<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:50
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-07-23)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:52
Meeting started at 2025-07-23 17:59:50 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:52
The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-07-23)'
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
17:59:57
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:58
Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
17:59:59
!startmeeting EPEL (2025-07-23)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:59:59
Meeting already in progress
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:11
!meetingname epel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:11
!topic aloha
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
18:00:11
The Meeting Name is now epel
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:00:20
Hi Jonathan Wright
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:00:24
howdy!
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:03:13
Wonder where everyone is today
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:21
Hmm ... I hope it's more than just us.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:03:38
I don't know of any conference going on today.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:03:43
I've talked to both Neal and Carl within the past hour
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:03:48
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:49
None (elguero)
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:03:49
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:03:50
Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:03:53
morning
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:02
Hi Michael L. Young and Carl George
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:04:06
Morning nirik
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:05
I believe 4 committee members should be enough for votes ... so let's proceed.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:21
!link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:21
!topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:39
We do have one item to discuss / vote on this week.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:05:50
!epel 341
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:51
● **Last Updated:** a week ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:51
● **Opened:** a week ago by jonathanspw
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:51
**epel #341** (https://pagure.io/epel/issue/341):**Incompatible upgrade in EPEL9: netplan**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:51
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:05:51
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:06:31
so this update does have breaking changes, but since nothing else in epel depends on it i'm +1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:34
I must have missed this one... but it seems like it might be ok...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:06:39
+1 here
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:07:08
Yep, there was a little discussion last week, and nobody had any negatives, mainly due to nothing in EPEL depending on it.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:07:41
being a leaf package certainly makes it easier
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:07:41
I'm a +1 as well.
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:07:49
I'll abstain since it's my request
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:08:12
Well ... that only gives us +3 ... let me double check ...
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:08:41
yeah i don't think we have a requirement to abstain from your own changes. not a bad idea, but then we need a fourth vote
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:08:59
at the very least, we haven't required abstaining for past stuff
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:09:05
Am I allowed to vote? I will give it a +1
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:09:11
o/
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:09:12
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:09:13
Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:09:19
Well I'll +1 if it's a matter of a delayed vote :p
<@nhanlon:beeper.com>
18:09:35
heh
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:09:41
Hi Neil Hanlon
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:09:48
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:53
+1
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:09:55
Hi Conan Kudo
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:10:06
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:10:07
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@jonathanspw:fedora.im>
18:10:10
Ok there's another vote, let's keep me as abstained
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:10:14
every is welcome to weigh in, but the binding votes are the steering committee members
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:10:16
phew I'm not the only one who's running late
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:10:27
everyone is welcome to weigh in, but the binding votes are the steering committee members
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:10:37
Cool. That is what I thought. Was just checking.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:10:41
just came out of another meeting :)
<@elguero:fedora.im>
18:10:53
I am still new around these parts 😀
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:11:24
not a SC member anymore but community +1 - a) nothing uses it in EPEL (but others might so please give a heads up as usual) and b) upstream finally went to v1 so seems like carrying a .0 for many years down the road is worse
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:11:32
no worries!
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:11:46
!agreed Passed: Incompatible upgrade in EPEL9: netplan #341 - 4(+1) - 0(-1) - 1 abstained.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:06
Thanks all
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:23
Does someone mind updating the ticket.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:12:42
i can
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:12:47
Thanks
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:03
We still have that one pull request marked as meeting.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:14
https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/339
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:46
I realized I didn't put my summary in that ticket.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:48
Please file a separate bug for different EPEL major versions.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:48
For EPEL 8 and 9 you just need to file a bug for the major versions.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:48
Starting from EPEL 10, EPEL x tracks CentOS Stream, which will become the next RHEL minor release, e.g. if RHEL 10.0 is already branched or released, EPEL 10 targets RHEL 10.1. See branching for more details. So if you want your package built on all current releases, you will need to request it for all current branches. This request can be in the same bug requestion.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:14:48
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:15:12
yeah that's where we left off
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:15:42
Looking at it, that one sentance is too long, especially if we are saying "look here for more info" ... how about ..
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:16:01
Starting from EPEL 10, EPEL x tracks CentOS Stream, which will become the next RHEL minor release. See branching for more details. So if you want your package built on all current releases, you will need to request it for all current branches. This request can be in the same bug requestion.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:16:43
still pretty long.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:16:55
Starting from EPEL 10, EPEL x tracks CentOS Stream, which will become the next RHEL minor release. See branching for more details. So if you want your package built on all current releases, you will need to request it for all current branches. This request can be in the same bug request.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:17:11
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:17:13
Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:17:22
sorry for being late :/
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:17:33
Hi Robby Callicotte
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:17:43
we can probably leave most of those details for the branches page, and just mention the most important missing part, that one request can be used for multiple minor versions
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:19:31
Starting from EPEL 10, you will need to request for all current branches. This request can be in the same bug request.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:19:31
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:19:50
this is for the user filing the request right?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:20:01
Correct
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:20:27
For EPEL10, be sure and note what RHEL minor version or CentOS stream you are requesting for.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:20:35
?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:22:22
or something like that?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:23:04
yeah, that but i would just say "which EPEL minor versions" in the middle
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:58
Please file a separate bug for different EPEL major versions.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:58
For EPEL 8 and 9 you just need to file a bug for the major versions.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:23:58
For EPEL10, be sure and note which EPEL minor versions you are requesting for.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:24:41
sounds good to me
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:24:47
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:24:48
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@davide:cavalca.name>
18:24:52
sorry, got tied up at work
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:24:55
(EPEL minor versions track RHEL minor versions with the newest tracking CentOS stream) ? (or just a link to the doc I guess)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:24:56
Hi Davide Cavalca
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:25:28
Ya, I was thinking "which EPEL minor versions" would be a link the the branches doc.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:00
exactly
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:22
this looks good to me, throw it in a pr comment and see if the submitter agrees
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:26:35
Sounds good.
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:26:52
the only other question would be where in the doc it makes the most sense, and which admonition type (note, warning, etc)
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:27:16
I think "note" but that doesn't pop enough visually
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:27:42
my concern is we have two notes already for the two different product methods that might be needed
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:28:25
i'm thinking important just to differ from the two notes, and at the top of the "file a bug" section
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:28:41
i can comment with that in the pr after troy leaves his comment
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:29:30
OK, I'll left my comment.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:30:52
I think we're done with the two issues / pr marked as "meeting" ... moving on.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:08
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:31:08
!topic Old Business
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:31:24
Stephen J Smoogen: it's your turn :)
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:25
I'm pretty sure Stephen J Smoogen has forgotten more things than I've ever learned.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:32:44
But, does anyone else have any old business they want to bring up?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:33:03
I thought I did... /ducks
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:33:13
PSA: showcase is next Monday
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:33:34
I think Shaun sent all the confirmation requests out, but IDK about y'all I could not get the time picker to work
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:33:38
i have an epel talk approved
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:33:53
"EPEL 10 for the Discerning Packager"
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:33:59
cool
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:34:27
still working on the slides, but i'm thinking of a quick walkthrough of the workflow for maintainers that are out of the loop
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:35:03
Mine presentation is mainly a demo ... I'm not even sure I have slides.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:36:09
I'm going to move to a more Open Floor ...
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:36:16
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:36:16
!topic General Issues / Open Floor
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:36:31
!link https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/issues/2259
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:37:12
tldr: there's a bug in dnf-automatic that is incorrectly presenting epel10.1 to 10.0 systems
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:37:26
oh yikes
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:37:56
oof
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:38:08
i've been looking through the code but haven't been able to pin down the cause yet. any help would be appreciated, especially if someone already feels like they know the dnf4 codebase well.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:40:47
dumb question, but does %dist properly identify on host system/ubi?
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:41:17
dumb question, but does %releasever properly identify on host system/ubi?
<@carlwgeorge:fedora.im>
18:41:47
it does, that's used the the baseos/appstream baseurls
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:43:10
this is an interesting problem, I wish I had more time to look. bust out a debugger and follow the code
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:44:48
Are there any other items for the Open Floor?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:13
I guess we can call the meeting early this week.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:46:55
Thank you all for coming and the good discussions and decisions this week. And thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:11
I'll talk to ya'll next week, if not sooner.
<@rcallicotte:fedora.im>
18:47:36
Bye all
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:45
!endmeeting
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
18:47:45