16:01:50 #startmeeting fpc 16:01:50 Meeting started Thu Sep 9 16:01:50 2021 UTC. 16:01:50 This meeting is logged and archived in a public location. 16:01:50 The chair is geppetto. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:50 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:01:50 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:01:50 #meetingname fpc 16:01:50 #topic Roll Call 16:01:50 The meeting name has been set to 'fpc' 16:02:00 .hi 16:02:01 carlwgeorge: carlwgeorge 'Carl George' 16:02:04 Hey folks. 16:02:09 #chair carlwgeorge 16:02:09 Current chairs: carlwgeorge geppetto 16:02:14 #chair tibbs 16:02:14 Current chairs: carlwgeorge geppetto tibbs 16:02:41 hey 16:02:51 I am here but I will need to leave very soon 16:03:00 ok 16:03:49 #chair mhroncok 16:03:49 Current chairs: carlwgeorge geppetto mhroncok tibbs 16:08:02 👋 16:08:10 #chair Eighth_Doctor 16:08:10 Current chairs: Eighth_Doctor carlwgeorge geppetto mhroncok tibbs 16:08:19 .hello ngompa 16:08:20 Eighth_Doctor: ngompa 'Neal Gompa' 16:08:21 Well, technically that's 5 16:11:59 #topic Open Floor 16:12:15 Ok, we had questions about EPEL last week 16:12:20 and carlwgeorge is here now 16:12:43 IIRC redhat-macros ported into epel 16:13:11 redhat-rpm-config? 16:14:31 Yeh, I think so … tibbs you had questions? 16:14:42 Don't think it was me. 16:14:42 yeah 16:15:12 who had questions about redhat-rpm-config and epel macros? 16:15:22 But basically I think the issue is whether new things added to the Fedora macros should filter down into EPEL. 16:15:26 typically what happens is we do override macros in epel-rpm-macros when they are broken/incomplete in redhat-rpm-config 16:16:16 Someone has to actively watch redhat-rpm-macros and get those things moved into EPEL if possible. 16:17:36 So I guess the question was whether the EPEL folks will do that or if that's going to fall on whoever maintains redhat-rpm-macros. 16:18:12 redhat-rpm-config does get updated in rhel, it's been updated in every minor release so far 16:18:15 The topic, BTW, was FPC taking over maintenance of redhat-rpm-macros. 16:18:56 I personally have no idea how that happens, but when I was actively maintaining epel-rpm-macros, Red Hat's updates were done entirely without coordination. 16:19:14 i don't see a redhat-rpm-macros package. are we talking about redhat-rpm-config in rhel? 16:19:39 We're talking about redhat-rpm-config in Fedora. 16:19:49 I typed that wrong previously. 16:20:19 In Fedora it's not really maintained. The discussion was about maintaining it. The question came up about whether changes will flow into EPEL and how that would happen. 16:20:30 ok, sorry not trying to be overly pedantic, just making sure i was looking at the right package 16:21:10 sorry, gottta go. will read the logs if available 16:21:15 mhroncok: ok 16:21:53 there are 6 maintainers for the fedora package. the default assignee for rhel bugzillas is an internal list. i can reach out to that team and discuss this further. 16:22:26 There are six maintainers listed but that doesn't really mean the package is "maintained". 16:22:49 my understanding is that we want 1) more active ownership of redhat-rpm-config in fedora, 2) active collaboration between those maintainers and the epel-rpm-macros maintainers 16:23:19 what are the pressing issues right now for epel-rpm-macros? i.e. what is broken/incomplete in rhel macros that we want to override? 16:23:30 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/epel-rpm-macros/blob/epel8/f/macros.zzz-epel-override is currently empty 16:24:34 IMHO we want redhat-rpm-config maintainers to also land new changes in epel-rpm-macros where possible/makes sense... so maintainers can easily share specs and not worry about it. 16:24:42 i think having one or more fpc member co-maintain redhat-rpm-config would be a good idea, or have one of the current maintainers join fpc 16:26:13 nirik: that helps clarify, so we're saying when new things are added to redhat-rpm-config, add them to epel-rpm-macros, and that is what is not currently happening 16:27:10 i'm happy to be added as a co-maintainer on either of those packages to help facilitate this 16:27:13 yeah. ie, be proactive instead of reactive here... right now people adjust to the new fedora macros and then later get mad when they have to special case epel and ask for the macros to just be added, but there's breakage and delay 16:28:33 i'll probably start by contacting people that have recently made changes to redhat-rpm-config in fedora and ask them to backport to epel-rpm-macros where appropriate 16:29:31 Yeh, I think tibbs volunteered last week 16:29:39 But he doesn't have a huge amount of time 16:30:09 ideally starting next month i'll have official work time to do this 16:30:13 At the moment, I don't. Still getting dumped on at work. 16:30:40 Plus my concern really is redhat-rpm-config maintenance and not EPEL. 16:31:35 based on the commit history, it seems that redhat-rpm-config maintainers don't actually do anything, it's just proven packagers making changes when they need it 16:32:02 That's why I was saying it isn't really "maintained". 16:32:38 14 open pull requests, the oldest opened in 2020-03 16:32:44 I do generally like to see comments from Panu or one of the Florians but recently Panu was just ignored and some not great stuff was committed and pushed. 16:33:07 So I'm not sure he's even going to be interested in the future. 16:33:15 i'll start a conversation with the rhel maintainers and push them to get involved 16:33:47 there is a devel list thread on this... might catch up on that since they chimed in 16:34:14 Part of the issue generally is that there's a conflict between just wanting to try things to see how they work and being incredibly conservative because of the potential for breaking things. 16:34:28 I am terribly behind on devel list mail. There is so much of it. 16:34:32 same 16:34:45 nirik: got a title i can search for? 16:36:08 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IF73QVBQYNRQDMSKHHVXCX2PDCWY3DQA/ 16:36:44 thanks 16:37:16 i'll catch up on that thread and start chasing people down to get a better idea for a path forward 16:37:19 IMHO it would be nice for FPC to be involved at least because newly added guidlines often also have macro changes. 16:38:09 what do we think about having a policy that changes to that package must be approved by fpc? 16:38:14 Yes, I think so. 16:38:32 Sorry, my reply was to nirik. 16:38:52 I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to have all changes go through FPC. 16:39:17 i was thinking that would be easier than making fpc the owners 16:39:34 i.e. individuals drive changes, but have to coordinate with fpc 16:40:10 I see the list of package maintainers as mostly a formality anyway, so it doesn't really matter much. Certainly a couple of FPC folks should be there. 16:40:43 The big issue is often some of the stuff there is so complex that a small number of people would actually be able to properly evaluate it. 16:41:13 And there are a number of unwritten assumptions about how things there are supposed to work. 16:44:36 tibbs: carlwgeorge probably knows all of those nuwritten things though :) 16:45:01 We need to talk more about this? 16:45:09 not so much, my secret is i bug Eighth_Doctor a lot for answers 16:45:48 Fair :) 16:46:07 Ok, anything else we need to talk about this week? 16:47:11 lol 16:47:36 * Eighth_Doctor is trying to figure out how Red Hat broke the kernel module package build macros 16:49:05 I don't know of anything 16:54:07 Ok, see you next week 16:54:16 #endmeeting