18:04:52 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL 18:04:52 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Sep 13 18:04:52 2010 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:04:52 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:04:56 <nirik> #meetingname epel 18:04:56 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 18:05:07 <nirik> #topic Init process/agenda creation 18:05:15 <nirik> #chair tremble stahnma smooge 18:05:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: nirik smooge stahnma tremble 18:05:24 <nirik> Who has items for the agenda? 18:05:47 <stahnma> I have deps list...the continued saga. And Bug Count...moving the wrong direction. 18:06:05 <stahnma> and RHEL 6, outdated before it GAs 18:06:06 <tremble> Matching RHEL versions to EPEL versions... 18:06:07 <stahnma> :( 18:06:25 <smooge> ok I will be in a board meeting 18:06:32 <smooge> so continue you on me 18:06:46 <nirik> smooge: sorry for poor timing. ;( 18:06:58 <stahnma> smooge: is this a common conflicting time? 18:07:06 <stahnma> other topic idea: meeting times 18:07:50 <nirik> ok, so I have: 18:07:52 <nirik> meeting times 18:07:52 <nirik> broken dependencies 18:07:52 <nirik> bugs 18:07:52 <nirik> rhel6 outdated 18:07:52 <nirik> rhel and epel version matching 18:07:56 <smooge> stahnma, it will be from now on 18:08:07 <stahnma> smooge: ok, we'll keep discussing itmes 18:08:09 <smooge> I am sorry about that we just changed also this week 18:08:10 <stahnma> times even 18:08:21 <smooge> an hour earlier and 2 hours later work ok for me 18:08:35 * stahnma votes to take times to list...again 18:08:42 * tremble laughs 18:08:51 <nirik> meeting times are always a pain. ;( 18:09:05 <stahnma> I really liked this one...but oh well 18:09:18 <stahnma> moving on? 18:09:31 <nirik> ok, any other agenda items? or shall we start on them? 18:09:47 <stahnma> that's all I can think of right now 18:09:55 <tremble> We can always aob at the end 18:10:02 <nirik> yep. ok. 18:10:10 <nirik> #topic Broken Dependencies 18:10:25 <nirik> was meaning to ask: was the list against just the stable updates? 18:10:32 <stahnma> I keep attempting to run a dep check at least once a week. 18:10:47 <stahnma> It had both, stable and then further down the email was stable+testing 18:11:11 <stahnma> We need to come up with a resolution plan for packages in stable with broken deps 18:11:22 <stahnma> either move them back to testing, or get the deps in and push karma ASAP 18:11:46 <nirik> I'm having trouble seeing where one ends and the other begins... 18:11:59 <nirik> I fixed my package that was listed. 18:12:07 <nirik> tremble fixed one I reported. ;) 18:12:11 <stahnma> I'd also love it if bodhi wouldn't push to stable with deps being met, but that may be more difficult 18:12:26 <nirik> we need autoqa for that I fear. 18:12:31 * tremble grins 18:12:43 <tremble> Can we get autoqa on the depsolve only? 18:12:53 <tremble> just as a starting point? 18:13:16 <tremble> Although having the rpmlint run would be nice too. 18:13:31 <stahnma> rpmlint gives a lot of false positives, at least on ruby stuff 18:13:43 <nirik> tremble: once it's ready, sure. 18:13:50 <stahnma> mostly due to any filename with a % in it is considered an unexpanded macro 18:14:07 <tremble> Yeah, you don't block but it's nice to have the rpmlint output mailed to you 18:14:08 <stahnma> nirik: in the future I could break that into two emails 18:14:27 <nirik> stahnma: might be good. 18:14:28 <stahnma> I'd also like to notify package maintainers directly. 18:14:37 <nirik> that also would be good. 18:14:45 <stahnma> I need to look at the Fedora code that does that, rather than hack together my own 18:15:00 <stahnma> at least from a starting point 18:15:17 <tremble> stahnma : I've got most of that from the EPEL-6 nag script, can send it over if you'd like 18:15:23 <stahnma> sure 18:15:39 <stahnma> is there a method to remove a package from stable? 18:15:43 <stahnma> is the rel-eng ticket? 18:15:49 <stahnma> is that ^^ 18:16:00 <nirik> sure, or if you get a list, I or dgilmore can do I think. 18:16:10 <stahnma> ok 18:16:22 <stahnma> I know of a couple that won't have deps met for a long time (possibly ever) 18:16:32 <nirik> yeah, there's some old ones in there. ;( 18:16:44 <tremble> There's no way the git-bugzilla one's getting fixed. 18:16:55 <stahnma> any other action required on deps? 18:17:28 <tremble> So what's the plan... 18:17:34 <nirik> might be worth setting up a time to get some of us together and work on them... ie, decide which can be fixed and fix those. 18:17:46 <stahnma> #action stahnma will break dep emails up into 2 (one for stable, one for testing) 18:18:08 <nirik> #action stahnma will mail maintainers of broken dep packages 18:18:18 <stahnma> right 18:18:24 <stahnma> I'll look into a few other ideas I have also 18:18:36 <stahnma> I think setting up a time is a good idea 18:18:47 <stahnma> that can transistion us into talking about bugs too :) 18:18:52 <nirik> ok. It might be nice to mail them, then unpush after a bit ... to give them time to deal with it. 18:18:58 <nirik> indeed. 18:19:11 <nirik> anything else on broken deps? 18:19:11 <stahnma> yeah, some more mature workflow will be required 18:19:22 <stahnma> not right now. We might revisit in a week or two 18:19:31 <nirik> yeah, sounds good. 18:19:35 <nirik> #topic bugs 18:19:37 <tremble> Rather than mailing is it worth bugzilla entries 18:19:56 <tremble> Can then put a tracking bug in. 18:20:11 <stahnma> at the rate of our bug rate closure, I would bet not :) 18:20:23 * tremble laughs 18:20:26 <nirik> tremble: I think some of them are filed... that one you fixed with perl-Font-TTF I had already filed. 18:20:52 <tremble> Oh ok didn't spot that, I was going off stahnma's email 18:21:18 <nirik> I added karma to the update and noted the bug number. 18:21:34 <nirik> #info we have 234 bugs currently. 18:21:46 <stahnma> http://tr.im/epelbugs 18:21:54 <stahnma> still works...until tr.im is completely shut down 18:22:33 <nirik> so, what can we do here? there are probibly some that are low lying fruit. 18:22:38 <stahnma> Some bugs haven't had attention at all 18:22:47 <nirik> we could ask bugzappers to try and get some people triaging them if we think it would help. 18:22:49 <stahnma> some are requests for something really simple, but I always wonder if I should just fix it 18:23:03 <stahnma> others are requests for new versions...which can be problematic 18:23:03 <nirik> I am thinking we should start doing so... 18:23:11 <nirik> just step in and fix what can easily be fixed. 18:23:23 <stahnma> I mean, I am a proven packager, but I never know when I am overstepping my bounds 18:23:56 <stahnma> I'd like to have some sort of goal to close 1 bug a week at least 18:24:02 <stahnma> It's not much, but it's better than 0 18:24:05 * tremble nods 18:24:08 <nirik> yeah. 18:24:28 <stahnma> I mean, I guess that's only 3 bugs a week if we all do it. But, maybe it will be contagious 18:24:34 <nirik> we could try another bug day, but the last one flopped. ;( 18:24:38 <stahnma> and I am in favor of working with bugzappers 18:24:57 * tremble isn't PP so can't do much with most of them. 18:25:18 <nirik> tremble: attach patch, wait a bit, and then ask a pp to commit I guess... 18:25:24 * tremble nods 18:25:27 <stahnma> tremble: you can triage at least, and let us know which ones to fix also 18:25:35 <tremble> Fair pont 18:25:43 <nirik> stahnma: I can ask them... what do we want them to do exactly ? 18:25:58 <stahnma> we have a fair number (40 or so I am guessing) of bugs asking for 'please branch XYZ into EPEL' 18:26:07 <stahnma> we need a list of willing co-maintainers for epel 18:26:19 * tremble is willing to do so. 18:26:31 <nirik> well, some of those, the answer is: foo is too old, sorry. 18:26:35 <stahnma> nirik: I am not sure yet. Probably classify the bug into categories...new branch, real bug, update foo, blah 18:26:49 <nirik> we probibly need a page/list/checklist then... 18:26:49 <stahnma> maybe even teach the bugzilla API 18:26:51 <stahnma> :) 18:27:14 <tremble> Use the whiteboard? 18:27:20 <stahnma> Along the lines of co-maintainership; I am willing to do anything ruby related. :) 18:27:30 <nirik> tremble: yeah, thats the typical way. 18:27:55 <tremble> nirik: Or a set of tracker tickets? AIUI 18:28:08 <nirik> yeah, thats possible too... but seems overkill. 18:28:14 * tremble nods 18:28:28 <tremble> See how we get on with whiteboarding? 18:28:28 <stahnma> I tried using the whiteboard a year or two ago for epel bugs 18:28:44 <stahnma> I bet I could reverse engineer what I did then for the bugzappers or any volunteer 18:28:57 <nirik> that would be lovely if you are able. 18:29:33 <stahnma> I mean, it was a manual set of steps. Review bug, put label "foo", "bar" or "baz" in whiteboard 18:29:39 <stahnma> I just don't remember what the labels were 18:29:48 <stahnma> but since most of the bugs are still open, I can find out 18:30:03 <nirik> yeah, if it's something we can write down I can talk to bugzappers about having some folks do it. 18:30:15 <stahnma> sounds good 18:30:28 <nirik> #action stahnma to write down whiteboard process for bugs. 18:30:34 <nirik> #action nirik to talk to bugzappers 18:30:36 <stahnma> yes 18:30:37 <tremble> I'm likely to have some time to do a bit of triaging over the next couple of weeks. 18:30:42 <stahnma> super 18:30:47 <nirik> #action all to work on bugs and try and close at least 1/week. ;) 18:30:53 <nirik> tremble: excellent. 18:31:01 <stahnma> are dep issues more important than long-standing bugs? 18:31:02 <nirik> anything more on bugs? 18:31:11 <nirik> stahnma: I would say yes. 18:31:14 * stahnma thinks dep issues are huge 18:31:21 * tremble nogs 18:31:25 <stahnma> ok 18:31:28 <stahnma> that's all on bugs 18:31:30 <stahnma> from me 18:31:36 <tremble> And also closable in a reasonable timeframe. 18:31:42 <nirik> fixing deps may close some bugs too. ;) 18:31:46 <stahnma> true 18:31:49 * tremble nods 18:31:51 <nirik> ok, moving along then... 18:32:00 <nirik> #topic rhel6 outdated 18:32:08 <nirik> stahnma: care to expand on this? 18:32:14 <stahnma> I think I was wrong on the one thing I really cared about for this 18:32:35 <stahnma> I was under the impression that RHEL6 had 1.8.6 which would hurt a lot 18:32:36 <tremble> There's a couple of ruby pkgs that were just behind the useful release... 18:32:48 <stahnma> but, they are moving it to 1.8.7 :) 18:32:55 <tremble> Cool :) 18:32:55 <nirik> ah ha. 18:32:58 <stahnma> also, the version of rubygems might be too old 18:33:03 <stahnma> for some packages 18:33:12 <nirik> #info ruby might be out of date in 6, but they are working on it. 18:33:34 <llaumgui_zhukov> .fas llaumgui 18:33:35 <zodbot> llaumgui_zhukov: llaumgui 'Guillaume Kulakowski' <llaumgui@gmail.com> 18:33:36 <stahnma> nirik: I think it actually is resolved. But, I don't know how to verify yes. 18:33:40 * MrTom asks French meeting attendees to go to #fedora-meeting-1 not to disturb EPEL meeting exceptionaly 18:33:53 <nirik> MrTom: oops. are we cutting into your meeting time? :( 18:34:05 <nirik> MrTom: sorry if so... we could move. 18:34:12 <MrTom> nirik, go on, we move to #fedora-meeting-1 18:34:24 <MrTom> no, we move, it will be hell with meeting bot if you move :) 18:34:34 <stahnma> MrTom: thanks. We'll be better about scheduling next time. 18:34:37 <nirik> MrTom: ok. sorry about that. ;( 18:34:39 <MrTom> #fedora-meeting-1 is free 18:34:42 <MrTom> don't worry 18:34:50 <MrTom> it's all fixable :) 18:35:02 <nirik> MrTom: we will not overlap next week... ;) 18:35:15 * tremble thinks MrTom for being understanding. 18:35:20 <nirik> stahnma: yeah, do you know if they plan a beta3? 18:35:21 * tremble thanks MrTom for being understanding. 18:35:43 <tremble> nirik There was a post on the beta list suggesting not. 18:35:43 <stahnma> nirik: I don't. I haven't had as much exposure to EL6 as I would have liked, mostly due to $DAYJOB changes. 18:35:55 <nirik> ok. 18:35:58 <stahnma> ruby-sig just mentioned that it was moved to 1.8.7 :) 18:36:11 <nirik> ok, anything further on this topic? 18:36:18 <stahnma> I don't think so. 18:36:33 <nirik> ok, moving on... 18:36:33 * stahnma </rant style=happier> 18:36:37 <nirik> #topic rhel and epel version matching 18:36:44 <nirik> tremble: this was your topic? 18:37:17 <tremble> Yeah, I've cleaned up most of the perl packages with version mismatches, what do we want to do about the rest. 18:37:30 <tremble> cairomm was the significantly notable one... 18:38:03 <tremble> You suggested just untagging it since it seems to be available for all arches... 18:38:47 <nirik> what was the case on that one again? 18:38:58 <nirik> in beta1, dropped beta2, added back in refresh? 18:39:19 <tremble> On server it's available for all arches and EPEL is 1.8.4, RHEL 1.8.1 18:39:41 <tremble> Something like that I believe 18:39:54 <nirik> yeah, so I think we should just block it and ask the maintainer to dead.package it. 18:40:23 <tremble> We also need to decide on a standard way to put a warning flag on the packages 18:40:51 <nirik> perhaps a README.rhel file? 18:41:14 <tremble> Yeah but making it obvious that that file is intended for the package maintainers. 18:41:36 <nirik> 00-MAINTAINER-README-NOW ? 18:41:38 <nirik> :) 18:41:48 <tremble> Soomething like that :) 18:41:59 * nirik notes we had a case or cases of this for epel4 long ago. 18:42:23 * nirik looks for the packages. 18:42:50 <tremble> In this case probably wants to state which RHEL flavours/arches it IS available for. 18:42:57 <nirik> got it 18:42:59 <nirik> UPDATE-CAREFULLY 18:43:09 * tremble laughs 18:43:10 <nirik> ie, for yum in el4: 18:43:19 <nirik> This package exists in CentOS-4 base. 18:43:19 <nirik> Please be careful when updating that the EVR here remains lower than in CentOS-4. 18:43:28 * tremble nods 18:43:44 <nirik> so, I think UPDATE-CAREFULLY would be good to keep using. 18:43:55 * tremble nods 18:43:56 <nirik> just need content about this issue, and a list of packages to commit it to. 18:44:10 <nirik> tremble: can you whip up content and list and I can commit it? 18:44:25 <tremble> Sure, want me to email it to you. 18:44:32 <nirik> works for me. 18:45:25 <nirik> #action tremble will generate a UPDATE-CAREFULLY file for packages that are only in RHEL6 for some branches that EPEL6 is carrying for the others. 18:45:34 <nirik> #action nirik will commit that file to the indicated packages. 18:45:39 <nirik> anything more on this topic? 18:45:40 <tremble> With regards the pkgs that need untagging, I'd suggest that we only untag for now and wait for GA before blocking/dead.pkg -ing 18:46:12 <nirik> yeah, they could change before release for sure... 18:46:44 <tremble> I seem to recall that un-blocking in koji can get messy. 18:47:31 <nirik> well, sure... 18:47:41 <nirik> is cariomm the only one currently in that state? 18:48:00 <tremble> There's a few, again shall I just email you? 18:48:22 <nirik> sure, works for me. I will need to check with dgilmore on how best to block or untag them... might cc him on it as well. 18:48:31 <tremble> Ok 18:49:00 <stahnma> I have a couple of open discussion items if we have any time left 18:49:18 <tremble> 10 mins... 18:49:18 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 18:49:22 <nirik> take it away. ;) 18:49:37 <stahnma> The Acceptance Criteria page on the wiki does not mention epel 18:49:43 <stahnma> yet, I am pretty sure our rules are different 18:49:52 <tremble> link? 18:49:58 <stahnma> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria 18:49:59 <nirik> which acceptance criteria? 18:50:07 <nirik> yes, thats fedora specific. 18:50:12 <lmacken> bodhi does not enforce that for EPEL (yet) 18:50:35 <stahnma> well, bodhi at the top of the page tells me it does. Then when I try to push, it says I don't meet the criteria. 18:50:43 <stahnma> Then I just wonder why, because according to the page, I do. 18:51:02 <lmacken> stahnma: the top of the page says 'for all fedora releases' 18:51:03 <stahnma> I thought we were saying 2 weeks instead of 1 week like Fedora 18:51:13 <tremble> It's probably worth having it documented somewhere why RHEL tends to have more of the parallel installable pkgs to. 18:51:20 <nirik> stahnma: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies 18:51:21 <lmacken> stahnma: yeah, it may enforce the 2 week thing... but that ways always enforce, by hand anyway, for epel 18:51:29 <lmacken> s/ways/was/ 18:51:30 <stahnma> lmacken: fair enough. It still says I don't meet it. 18:51:38 <nirik> stahnma: for what update? 18:51:42 <stahnma> and it's been 15 days, from what I can see 18:51:44 <lmacken> stahnma: I'll try and clarify that message 18:51:48 <stahnma> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rubygem-json-1.4.3-3.el5?_csrf_token=23055744d49c160c18dcef1b25f08cda668c4c10 18:51:50 <stahnma> rubygem-json 18:51:53 <stahnma> for el5 18:51:54 <nirik> it's 2 weeks in testing unless it's security or gets enough karma 18:51:59 <stahnma> right 18:52:25 <nirik> it's not quite been 2 weeks... 18:52:31 <stahnma> I'm saying anybody is doing anything wrong. I just think it could be clearer. 18:52:37 <lmacken> In [3]: PackageUpdate.byTitle('rubygem-json-1.4.3-3.el5').days_in_testing 18:52:40 <lmacken> Out[3]: 14 18:52:43 <stahnma> 29th was a sunday 18:52:46 <lmacken> bodhi should approve within the next 6 hours 18:52:47 <nirik> humm... or it has now. 18:52:49 <stahnma> today is a monday 18:52:56 <stahnma> so it's 15 days 18:53:10 <nirik> stahnma: it counts from when it was actually in testing... 18:53:13 <nirik> not when it was submitted. 18:53:17 <stahnma> I guess (> 14) != (>= 14) 18:53:20 <stahnma> ah 18:53:26 * stahnma learns 18:53:36 <lmacken> bodhi has a job that runs every 6 hours ( iirc ) that will approve updates 18:53:50 <nirik> it might be nice to fix http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies to be clear about our policy... 18:53:59 <nirik> or make a new page with it spelled out better. 18:53:59 <stahnma> seems like 2 weeks is a long time to wait fix a broken dep in stable... 18:54:22 <nirik> if we only had 1 more tester it could have gone when they added the last karma. 18:54:28 <lmacken> stahnma: yeah, well fedora updates are vulnerable to the same type of problem. We'll have to fix it there first. 18:54:35 <stahnma> lmacken: ok. 18:55:19 * nirik notes fedora-easy-karma works on rhel5/centos5... 18:55:30 <stahnma> Also, just as an FYI to anybody working in EPEL. If you see a messsage "debug-info.sh find invalid predicate" or something, you need to add a BuildRoot back into the spec 18:55:37 <stahnma> That bit me for hours this weekend. 18:55:45 <nirik> ah, nasty. ;( 18:55:46 * tremble too 18:56:00 <nirik> anyone interested/able to fix wiki pages for updates policy? ;) 18:56:18 <stahnma> #action stahnma will send an email to list about crazy BuildRoot error messages 18:56:29 <stahnma> nirik: I would, but I doubt I will get to it this week. 18:56:53 <nirik> yeah, I don't think I have time for it... 18:57:14 <nirik> I'd suggest a special session sometime to fix all our wiki pages, but not sure when that would be... 18:57:35 <stahnma> we really need a few more individuals who care about epel 18:57:50 <stahnma> and are willing to put in some amount of time on it 18:58:34 <nirik> yes. 18:58:41 <nirik> how can we find them though? ;( 18:58:52 <stahnma> teh twitters ? ;) 18:59:30 <tremble> Trouble is that on the packaging side there's no easy way to get EPEL only maintaners in. 18:59:51 <tremble> Those people who 19:00:05 <tremble> 're asking for pkgs to be ported could possibly be tapped... 19:00:06 <stahnma> I agree 19:00:22 <nirik> yeah. 19:00:37 <stahnma> time to close 19:00:42 * tremble nods 19:00:42 <stahnma> until next week :) 19:00:43 <nirik> yep. 19:00:50 <nirik> sounds good. 19:00:58 <nirik> #info will determine next weeks meeting time on list. 19:01:02 <nirik> #endmeeting