2025-04-01 17:01:10 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !startmeeting FESCo (2025-04-01)
2025-04-01 17:01:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-04-01 17:01:10 UTC
2025-04-01 17:01:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'FESCo (2025-04-01)'
2025-04-01 17:01:23 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !meetingname fesco
2025-04-01 17:01:23 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now fesco
2025-04-01 17:01:33 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Chairs: @conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @nirik:matrix.scrye.com, @humaton:fedora.im, @zbyszek:fedora.im, @sgallagh:fedora.im, @fale:fale.io, @dcantrell:fedora.im, @decathorpe:fedora.im, @salimma:fedora.im
2025-04-01 17:01:42 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Roll Call
2025-04-01 17:02:04 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-01 17:02:05 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
2025-04-01 17:02:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-04-01 17:02:15 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 'evening ;)
2025-04-01 17:02:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> !hi
2025-04-01 17:02:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
2025-04-01 17:02:41 <@salimma:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-01 17:02:43 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
2025-04-01 17:02:58 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC-6: you don't get bonus points for being early :)
2025-04-01 17:03:01 <@salimma:fedora.im> TFW when you're just a bit late you preemptively hi-ed and then realized the meeting has not started
2025-04-01 17:03:16 <@humaton:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-01 17:03:17 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
2025-04-01 17:04:27 <@emma:rory.gay> sounds like its time to attach a broom to that stick then :p
2025-04-01 17:04:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> !hi
2025-04-01 17:04:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
2025-04-01 17:05:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ok, it's :05 and we are seven, so we have quorum. Fale can join us later when no longer stick in traffic
2025-04-01 17:05:52 <@emma:rory.gay> (dont count me)
2025-04-01 17:05:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/PUJKSYSMP5QZ4L4LRYJZ3CJIYMUSJRYQ/
2025-04-01 17:06:01 <@emma:rory.gay> (dont count me, i just wanted to play my joke)
2025-04-01 17:06:08 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> link to today's agenda, for convenience.
2025-04-01 17:06:28 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic #3364 F42 Incomplete Changes Report
2025-04-01 17:06:37 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !fesco 3364
2025-04-01 17:06:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
2025-04-01 17:06:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3364** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3364):**F42 Incomplete Changes Report**
2025-04-01 17:06:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:06:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** a month ago by amoloney
2025-04-01 17:06:38 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
2025-04-01 17:06:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> just making sure we didn't miss anything.
2025-04-01 17:07:12 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I think we completed that list two weeks ago.
2025-04-01 17:07:12 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> nirik: we'll get you up to speed in no time 
2025-04-01 17:07:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> So if nothing degenerated since then, we should be fine.
2025-04-01 17:08:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Anaconda as native Wayland application
2025-04-01 17:08:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:08:00 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> is still MODIFIED, is that OK?
2025-04-01 17:08:21 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> same as "Anaconda WebUI Partitioning", but they're ... overlapping anyway
2025-04-01 17:08:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think that's a clerical error. It's definitely testable at this point.
2025-04-01 17:08:56 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Effectively, if nobody has filed for activation of contingency plans, we can probably ignore this.
2025-04-01 17:09:01 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, that should be done/QA
2025-04-01 17:09:05 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ah, right, the tracker bugs are now both ON_QA.
2025-04-01 17:09:25 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:09:25 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> this one was dropped?
2025-04-01 17:09:25 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Reduce the amount of "dontaudit" rules pertaining to unlabeled_t
2025-04-01 17:09:57 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> moved to 43 I think
2025-04-01 17:10:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Idris 2
2025-04-01 17:10:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:10:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> still in progress?
2025-04-01 17:10:26 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> Ack, the change 'Reduce the amount of "dontaudit" rules pertaining to unlabeled_t' has now been updated to F43.
2025-04-01 17:10:53 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:10:53 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I have seen Jens build stuff, so this is in progress too
2025-04-01 17:10:53 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Haskell GHC 9.8 and Stackage 23
2025-04-01 17:11:30 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> zezere and bpfman are done too.
2025-04-01 17:11:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> so I think we're all good
2025-04-01 17:11:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> the idris2 is still pending review. I think we should defer it to 43 at this point
2025-04-01 17:11:56 <@salimma:fedora.im> bpfman status should be changed to ON_QA probably right
2025-04-01 17:12:39 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> idris2 is a new langue stack, so it can be added at any point… I don't think it makes sense to *not* add in F42 if it becomes ready within a month or two.
2025-04-01 17:12:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > Review Request: idris2
2025-04-01 17:13:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> this looks parallel-installable, so I don't think it needs to be re-targeted *yet*
2025-04-01 17:13:32 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yes, they can add it, but let’s defer announcement to 43 at this point. 
2025-04-01 17:13:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> right, it would be odd to have it a approved change.. and not be there.
2025-04-01 17:13:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Since we are post-Beta now
2025-04-01 17:13:53 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we are in final freeze now.
2025-04-01 17:14:14 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah, but it wouldn't be on the installation images anyway. 
2025-04-01 17:14:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> So if it appears before the Release, that should be fine, no?
2025-04-01 17:14:50 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I guess... but are we going to check and fix it if it does not?
2025-04-01 17:14:50 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I think it's 90% done, so it's likely that it'll be ready before the official release date.
2025-04-01 17:15:11 <@salimma:fedora.im> *nods* if it's in updates-testing and available once we unfreeze I think that's good enough?
2025-04-01 17:15:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Proposal: Re-target Idris 2 Change Proposal to Fedora 43 if the package has not been imported by next week (April 8)
2025-04-01 17:15:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, it would still be a bit odd to me to not be in the base repos... but sure.
2025-04-01 17:15:51 <@salimma:fedora.im> we should make sure Jens is aware so this does not get accidentally dropped
2025-04-01 17:16:14 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> since it's a new package, adding it via FE would be straightforward, though
2025-04-01 17:16:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 to that proposal
2025-04-01 17:16:16 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: -1
2025-04-01 17:16:16 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Can we reword?
2025-04-01 17:16:29 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> NEVER
2025-04-01 17:16:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> if there is time...
2025-04-01 17:16:47 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it might be it gets a FE, but we don't need to do any more RC's...
2025-04-01 17:17:20 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Hmm, when are we planning to release?
2025-04-01 17:17:27 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> it's just anoying to deal with all this when we are supposed to be frozen/trying to release. ;) But sure, I'm ok giving another week
2025-04-01 17:17:28 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> current final target date is April 15
2025-04-01 17:17:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Counter-proposal: The Idris 2 Change is deferred to Fedora 43. It may still be delivered in Fedora 42, but there will be no announcements and it will be considered "experimental".
2025-04-01 17:17:43 <@salimma:fedora.im> !link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-42/f-42-key-tasks.html
2025-04-01 17:17:48 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> which means go/nogo has to be go on the 10th
2025-04-01 17:17:56 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Counter-proposal: The Idris 2 Change is deferred to Fedora 43. It may still be delivered in Fedora 42 post-GA, but there will be no announcements and it will be considered "experimental".
2025-04-01 17:17:58 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> which means we need a rc by the 7th/8thish
2025-04-01 17:18:32 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ok, this is tighter than I thought, so landing via FE is unlikely, true 
2025-04-01 17:18:59 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I don't think we'd allow a FE for it anyway. It doesn't check any of the required boxes.
2025-04-01 17:19:21 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Why can't we make the deadline the release date?
2025-04-01 17:19:36 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> If the release slips, it's fine if the package comes in a week later.
2025-04-01 17:19:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> zbyszek: I don't like the idea of us advertising new features that had zero soak time in Beta
2025-04-01 17:20:17 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> If we were discussing "we shipped an RC in Beta and we want to land the GA release in our GA", that would be different.
2025-04-01 17:20:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I worry about reviewers... "this change was listed, but I can't find the package? I wonder what went wrong"
2025-04-01 17:20:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah it's not a good look
2025-04-01 17:21:22 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, so I'll be +1 to Fabio Valentini 's proposal
2025-04-01 17:21:23 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> So I'm open to allowing it to land as normal package additions in F42 post-GA, and we announce it as a major feature of F43 once it's had time to marinate a bit
2025-04-01 17:21:39 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> makes sense to me
2025-04-01 17:21:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-04-01 17:21:55 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, given the lack of status updates that's probably better anyway
2025-04-01 17:22:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'm still -1 to allowing it in this late.
2025-04-01 17:22:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> *orderrrr*
2025-04-01 17:22:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (in to the frozen repo and announcements, I mean)
2025-04-01 17:22:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: you were +1 to Stephen or to my proposal?
2025-04-01 17:23:10 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> frozen repo, yes, this is late, but announcement should be fine if it's in "updates" or "testing" repos, I think 
2025-04-01 17:23:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yours
2025-04-01 17:23:50 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't feel too strongly one way or another, but I do feel the change should move if it's not in the frozen repo
2025-04-01 17:24:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> either we let it in this week or we push it off to f43
2025-04-01 17:24:11 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: That sounds more like my proposal than his, then
2025-04-01 17:24:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> fesco can do 'fesco blockers'... perhaps this should be a 'fesco freeze exception' :)
2025-04-01 17:24:35 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We're already in GA Freeze and we're unlikely to grant it a Freeze Exception
2025-04-01 17:24:56 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> New proposal: This Change is Re-targeted at Fedora 43, but the package can still land in Fedora 42 as a normal "newpackage" update at any time.
2025-04-01 17:25:02 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 17:25:39 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: That's my proposal, rephrased isn't it?
2025-04-01 17:25:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: mostly, yes
2025-04-01 17:26:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think I'm missing the distinction
2025-04-01 17:26:12 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> except for not calling it "experimental", which seems unnecessary.
2025-04-01 17:26:39 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I can live with that. +1 to Fabio's latest proposal
2025-04-01 17:26:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I am saying we as fesco could just do that... but sounds like most of us just think it should move to 43 at this point
2025-04-01 17:26:47 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> 0
2025-04-01 17:28:28 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1 to Fabio's latest proposal
2025-04-01 17:28:57 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: I don't know much about Idris 2, but I feel like that sort of action would be best reserved for us deciding that we needed to bend the rules to be first-to-market on a particular new tech. Is this important enough to do that?
2025-04-01 17:29:04 <@humaton:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 17:29:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> (Though, realistically I feel like we'd call for it to be a blocker in that case)
2025-04-01 17:29:57 <@fale:fale.io> +1
2025-04-01 17:30:21 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yes, that would be a blocker, FE means it doesn't have to be added if QE doesn't request it, or if there's no RC for other blockery reasons.
2025-04-01 17:30:43 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: https://repology.org/project/idris2/versions says it's not widely available yet.
2025-04-01 17:30:45 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> so we are at (+6, 1, -0) if I'm counting correctly (with me +1 to my own proposal) 
2025-04-01 17:31:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> any objections?
2025-04-01 17:31:51 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> nirik: OK, do you want to make a pitch for us to treat it as a blocker?
2025-04-01 17:32:45 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-04-01 17:32:50 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> no, thats not what I was suggesting. ;)
2025-04-01 17:33:13 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> err, my +1 was to Fabio's proposal
2025-04-01 17:33:16 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I was saying we could treat it as a FE... but I'll stop because we already decided something else. ;)
2025-04-01 17:33:27 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> indeed
2025-04-01 17:33:38 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !agreed The Idris 2 Change Proposal is re-targeted at Fedora 43, but the package can still land in Fedora 42 as a normal "newpackage" update at any time. (+7, 1, -0)
2025-04-01 17:34:03 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Sorry, I think I skipped a step in my thought process. I was arguing that we should leave FEs to the normal process and that the case where FESCo REALLY wants something to land would imply a blocker, not an FE. So "FESCo FE" doesn't really make sense to me.
2025-04-01 17:34:03 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !info All other previously-incomplete Changes for Fedora 42 are either complete, testable, or in-progress.
2025-04-01 17:35:06 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I'll add a summary of what we discussed to the ticket and let Aoife Moloney know that the Idris 2 change needs to be modified for 42 -> 43.
2025-04-01 17:35:14 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Anything else to add to this topic?
2025-04-01 17:36:14 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: A moment of appreciation for your patient handling of my nitpicking? :)
2025-04-01 17:36:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> let's move on then :)
2025-04-01 17:36:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Change: Fix limitations in gpgverify
2025-04-01 17:36:45 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !fesco 3373
2025-04-01 17:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** rombobeorn
2025-04-01 17:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
2025-04-01 17:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by amoloney
2025-04-01 17:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:36:46 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3373** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3373):**Change: Fix limitations in gpgverify**
2025-04-01 17:37:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Conan Kudo: I think you asked for changes here? I counted your "I don't like it this way" as a negative vote ;)
2025-04-01 17:37:36 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yeah
2025-04-01 17:37:36 <@rombobeorn:fedora.im> As I wrote before, I can make a gpgverify package if that's preferred. Is the choice between redhat-rpm-config and a separate package a thing for Fesco to vote on?
2025-04-01 17:38:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> not directly, no, but we try to find consensus, and the Change might not be approved in one form but not in the other
2025-04-01 17:38:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> not directly, no, but we try to find consensus, and the Change might get approved in one form but not in the other
2025-04-01 17:38:58 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and as one of the redhat-rpm-config maintainers, I feel the complexity has reached a point where it should be split out
2025-04-01 17:39:02 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> FWIW I would also prefer a separate package. there is already too much stuff in redhat-rpm-config, and it makes maintenance hard 
2025-04-01 17:39:03 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I don't think we want to have thousands of tiny packages for various bits.
2025-04-01 17:39:15 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> We have a hard time updating and maintaining the bits that we have.
2025-04-01 17:39:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> given one of the maintainer of redhat-rpm-config suggests making it a separate package, and has good reasons for doing that, I'm leaning to deferring to their call
2025-04-01 17:39:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yes, because right now, everything needs to go through overloaded redhat-rpm-config maintainers :)
2025-04-01 17:39:43 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> And every such "package" that'll see an update may once a year or every to years is increased potential for bitrot.
2025-04-01 17:40:01 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sure, but in this case the "overloaded maintainers" are just creating work.
2025-04-01 17:40:14 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> This could have been merged months ago.
2025-04-01 17:40:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the bitrot argument doesn't change whether its in a separate package or in redhat-rpm-config
2025-04-01 17:40:24 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> It definitely changes things.
2025-04-01 17:40:38 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> If it in the main package, people will look at it while looking at other things.
2025-04-01 17:40:51 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> people don't look over it now _generally_
2025-04-01 17:40:54 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> If the tests start failing, they will fix them to get other things done.
2025-04-01 17:41:30 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the fact that it is a program with tests and that sort of thing means it's reached a level of complexity that it should stand on its own
2025-04-01 17:41:44 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> not to mention I do expect it to change over time because of the gradual move away from GnuPG in Fedora
2025-04-01 17:41:57 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Nah, with that rule we'd need to split out every little script that is properly developed.
2025-04-01 17:42:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> Maybe I should...
2025-04-01 17:42:42 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> the kernel and kmod packaging macros were split out from redhat-rpm-config for similar reasons a few years ago
2025-04-01 17:43:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and we continually have problems with stuff in redhat-rpm-config because of how the Fedora->ELN->CentOS Stream flow is done
2025-04-01 17:43:41 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> and despite my best efforts to get the CentOS/RHEL folks to fix it, it's still a mess
2025-04-01 17:44:08 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> so no, I disagree that we should keep gpgverify in redhat-rpm-config if it's become more sophisticated
2025-04-01 17:44:23 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Anyway, this is not something that is worth arguing too much, if Björn Persson is willing to make it a separate package.
2025-04-01 17:46:42 <@fale:fale.io> +1
2025-04-01 17:46:43 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I'm prepared to add `Requires: (gpgverify if gnupg2)` to redhat-rpm-config once it's done
2025-04-01 17:46:56 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> PROPOSAL: Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package.
2025-04-01 17:46:56 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, then:
2025-04-01 17:47:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-04-01 17:47:16 <@humaton:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 17:47:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 17:47:36 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> 0
2025-04-01 17:48:12 <@rombobeorn:fedora.im> Shall I rewrite the change page to propose a separate package?
2025-04-01 17:48:28 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes, please.
2025-04-01 17:48:37 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Assuming that this does get approved.
2025-04-01 17:48:47 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> But we're at +5, 1, 0, so it should.
2025-04-01 17:48:52 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> that's putting the cart before the horse a bit, but meh
2025-04-01 17:49:14 <@rombobeorn:fedora.im> Or I can rewrite the change page to list alternative implementations with pros and cons, and then you guys choose one.
2025-04-01 17:49:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> let's just say "the Change Proposal will be reworked and we will discuss it again once it's ready"?
2025-04-01 17:50:08 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, I guess that's better.
2025-04-01 17:50:19 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Sorry, so I withdraw the earlier proposal.
2025-04-01 17:50:27 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1 to Fabio Valentini 
2025-04-01 17:50:37 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> We just approved it contingent upon it being made a separate package
2025-04-01 17:50:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (also, fwiw, I know other distros have been copying gpgverify into their things, so having it as a separate package also means everyone can share it rather than doing weird forks)
2025-04-01 17:50:53 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I think Björn Persson can just update the Change to match, at this point
2025-04-01 17:51:04 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> OK, sorry, I'll just shut up then.
2025-04-01 17:51:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> fwiw I don't like "forcing" people to do work "by vote"
2025-04-01 17:51:50 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: but in this case Bjorn explicitly said that it's OK, so I don't think we're forcing anything.
2025-04-01 17:52:58 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> that's not what I read, but my English reading comprehension is not on native speaker level either ;)
2025-04-01 17:54:18 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > As I wrote before, I can make a gpgverify package if that's preferred. 
2025-04-01 17:54:40 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> and
2025-04-01 17:54:42 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> > I'm prepared to add Requires: (gpgverify if gnupg2) to redhat-rpm-config once it's done
2025-04-01 17:54:51 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> (from Neal)
2025-04-01 17:55:05 <@rombobeorn:fedora.im> I offered to do the work. I just want to know how you guys want it done. It's true that it's more work with the review process and all, but I'm willing to do it to get this fixed.
2025-04-01 17:55:31 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Björn Persson: thank you for making this explicit
2025-04-01 17:55:47 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> then I am +1 to zbyszek's proposal.
2025-04-01 17:56:19 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> just ping me once the review request bug is made and I'll take it
2025-04-01 17:56:27 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> we can get it done fairly quickly
2025-04-01 17:57:17 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> proposed !agreed Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package. (+6, 1, -0)
2025-04-01 17:57:28 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ... ack?
2025-04-01 17:57:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I didn't think we did proposed flow in fesco meetings
2025-04-01 17:57:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I just copied it again to make sure I didn't make any mistakes :)
2025-04-01 17:58:03 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> ah okay
2025-04-01 17:58:07 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> lgtm
2025-04-01 17:58:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !agreed Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package. (+6, 1, -0)
2025-04-01 17:58:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !info The Change Proposal document will be updated accordingly.
2025-04-01 17:58:36 <@rombobeorn:fedora.im> OK, I'll get to work then.
2025-04-01 17:58:45 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> thanks Björn Persson for being here!
2025-04-01 17:59:44 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Change: Disabling Support of buidling OpenSSL engines
2025-04-01 17:59:50 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !fesco 3375
2025-04-01 17:59:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by amoloney
2025-04-01 17:59:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3375** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3375):**Change: Disabling Support of buidling OpenSSL engines**
2025-04-01 17:59:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 17:59:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** dbelyavs
2025-04-01 17:59:51 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
2025-04-01 17:59:55 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> is this a quick one? :)
2025-04-01 18:00:00 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yes.
2025-04-01 18:00:04 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I think we all agree to reject it
2025-04-01 18:00:21 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> We were -6 in the ticket.
2025-04-01 18:00:45 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I did have a proposal in the ticket that we should discuss
2025-04-01 18:00:57 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> To help the security team with planning
2025-04-01 18:01:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> > we won't accept a removal of OpenSSL Engines ahead of at least a Beta (or equivalent prerelease) of OpenSSL 4.0 where upstream has made the same removal.
2025-04-01 18:01:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 18:01:24 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> from https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3375#comment-961671
2025-04-01 18:01:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I think this is reasonable.
2025-04-01 18:01:59 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah, I think this will save time down the line and set expectations
2025-04-01 18:02:12 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I understand why they want to push this, but... yeah....
2025-04-01 18:02:16 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> yup
2025-04-01 18:02:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> does anybody who hasn't voted in the ticket want to vote now, or is anybody tempted to change their in-ticket vote now?
2025-04-01 18:02:49 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> The OpenSSL 4.0 release doesn't actually have a date yet that I can find. It's an *eventual* plan.
2025-04-01 18:03:14 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> To be honest, I don't. It's extremely premature, and breaking everyone for the sake of it when nobody knows when OpenSSL 4.0 is even going to happen is not sensible to me.
2025-04-01 18:03:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> It would be different if there was a timeline.
2025-04-01 18:04:04 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> well, it's gonna break... I think they want (slow moving) upstreams to move
2025-04-01 18:04:51 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> They want to use Fedora as a lever to move that boulder. I can understand that, but I don't like being the fulcrum they're pushing against
2025-04-01 18:05:27 <@salimma:fedora.im> yeah. we want to shake the mistaken assumption that "we're just the beta for RHEL"
2025-04-01 18:05:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: I think silence is consent to your last question
2025-04-01 18:05:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> (not mentioning that breaking builds but keeping packages installable is *bad*, since it doesn't allow shipping updates for those packages)
2025-04-01 18:05:40 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> And the range of things that break makes it even more painful.
2025-04-01 18:05:43 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Proposal: FESCo rejects this Change Proposal, and requests that OpenSSL Engine functionality is not dropped eariler than the OpenSSL (pre-)release where this functionality is dropped upstream.
2025-04-01 18:05:46 <@fale:fale.io> +1
2025-04-01 18:06:05 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Michel Lind UTC-6: Right? We're also the Beta for Amazon Linux 😛
2025-04-01 18:06:05 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:06:11 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-04-01 18:06:35 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> (fix the typo when you get to !agreed)
2025-04-01 18:06:40 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:06:44 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Stephen Gallagher: is this positively worded? or still a vote on a negative? :D you are making me doubt myself 
2025-04-01 18:07:04 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> My bid for that got rejected, so 🤷
2025-04-01 18:07:09 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> +1
2025-04-01 18:07:13 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:07:31 <@humaton:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:07:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:08:06 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: I could rephrase it as "For the sake of scheduling, FESCo will not entertain a removal of OpenSSL Engine functionality earlier than a public prerelease of OpenSSL Upstream that also drops it".
2025-04-01 18:08:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Fabio Valentini: I could rephrase it as "For the sake of scheduling, FESCo will not entertain a removal of OpenSSL Engine functionality earlier than a public prerelease of OpenSSL upstream that also drops it".
2025-04-01 18:08:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> could or would?
2025-04-01 18:08:51 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> because I wouldn't, because we have already voted now ;)
2025-04-01 18:09:09 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Let's not get caught up with it. Your proposal was accepted and we know what it means.
2025-04-01 18:09:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !agreed FESCo rejects this Change Proposal, and requests that OpenSSL Engine functionality is not dropped earlier than the OpenSSL (pre-)release where this functionality is dropped upstream. (+8, 0, -0)
2025-04-01 18:09:40 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> *deep breath*
2025-04-01 18:09:40 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> (sorry for the long meeting, I will try to speed things up)
2025-04-01 18:10:49 <@fale:fale.io> nope :D
2025-04-01 18:11:01 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Fale: typing?
2025-04-01 18:11:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> meh, I thought you wanted to say something so I waited. nevermind then
2025-04-01 18:11:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Change: Java25 and No More System JDK
2025-04-01 18:11:36 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !fesco 3385
2025-04-01 18:11:49 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !fesco 3385
2025-04-01 18:12:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ah it's just pagure being DDoSd again
2025-04-01 18:12:23 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> or did I crash meetbot
2025-04-01 18:12:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> uh oh
2025-04-01 18:12:39 <@salimma:fedora.im> !fesco 3385
2025-04-01 18:12:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> **fesco #3385** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3385):**Change: Java25 And No More System JDK**
2025-04-01 18:12:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Opened:** 5 hours ago by amoloney
2025-04-01 18:12:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
2025-04-01 18:12:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> ● **Assignee:** jvanek
2025-04-01 18:12:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 18:12:47 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ah.
2025-04-01 18:12:52 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I don't understand this change
2025-04-01 18:13:14 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I don't understand it either. And the answers I got on the discussion thread just made it worse :)
2025-04-01 18:13:15 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> I've read it a few times and I still don't understand what's happening
2025-04-01 18:13:39 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I'm OK with punting this until next week, it's only on the agenda because I put a -1 vote on the ticket.
2025-04-01 18:14:00 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> another class C blocked. ;)
2025-04-01 18:14:14 <@salimma:fedora.im> I sense this is similar to what we were doing for Django - except they want to have both LTS and non LTS versions in Fedora
2025-04-01 18:14:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah.
2025-04-01 18:14:31 <@salimma:fedora.im> but yeah I think we should punt, I also find the description rather unclear
2025-04-01 18:14:40 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> perhaps we invite change owners next week?
2025-04-01 18:14:47 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> sure
2025-04-01 18:14:50 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> Yes, let's do that
2025-04-01 18:15:17 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Proposal: Discussion of this Change Proposal will happen next week, and Proposal Owner(s) will be invited to join.
2025-04-01 18:15:20 <@fale:fale.io> +1
2025-04-01 18:15:30 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:15:37 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yep. +1
2025-04-01 18:15:50 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> that gives you all some time to read the discussion thread, hopefully I'm not just there asking confused questions ;)#
2025-04-01 18:15:51 <@humaton:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:15:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:15:57 <@conan_kudo:matrix.org> +1
2025-04-01 18:16:26 <@salimma:fedora.im> +1
2025-04-01 18:17:30 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !agreed The "Java25 and No More System JDK" Change Proposal will be discussed at next week's FESCo meeting (April 8, 2025). The Proposal Owners are invited to join. (+7, 0, -0)
2025-04-01 18:18:15 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ok, those were all the issues on the agenda.
2025-04-01 18:18:30 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Pending changes for FESCo docs
2025-04-01 18:18:57 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Just wanted to quickly mention that we don't have a good process to look at fesco-docs issues / PRs, they're not covered by the FESCo meeting process.
2025-04-01 18:19:16 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Yeah.
2025-04-01 18:19:26 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> But I think we should just vote in the PR.
2025-04-01 18:19:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> 
2025-04-01 18:19:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/issues
2025-04-01 18:19:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-requests
2025-04-01 18:19:48 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> Homework: take a look at open issues and PRs and vote in ticket :)
2025-04-01 18:19:55 <@fale:fale.io> would it make sense to have the same majority as for the fesco tickets?
2025-04-01 18:20:11 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> It might also be a good idea to regularly put these into the meeting agenda so they're not forgotten.
2025-04-01 18:20:43 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> it might
2025-04-01 18:21:29 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> Fale: can you be more precise? Which "majority"?
2025-04-01 18:21:40 <@fale:fale.io> zbyszek: what I mean is: should we extend all the "usual" rules to approve standard fesco tickets to fesco docs tickets as well?
2025-04-01 18:21:57 <@fale:fale.io> example: 1 week, 5 +1, 0 -1 => approval
2025-04-01 18:22:26 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> I think we implicitly treated them this way until now, yes
2025-04-01 18:23:01 <@fale:fale.io> I agree :)
2025-04-01 18:23:09 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> It would be good to make this explicit, and to also include looking at fesco-docs issues / PRs in the meeting prep
2025-04-01 18:23:34 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> anyway that's all I wanted to say here, not to make this meeting even longer 
2025-04-01 18:23:43 <@fale:fale.io> I can do it
2025-04-01 18:23:43 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Next Week's 🪑
2025-04-01 18:24:05 <@zbyszek:fedora.im> I'll most likely miss the meeting next week.
2025-04-01 18:24:27 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> great, thanks!
2025-04-01 18:24:59 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !action Fale to chair next week's FESCo meeting on April 8, 2025
2025-04-01 18:25:11 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !topic Open Floor
2025-04-01 18:26:33 <@sgallagh:fedora.im> I'll be away next week
2025-04-01 18:27:21 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> There should still be 6 or 7 of us if I'm counting right, so I don't think we need to cancel, right?
2025-04-01 18:27:37 <@fale:fale.io> we can try to make it, worst case we skip if we don't have a majority
2025-04-01 18:28:11 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> if we lack quorum, we can cancel the meeting at the time next week
2025-04-01 18:28:13 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah
2025-04-01 18:28:28 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> yup
2025-04-01 18:28:41 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> anything else for open floor? otherwise I'll close shop at :30
2025-04-01 18:30:07 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> ⏱️
2025-04-01 18:30:13 <@decathorpe:fedora.im> !endmeeting