2025-09-17 18:01:10 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !startmeeting EPEL (2025-09-17)
2025-09-17 18:01:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> Meeting started at 2025-09-17 18:01:10 UTC
2025-09-17 18:01:11 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2025-09-17)'
2025-09-17 18:01:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic aloha
2025-09-17 18:01:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !meetingname epel
2025-09-17 18:01:26 <@meetbot:fedora.im> The Meeting Name is now epel
2025-09-17 18:01:40 <@dherrera:fedora.im> !hi
2025-09-17 18:01:41 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his
2025-09-17 18:02:03 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Diego Herrera 
2025-09-17 18:02:23 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !hi
2025-09-17 18:02:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his
2025-09-17 18:02:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Carl George 
2025-09-17 18:02:55 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> morning
2025-09-17 18:02:58 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> !hi
2025-09-17 18:03:00 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)
2025-09-17 18:03:14 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Morning nirik and Hi Jonathan Wright 
2025-09-17 18:03:22 <@davide:cavalca.name> !hi
2025-09-17 18:03:24 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
2025-09-17 18:03:30 <@elguero:fedora.im> !hi
2025-09-17 18:03:31 <@zodbot:fedora.im> None (elguero)
2025-09-17 18:03:46 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> !hi
2025-09-17 18:03:47 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his
2025-09-17 18:04:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Davide Cavalca Michael L. Young and Robby Callicotte 
2025-09-17 18:04:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic EPEL Issues https://pagure.io/epel/issues
2025-09-17 18:04:51 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/epel/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
2025-09-17 18:05:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Although we don't have any issues marked with meeting, we do have a pull request marked with one.
2025-09-17 18:05:21 <@tdawson:fedora.im> https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/349
2025-09-17 18:05:53 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> this stems from a conversation at centos connect earlier this year
2025-09-17 18:06:20 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Since this is an update to policy.  And even though it's logical and correct in my opinion, I wanted to make sure we brought it up here.
2025-09-17 18:06:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> is that epel8->epel9->epel10 ?
2025-09-17 18:07:15 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> or is this just 10 minors?
2025-09-17 18:07:25 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i didn't intend to include that as part of the policy
2025-09-17 18:08:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> ok, I perhaps read too fast.
2025-09-17 18:08:23 <@tdawson:fedora.im> First glance, I thought, sure it would include major releases ... but there is also the problem of packages not moving forward between releases ... although I guess if that happens, this doesn't really apply.
2025-09-17 18:08:42 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i think at one point while drafting i had those words, and they got left behind while reworking stuff
2025-09-17 18:09:16 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i'm not opposed to this covering between majors two, i would imagine it would always be that way anyways even by accident
2025-09-17 18:09:18 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we haven't ever required major version upgrade path...
2025-09-17 18:09:26 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i'm not opposed to this covering between majors too, i would imagine it would always be that way anyways even by accident
2025-09-17 18:09:35 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> not sure how much it matters?
2025-09-17 18:09:51 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I would surely hope LEAP or whatever would use distro-sync
2025-09-17 18:09:55 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> the immediate need is definitely between epel10 minors, as i've already seen someone push an update for epel10.0 and not epel10.1
2025-09-17 18:09:58 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> It improves UX with AlmaLinux ELevate or RHEL Leapp
2025-09-17 18:10:10 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> Though Leapp doesn't support EPEL, ELevate does.
2025-09-17 18:10:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> they don't use distro-sync? surprising.
2025-09-17 18:11:10 <@jonathanspw:fedora.im> I believe the current logic is look for upgrade path for a package, if not found, log it and drop the package.
2025-09-17 18:11:24 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> interesting.
2025-09-17 18:12:20 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> I think this could be a surprise for epel maintainers... there are sometimes reasons why you can't update something in the newer major... also, if we set a rule for it, we should have some kind of check/report/note about packages that don't follow it.
2025-09-17 18:12:42 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep.
2025-09-17 18:13:05 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> we could do MUST for between minors of the same major, and SHOULD for between majors
2025-09-17 18:13:32 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> that sounds more reasonable. would need a check for minors... but hopefully thats not too hard.
2025-09-17 18:13:45 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> we could even (ok, I dream) have a bodhi gating test for that
2025-09-17 18:13:47 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> !hi
2025-09-17 18:13:49 <@zodbot:fedora.im> Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his
2025-09-17 18:13:55 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Hi Neil Hanlon 
2025-09-17 18:14:10 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> heya folks
2025-09-17 18:14:39 <@nhanlon:beeper.com> _got distracted booking flights for TXLF_
2025-09-17 18:14:50 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> indeed the conversation at connect that started this was about having automation to verify it.  i figured the first step was to actually make it policy.
2025-09-17 18:15:54 <@tdawson:fedora.im> My mind started spinning of a bodhi check between minors.  Having both an old and a new release seems hard for bodhi.
2025-09-17 18:16:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> So, for right now, do we want to accept this as it is?  Or wait and put in the MUST / SHOULD provisions above?
2025-09-17 18:17:55 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> happy to add that provision, but maybe then we can vote in the pr to not have to wait a week to merge it
2025-09-17 18:18:10 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> or vote now, and just trust me the change will only be adding that must/should clause
2025-09-17 18:18:43 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I sorta like voting in the PR.  That way we'll sorta be forced to review it.
2025-09-17 18:19:26 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> will try to add that today, and i'll drop a reminder in the channel when i do to let y'all know to take a look
2025-09-17 18:19:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Sounds good.
2025-09-17 18:20:01 <@tdawson:fedora.im> And thank you for writting this up.  This is one of those "why don't we have this in the policy" type of things.
2025-09-17 18:20:18 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anything else on this before we move on?
2025-09-17 18:20:36 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> not from me
2025-09-17 18:20:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'm not seeing anyone else typing ... so I'm going to move on.
2025-09-17 18:21:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic Old Business
2025-09-17 18:21:17 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone have any old business they want to bring up?
2025-09-17 18:22:19 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> could do a quick update on the epel group cleanup
2025-09-17 18:22:35 <@tdawson:fedora.im> That would be great ... go for it.
2025-09-17 18:22:53 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !link
2025-09-17 18:22:57 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> !link https://pagure.io/epel/issue/345
2025-09-17 18:23:41 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i cleared out the users in those deprecated groups as we discussed, but i noticed that doesn't seem to be reflected in src.fpo
2025-09-17 18:24:06 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yep.
2025-09-17 18:24:30 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> group membership is refreshed on login. If folks don't login again after they are removed from a group it won't show it.
2025-09-17 18:24:46 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> however, there's a toddler lenkaseg has been working on to sync that info
2025-09-17 18:24:52 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> oh so each member would need to logout/login
2025-09-17 18:24:56 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> once thats deployed it will sync all the groupsa
2025-09-17 18:24:59 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> once thats deployed it will sync all the groups
2025-09-17 18:25:03 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah
2025-09-17 18:25:36 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i guess we can leave this until then if it's happening soon
2025-09-17 18:26:36 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah, I think it's close
2025-09-17 18:27:30 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> or, i did start investigating removing epel-packagers-sig via the api.  i've figured out the api calls that would be needed, just need to structure them correctly.  is that a path we want to go down, for a bulk remove?
2025-09-17 18:27:39 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> or, i did start investigating removing epel-packagers-sig from packages via the api.  i've figured out the api calls that would be needed, just need to structure them correctly.  is that a path we want to go down, for a bulk remove?
2025-09-17 18:28:26 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Would that be to remove them from the various packages?
2025-09-17 18:28:33 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> yes
2025-09-17 18:28:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Or remove the members from the groups in src.fpo ?
2025-09-17 18:29:07 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> epel-packagers-sig has access to 688 packages right now, and with the api calls i looked into i can make a script to remove it from each package
2025-09-17 18:29:25 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Cool
2025-09-17 18:29:52 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Cuz, if nobody is in those groups anymore ... having them attached to packages will do more harm than good.
2025-09-17 18:30:06 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> better to clean them up anyways i think
2025-09-17 18:30:13 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep
2025-09-17 18:30:23 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> removing seems good... the only possible other thing would be to clean it up when we move to forgejo...
2025-09-17 18:30:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> but now is good too.
2025-09-17 18:30:49 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i'm all for removing variables from the forgejo distgit migration
2025-09-17 18:32:31 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> so it sounds like i'll move forward with that script then
2025-09-17 18:32:39 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Yep, sounds good.
2025-09-17 18:33:44 <@tdawson:fedora.im> So ... summary.  members have been removed, but it hasn't reached src.fpo yet, but will soonish.  And then you'll get the groups removed from packages when the script is working good.
2025-09-17 18:34:25 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> you should put that in a `!info` to capture it in the minutes
2025-09-17 18:34:39 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> generally we should do that more often
2025-09-17 18:34:56 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i only thought of it because you summarized it so well
2025-09-17 18:35:04 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !Info EPEL Group cleanup: members have been removed, but it hasn't reached src.fpo yet, but will soonish.  And then you'll get the groups removed from packages when the script is working good.
2025-09-17 18:35:23 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !info EPEL Group cleanup: members have been removed, but it hasn't reached src.fpo yet, but will soonish.  And then you'll get the groups removed from packages when the script is working good.
2025-09-17 18:36:05 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya, I'm terrible at those nice info, link, and other meeting nice things.
2025-09-17 18:36:35 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> we all are to be fair
2025-09-17 18:36:56 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I'll try to work on it ... but moving on ...
2025-09-17 18:37:06 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Any other Old Business before we move to Open Floor?
2025-09-17 18:38:00 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !topic General Issues / Open Floor
2025-09-17 18:38:13 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone have anything for the Open Floor?
2025-09-17 18:38:51 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I can bring something up
2025-09-17 18:38:58 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Diego Herrera: Go for it
2025-09-17 18:40:10 <@dherrera:fedora.im> when we get to the point where RHEL 10.1 releases, we are looking into archiving 10.0 and retiring
2025-09-17 18:40:21 <@dherrera:fedora.im> IDK if we actually have written policy for that though
2025-09-17 18:40:42 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I know that we have discussed that here and in the proposal :)
2025-09-17 18:41:05 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Oh ... wow ... I think you are right.
2025-09-17 18:41:17 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> yeah...
2025-09-17 18:41:49 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> me and diego have an item in our backlog to write up an eol-ing sop for the releng work needed.  it will probably be pretty barebones (or even just left as a draft pr) until we actually do it once or twice.
2025-09-17 18:43:04 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I wouldn't mind to write a PR for that :), just making sure I wouldn't be repeating work XD
2025-09-17 18:43:50 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I've been reading through our docs, and I can't find anything ... so Diego Herrera if you want to take that, it would be great.
2025-09-17 18:45:05 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Anything else before we turn the time over to nirik ?
2025-09-17 18:45:55 <@dherrera:fedora.im> im done :)
2025-09-17 18:46:11 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you for seeing that need, and volunteering to fill it.
2025-09-17 18:46:15 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Go for it nirik 
2025-09-17 18:46:38 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> two small things. I am merging pr's post freeze and hit https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/2819 (checkout seed for epel10). Do we need to have seperate ones for minors there? or just 10?
2025-09-17 18:47:07 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> also, similar... we have just 10 in bugzilla. Did we want to have minor versions there (I hope the answer is no, but thought I would bring it up)
2025-09-17 18:47:47 <@dherrera:fedora.im> the answer is no
2025-09-17 18:47:53 <@dherrera:fedora.im> at least I remember it was no
2025-09-17 18:48:20 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> for the first, i think just epel10 is fine, in fedora there is only one for rawhide
2025-09-17 18:48:47 <@dherrera:fedora.im> I remember that we talked about it and ended up in leaving just the mayor on epel10 release and talk about it again for epel11
2025-09-17 18:48:57 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I was thinking about that the other day (the bugzilla part), and I think no, epel10 is good enough.
2025-09-17 18:49:14 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> cool. ok, will merge/deploy that and we can go from there.
2025-09-17 18:49:29 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> by epel11, likely we won't be on bugzilla anymore anyhow. ;)
2025-09-17 18:49:33 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> i also remember our thinking was "start with just epel10 in bugzilla, and add more versions later if we think we need them"
2025-09-17 18:49:46 <@carlwgeorge:fedora.im> and so far i don't think we need them
2025-09-17 18:50:22 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> unless we ever have different maintainers for minor release branches, yeah...
2025-09-17 18:52:02 <@nirik:matrix.scrye.com> thats all I had
2025-09-17 18:52:21 <@tdawson:fedora.im> OK, thank you.
2025-09-17 18:52:32 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Does anyone else have anything for Open Floor?
2025-09-17 18:53:54 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Ya'll don't have to speak at once ... 
2025-09-17 18:54:08 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Sounds like we're done for this week.
2025-09-17 18:54:49 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Thank you all for the good discussions.  And thank you very much for all the work you do for EPEL and it's community.
2025-09-17 18:55:07 <@rcallicotte:fedora.im> Thanks Troy Dawson 
2025-09-17 18:55:19 <@dherrera:fedora.im> Thank you too Troy Dawson ^^
2025-09-17 18:55:24 <@tdawson:fedora.im> I've heard alot of very positive things about EPEL in some conferences.  Ya'll are great.
2025-09-17 18:55:34 <@tdawson:fedora.im> Talk to you next week, if not sooner.
2025-09-17 18:55:53 <@tdawson:fedora.im> !endmeeting