<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:00
!startmeeting FESCO (2024-03-25)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:33:01
Meeting started at 2024-03-25 19:33:00 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:33:01
The Meeting name is 'FESCO (2024-03-25)'
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:33:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:33:12
Josh Stone (jistone) - he / him / his
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:33:14
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:33:15
David Cantrell (dcantrell) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:16
!meetingname fesco
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:23
Chairs: @conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @nirik:matrix.scrye.com, @humaton:fedora.im, @zbyszek:fedora.im, @sgallagh:fedora.im, @jistone:fedora.im, @dcantrell:fedora.im, @mhayden:fedora.im, @tstellar:fedora.im
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:28
!topic Init Process
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:33:31
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:33:32
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
19:34:22
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:34:23
Major Hayden (mhayden) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:34:39
I see 4… No quorum yet.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:34:41
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:34:42
Tom Stellard (tstellar)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:35:10
OK, we have quorum.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:35:13
!topic #3173 F40 Change Proposal Status: Incomplete Changes
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:35:18
!fesco 3173
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:35:18
**fesco #3173** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3173):**F40 Change Proposal Status: Incomplete Changes**
● **Opened:** a month ago by amoloney
● **Last Updated:** an hour ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:36:16
I need to rat myself out on something here :( between travel, some vacation time and a little bit of sickness, one change slipped through the cracks https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultBpfman
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:37:05
Ive reached out to the change owner to confirm if they would like to target F41 instead, or if this is still intended for F40 (if possible)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:38:04
The change *seems* like it should not disrupt the release if it does try to land in F40, but its your call if you feel this is just too late in the game to allow it
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
19:38:11
i apologise :(
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:18
!info https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultBpfman

<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:21
!info https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultBpfman
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:40
This change is actually about adding a package, so it can happen at any time.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:38:50
So I don't think there's anything for us to do here.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:39:30
what is the "default" part of it?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:39:36
A misnomer.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:41:27
!info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2269411
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:42:17
Right, it seems to be moving, albeit slowly.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:43:27
Any other comments? I think we should just let this one be.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:43:38
nothing from me
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:43:57
OK, next one.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:00
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258084
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
19:44:25
This one is effectively complete.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:28
AdamW wrote: LLVM 18 is basically done
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:29
Yeah.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:47
!info LLVM 18 is effectively complete.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:44:59
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258090
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:45:34
We're waiting for https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.6/pull-request/95 to land.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:45:43
But it looks like it could happen at any time.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:46:54
OK, I think we don't need to anything here.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:47:20
!info Removing Opessl 1.1 is waiting on a pull request for python2.7, which is almost ready.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:47:30
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260081
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:47:35
*python3.6
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:47:44
Oops, right.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:47:56
I think !undo doesn't work, so I won't even try.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:48:35
Conan Kudo: is not here…
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:48:45
He'd be the best person to talk about Kiwi.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:48:58
Adam said it's done though
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:25
!info Cloud image kiwification is done as of Beta.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:28
OK, great.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:40
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260082
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:49:55
There was reply from the Owner and I reassigned this to F41 today.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:50:12
OK, this is the 4 (5) changes that we know about. Anything else?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:51:27
So things seem to be progressing nicely…
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:51:37
!topic #3182 Change: Open SSL No Engine
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:51:43
!fesco 3182
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:51:43
**fesco #3182** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3182):**Change: Open SSL No Engine**
● **Opened:** 6 days ago by amoloney
● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
● **Assignee:** dbelyavs
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:52:28
We had (+1, 0, -2) in the ticket.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
19:53:46
I don't have anything additional to add, except my -1 vote as well
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:53:57
I don't see why it needs to happen *now*
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:54:44
but Stephen Gallagher isn't here to defend his +1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:55:29
Yeah, I don't see any reason why this should happen in Fedora earlier than the upstream.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:58:17
what about the contingency to only remove the header? so engine ABI is maintained, but no new builds on it
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:58:42
That's a terrible solution too.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:59:15
The next release of systemd has had code added to it that adds a dependency on engines.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
19:59:31
If we disable the headers, this code will need to be excised.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
19:59:55
fair enough, but hopefully that new code has a future plan...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:00:14
What we actually need, is for the providers to become a featureful replacement for engines. But we can't force this from within Fedora.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:01:58
We can vote here in or in the ticket… mhayden, Tom Stellard you didn't vote yet. Preference?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:02:48
-1 from me, since I didn't explicitly vote yet
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:02:53
I hadn't looked yet, but after an initial look now and zbyszek's comment about systemd, i'd lean -1
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:03:45
I'll vote 0.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:04:24
!agreed REJECTED (+1, 1, -5)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:04:54
!topic #3184 Possibility of Delaying Final Freeze Start Date
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:05:00
!fesco 3184
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:05:01
**fesco #3184** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3184):**Possibility of Delaying Final Freeze Start Date**
● **Opened:** 3 days ago by amoloney
● **Last Updated:** 6 hours ago
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:05:46
I'm -1 to delaying the freeze. I think you could even argue that there should just be one long freeze to begin with.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:06:28
Sorry for being late, folks.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:06:30
!hi
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:06:32
Aoife Moloney: Based on the discussion in the ticket, do you still think this is worth pursing?
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:06:32
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:06:43
Stephen Gallagher: welcome.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:07:09
For the record, I was intending to revise my vote from +1 to 0 on the OpenSSL issue.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:07:22
I'll note that on the ticket.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:07:34
That wouldn't change the outcome of the vote.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:07:47
I'm aware, but I don't need to defend a +1 in that case :)
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:07:56
no not really. Technically you could punt the decision till next weeks meeting when there would be more solid indicators of whether beta is going well or not to delay or not, but thats really just an arbitrary decision
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:08:05
But yeah, we can certainly adjust the tally.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:08:35
Tom Stellard: I've argued that point (one long Freeze) in the past and I've been convinced it's not worthwhile.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:09:01
There's value to allowing some open floodgates between Beta and GA Freeze
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:09:17
But it doesn't have to be long and I'm -1 to extending the schedule
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:09:51
PROPOSAL: the current approach where the Final Freeze is not delayed if Beta is delayed is kept.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:09:58
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:10:03
We don't need to vote to not change anything
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:10:05
fwiw
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:10:17
I think we need to vote on the proposal, one way or the other.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:10:25
hmm, my brain is parsing the logic in the proposed phrase, but it's getting stuck :)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:10:37
OK, let me reword this.
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:10:38
+1 to not voting.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:10:49
how about - the Final Freeze date will remain unchanged in the schedule at this time
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:10:52
Proposal: Delay the start of Final Freeze (and extend the delivery date by the same amount)
-1 from me
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:11:08
The proposed change is to extend. We are voting against it.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:11:09
-1 to Stephen Gallagher's proposal
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:11:32
-1 on extending
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:11:36
-1 to Stephen Gallagher proposal.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:11:46
We need to vote because we need to make a formal resolution.
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:11:47
-1 on extending for sure -- thanks for the clarification
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:12:01
(The phrasing matters because if we somehow had a tie or failed to meet quorum, rules state that the current status quo is maintained)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:12:08
dcantrell: vote?
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:12:28
Yeah, I just meant not voting on the zbyszek proposal.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:13
!agreed REJECTED (-5, 0, 0)
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:13:17
-1 on extending
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:20
!undo
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:13:26
Sorry had network issues therr
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:32
!agreed REJECTED (-6, 0, 0)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:13:44
Stephen Gallagher: thanks.
<@jflory7:fedora.im>
20:13:44
We need to add that back into Meetbot.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:14:02
Yeah, I just added that so that people reading the transcript can see it.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:14:15
!topic Next week's chair
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:14:19
Vlntrs?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:14:37
I can do it
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:14:54
!action Josh Stone will chair the next meeting.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:14:58
Thanks.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:15:05
!topic Open Floor
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:15:40
Just to note: next week is Easter Monday in many countries. Will we have quorum?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:16:10
Oh, right. It's a holiday for me too.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:16:23
Who will be here?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:16:34
(Or more precisely, who *could* be here?)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:16:35
I expect to be.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:16:41
I will
<@tstellar:fedora.im>
20:16:44
I'll be here.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:16:55
are we likely to need a decision about the Beta, at least?
<@mhayden:fedora.im>
20:16:57
I likely won't be here.
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:17:11
I'll be here
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:17:14
I guess I can make it if we hold the meeting…
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:17:15
Josh Stone: What sort of decision?
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:17:54
per Aoife Moloney 's comment, "Technically you could punt the decision till next weeks meeting when there would be more solid indicators of whether beta is going well or not to delay or not,"
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:18:15
ye rejected me ;)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:18:23
We chose not to punt. If anything comes up in the interrim, a new ticket could be raised with a FastTrack request
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:18:29
ok
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:18:59
But honestly, if things are going significantly awry, I'd probably vote to enter Freeze if only to keep the churn down
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:19:35
Aoife Moloney: We didn't *reject* you exactly. We still want to be friends :)
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:19:55
jflory7 gave a cookie to sgallagh. They now have 224 cookies, 12 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:19:56
mhayden has already given cookies to sgallagh during the F39 timeframe
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:20:05
I cant afford to lose any more so fine 🤣
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:20:07
mhayden has already given cookies to amoloney during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:20:23
jistone gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 32 cookies, 11 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:20:36
jflory7 has already given cookies to amoloney during the F39 timeframe
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
20:20:40
sgallagh gave a cookie to amoloney. They now have 33 cookies, 12 of which were obtained in the Fedora 39 release cycle
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:21:03
some of these FESCo people are cut-throat 🤪
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:21:24
!info We will try to hold the meeting April 1st, even though there are some worries about quorum because of the holidays.
<@jistone:fedora.im>
20:21:39
(no fools)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:22:05
Joke's on you! I'm *absolutely* a fool!
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:22:16
OK, folks, any serious topics?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
20:22:26
Nothing from me
<@dcantrell:fedora.im>
20:22:46
Or me
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:22:51
I'll close in a minute if there's nothing else.
<@amoloney:fedora.im>
20:23:19
none from me either fwiw and thanks for the discussion this evening! Have a good rest of your Monday all!
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:23:31
Aoife Moloney: thanks for coming.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
20:23:38
!endmeeting