16:03:36 #startmeeting EPEL 16:03:36 Meeting started Mon Aug 23 16:03:36 2010 UTC. The chair is smooge. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:03:36 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:03:47 #chair nirik 16:03:47 Current chairs: nirik smooge 16:03:57 Good morning everyone 16:03:59 morning 16:04:11 #meetingname EPEL 16:04:11 The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 16:04:32 anything else I need to do ... versus mailing out 6 months of log links? 16:05:11 #topic Roll Call 16:05:14 here 16:05:15 * nirik is here. 16:05:19 * sgallagh is here 16:05:23 tremble, ? 16:05:30 rdieter, ? 16:05:37 stahnma, ? 16:06:04 nirik you had a topic 16:07:00 yeah, security updates. Currently epel allows them to push to stable directly. With fedora requiring time in testing first, do we wish to do the same? or keep allowing direct due to lack of testers? 16:08:45 nirik: Given lack of testers, I'd suggest leaving it up to the packager. If they feel it needs time in testing, they'll keep it there. 16:09:11 I just wanted to bring it up... I don't have a super strong feeling on it... 16:09:19 I think it is a good idea, but agree with sgallagh that our testing regime is in the toilet 16:09:53 do we have an agenda? 16:10:05 no I am in the toilet too 16:10:26 :( 16:10:44 mondays are also difficult... (in so many ways. ;) 16:10:59 Actually I don't remember having an agenda on Fridays either 16:11:08 so here we go 16:11:10 #topic Agenda 16:11:22 1) Change of Testing Criteria 16:11:42 2) Dealing with Broken Repoclosure 16:11:57 3) Rebooting EPEL 16:12:06 done 16:12:19 #topic Change of Testing Criteria 16:12:24 smooge: Could we also discuss EPEL workstation vs. Server? 16:12:44 Ok I will move that to 3 and 4 will be rebooting EPEL 16:13:22 yeah, so not sure how much testing we have currently. 16:13:35 I would like to propose that we mirror our testing requirements to that of Fedora and invite Fedora QA to use EPEL as a guinea pig for any and all new AutoQA methods 16:13:38 I'd like to note that I worked with till and got fedora-easy-karma working on el5 at least. ;) 16:14:44 cool 16:15:09 I played with it but I have not done enough testing of new things. Most of the stuff in testing I don't use 16:16:11 yeah, there are many niche things. 16:16:13 smooge: While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure EPEL enjoys a large enough testing community to set those standards 16:16:41 sgallagh, well I would like autoqa to deal with a lot of the things that we aren't covering because we don't have a large enough community 16:16:55 or am I misunderstanding what autoqa does? 16:17:52 * abadger1999 sits in the bleachers 16:18:47 in any case it is an idea. We can discuss it more on the list as we really only have 3 members in standing here :) [4 if we count the bleachers] 16:19:05 smooge: I don't know enough about autoqa to answer that 16:19:05 so lets go to the more important issue... 16:19:10 ah ok 16:19:11 Perhaps we could summon jlaska for input? 16:19:37 how about I ask him for next meeting 16:19:44 Sounds good 16:20:07 #action smooge will ask jlaska to next meeting of mailing list to deal with autoqa question 16:20:20 #topic Dealing with Broken Repoclosure 16:20:43 ok so as Micheal pointed out.. EL4 has broken deps. 16:20:52 yeah. ;( 16:21:01 turns out it has quite a bit of broken deps though not as much as EL5 16:21:04 it's hard to figure which are which tho checking against centos. 16:21:16 I am running against EL4 i386 right now and will have a report to the list later today 16:21:36 nirik what do you mean? 16:22:09 centos has no ppc. Centos has no workstation vs server, we have server + "productivity" channel, etc. 16:22:21 but ideally we should have everything sane vs centos too. 16:23:46 what we may want to do is try and get a good list... 16:23:51 make sure bugs are filed. 16:24:11 then, go in and have a bug day and have provenpackagers fix up things that can easily be fixed. 16:24:18 +1 16:24:23 nirik, ok sounds good 16:24:37 there are some I know that have bugs and haven't been ever fixed... 16:24:45 we may have to look at just dropping some things too. 16:24:47 we can remove those 16:25:16 to be honest.. if its just 3-5 of us 'doing' things then we should cut down what we can 'deal' with 16:26:15 I mean we really can't test PPC beyond the builders which we are shutting off after 12 goes EOL. 16:27:02 well, perhaps we can get some qa types interested in helping... even basic testing and adding karma would be most welcome. 16:28:22 yes hopefully 16:30:02 ok anything else? 16:30:27 #topic Server/Workstation (sgallagh) 16:31:01 I talked with dgilmore about this... 16:31:14 (if it's what I think it is) 16:31:42 he's going to try and find out if RHEL6 server will have a 'productivity' channel like 5 does. If so we can just use that... 16:32:28 nirik: Basically I was just referencing whether we had made a decision on what RHEL channels we were not permitted to override 16:32:42 for 6, right? 16:32:45 Server is obvious, optional is less so, and Workstation is just confusing 16:32:46 Yes 16:33:08 right, dgilmore is going to find out more... server + server optional are being used currently. So those are sure. 16:33:14 ok 16:33:34 I don't think we want to replace workstation / workstation optional... but we need some of it to build some things. 16:34:17 we can't just include those, or we will end up shipping things that people on server can't install. 16:34:31 so, ideally they will have a productivity channel like 5 does that lets us build things. 16:35:06 Right, but if we ship the workstation packages, then people on Workstation can't use EPEL because the packages may conflict. 16:35:10 So do we have two separate EPELs? 16:35:21 thats another sad option. 16:35:26 ah so thats the problem.. I have workstation/workstation-optional installed on mine 16:35:36 I would like to avoid that... 16:35:41 oh no we just build against CentOS because they will just have one channel 16:36:31 * smooge probably needs to drink from the company cooler again.. RH koolaid must be low 16:36:44 * nirik notes thats been suggested many times before, but never been workable. 16:37:49 so are there conflicts between server/workstation? I mean if someone were to mix all the packages into one repo it would cause issues? 16:38:03 I mean we had somehting similar with the 5 Server/Workstation until AP came around? 16:38:34 I don't think there are conflicts so much as if we do that some things will require both to install/work. 16:38:35 smooge: The problem there shouldn't be conflicts 16:38:57 Yeah, what nirik said. People on one won't be able to install packages that rely on packages only available on the other 16:39:00 that was unclear 16:39:17 well yes. again we had this at the beginning of the RHEL5 didn't we? 16:39:21 I think our action here is to wait and see if there is a productivity channel. 16:39:35 nirik: What about asking for one? 16:39:39 yes, and then there was a productivity channel for server that was free/easily available. 16:39:43 Try to see if it can be included in the schedule 16:40:02 sgallagh: I'm sure we can if they don't already plan one. I don't have any idea if they do currently. 16:40:37 sounds like a question for dgregor *summons* 16:40:55 sure, if you know someone to talk to, by all means. ;) 16:42:28 perhaps ask out of band and we revisit next week? 16:42:32 and move on for now? 16:42:39 sounds like a good idea. 16:42:48 Agreed 16:43:03 #action sgallagh to perform dark incantations and get a EL6 knowledgable demon to answer questions 16:43:30 #action nirik to get an intern for sacrifice 16:43:35 * sgallagh chuckles 16:43:38 ha 16:44:37 So: "Rebooting EPEL"? 16:44:48 #topic Rebooting EPEL 16:45:06 I am mostly bringing this up here for starting discussion on the list. 16:45:29 a) our population has grown quite small 16:45:51 b) our documentation hasn't been updated from Moin-Moin (my fault) 16:46:05 * dgregor reads up 16:46:17 c) our packages aren't getting the testing we originally thought we would do 16:46:31 rhel6 workstation and server shouldn't conflict with each other except for the redhat-release-* packages 16:46:35 Is it time to look at rebooting and seeing what we can do better by EL-6 16:46:48 dgregor: Short version: will there be an optional repository for server customers to have access to workstation packages? 16:46:54 smooge: well, sure, but how do we 'reboot' ? 16:47:05 dgregor: Conflicts aren't our worry, it's missing packages from one or the other 16:47:26 #idea Talk with Fedora Marketing about getting attention for more contributors 16:47:33 delete all the wiki pages :), fire the leader, and get new staff. 16:47:44 smooge: I thought we already did that :) 16:47:48 (except the wiki) 16:47:52 #idea Talk with Fedora Marketing about getting attention for more contributors 16:47:59 sgallagh, not like there is with rhel5. there will be a rhel 6 server optional repo, but it will just be the build deps and subpackages of server that aren't in server itself. 16:48:23 dgregor: Ok, so we're pretty much guaranteed to have to pick one or the other to use as our base, then 16:48:30 so the 'optional' repo in rhel 6 is not the same the "Optional Productivity Apps" channel in rhel 5 server 16:48:43 also, EPEL is increasingly important to Red Hat's EL business, maybe there is something more to be done there. 16:48:49 * nirik plays the sad trombone. 16:49:09 since they have the marketing reach in to the enterprise that Fedora doesn't 16:49:47 nirik: So it sounds to me like we either have two EPELs, or we pick one (probably server) and live with shipping rebuilds of Workstation packages when necessary 16:49:47 sgallagh, have we looked to see how significant the diff is between workstation+optional and server+optional? 16:49:51 dgregor, so sometime around EL-6.3 we will have an AP channel that mixes them all due to customer demand :) 16:49:55 * dgregor looks 16:50:34 theres 2 tickets I know of currently from epel folks who can't build with just server/server-opt 16:50:40 smooge, perhaps. that's how Optional Productivity Apps came about 16:50:44 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3916 16:51:07 https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3906 16:52:20 my guess will be the usual .. to build some server package we will need something in workstation because of a dependency issue. 16:52:52 Yes, and as nirik has pointed out, we have existing examples already 16:53:25 smooge: anyhow, I'm fine with the reboot idea, but I think we need some more people interested in rebooting before it would do anything. 16:53:27 Personally, I'd lean toward EPEL being allowed to ship rebuilds of Workstation-only packages until and unless an AP channel appears 16:53:30 dgregor: the issue right now is we dont know what things will look like when rhel6 is final 16:53:42 and we need to know that to know what is the best route to take 16:53:57 * nirik nods. 16:54:26 smooge: I can't really drive it myself, but it would be at least a good exercise for some of us to come up with ways that Red Hat's relationships with customers could be used as a channel encourage participation in EPEL; they are already encouraging usage, but I don't think there is any message for e.g. GSS folk to use 16:54:37 I remember that our last big "Well we might as well build against CentOS-5" was fixed by AP but beyond that I don't remember particulars 16:54:38 in suggesting a customer e.g. maintain a package in EPEL v. roll their own all the time. 16:55:18 so, a messaging index of sorts for RHT and RHT partner/SIs to use in encouraging EPEL _participation_ 16:55:29 yeah, that would be nice. 16:55:31 well the issue in the past has been customers are happy with someone else maintaining it but really dont want to do it themselves 16:55:33 and a big welcome sign over here. 16:55:45 smooge: yes, 90%+ of them 16:55:51 which is always the case, anywhere :) 16:56:34 RHT teams have brought plenty of EPEL users, if we give them something to use for messaging, we might get that to adjust a bit. 16:56:39 yeah.. so I will be happy to welcome the 8% who are wanting to 16:57:02 ok messaging as in "Use EPEL, it sucks, but less." 16:58:32 ok sorry.. blood sugar running low 16:58:51 I will send this to the list with quaid's ideas added on 16:58:59 Sounds good 16:59:20 nirik I need to get a protein drink .. could you handle for a few? 16:59:30 sure, are we about done? 16:59:34 #topic Open Floor 16:59:41 anything else? 17:00:57 will close out the meeting in a minute if nothing comes up. 17:01:49 thanks for coming everyone! 17:01:53 #endmeeting