18:00:35 I think they did... the bug filed has an answer from them tho 18:00:49 so, I guess lets ping them again and see what happens. 18:01:14 #topic Next Weeks Chair 18:01:28 who on earth wants to deal with this bridge laggy mess next week? 18:01:43 ok folks, sorry, but I need to go. see you later 18:02:22 I have to go as well 18:02:22 .hello music 18:02:22 Looks like someone started it in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120977 but never continued 18:02:22 music[m]: music 'Benjamin Beasley' 18:02:34 Popping in late, and briefly 18:03:19 Since the firejail maintainer agreed in principle to give someone the package, it seems like the firejail request is really “Please find someone to do the work.” 18:03:38 yeah, so we could ask the devel list if anyone wants it... 18:04:42 anyone for chair next time? pretty please? 18:04:51 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120977#c6 18:05:28 I agree, advising a devel list plea for a maintainer is the best response. 18:05:58 No needs for that. This is why we have the orphaning process. 18:06:43 sure, but the user wants the update/fixes... asking explicitly for a new maintainer would get that faster than just waiting a week or two for anyone to notice it in the oprhan report 18:08:47 I guess. A PP can also merge a PR. 18:09:08 sure. 18:09:54 ok, I guess I am stuck with it next week too then... 18:10:00 #info nirik to chair again 18:10:05 #topic Open Floor 18:11:40 It's pretty open as most of the people had to go... 18:11:45 yeah. 18:11:58 so, lets end this doomed thing. ;) 18:12:01 #endmeeting