16:01:15 <sgallagh> #startmeeting FESCO (2017-10-27)
16:01:15 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Oct 27 16:01:15 2017 UTC.  The chair is sgallagh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:01:15 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:01:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco_(2017-10-27)'
16:01:15 <sgallagh> #meetingname fesco
16:01:15 <sgallagh> #chair maxamillion dgilmore nirik jforbes jsmith kalev sgallagh bowlofeggs tyll
16:01:15 <sgallagh> #topic init process
16:01:15 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fesco'
16:01:15 <zodbot> Current chairs: bowlofeggs dgilmore jforbes jsmith kalev maxamillion nirik sgallagh tyll
16:01:19 <kalev> morning!
16:01:21 <kalev> .hello kalev
16:01:22 <zodbot> kalev: kalev 'Kalev Lember' <klember@redhat.com>
16:01:24 <sgallagh> .hello2
16:01:25 <zodbot> sgallagh: sgallagh 'Stephen Gallagher' <sgallagh@redhat.com>
16:01:34 <jforbes> .hello jforbes
16:01:35 <zodbot> jforbes: jforbes 'Justin M. Forbes' <jforbes@redhat.com>
16:01:36 <jsmith> .hello2
16:01:40 <zodbot> jsmith: jsmith 'Jared Smith' <jsmith.fedora@gmail.com>
16:01:44 <tyll> .hello till
16:01:46 <zodbot> tyll: till 'Till Maas' <opensource@till.name>
16:02:13 <ariSun> Good morning
16:02:58 <dgilmore> hi
16:03:43 <sgallagh> Well, we have quorum, so I suppose we'll get started
16:03:53 <sgallagh> #topic #1737 i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we drop i686 kernel from F28
16:04:38 <sgallagh> jsbackus Replied with a pretty decent set of answers to my queries.
16:04:52 <kalev> .fesco 1737
16:04:54 <zodbot> kalev: Issue #1737: Proposal: i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we drop i686 kernel from F28 - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1737
16:05:08 <maxamillion> .hello2
16:05:09 <zodbot> maxamillion: maxamillion 'Adam Miller' <maxamillion@gmail.com>
16:05:12 <maxamillion> sorry I'm late
16:05:34 <sgallagh> Proposal: i686 SIG is certified functional and will be responsible for i686-specific issues
16:05:40 <ariSun> I come from the xi686 SIG to note and forward any concern you may have
16:05:49 <sgallagh> kalev: Thanks, bad copy-paste missed the .fesco
16:06:09 <sgallagh> ariSun: Thanks for joining the meetign
16:07:04 <kalev> sgallagh: +1, I really like the replies we got in the ticket, sounds like it's on the right track
16:07:38 <tyll> sgallagh: +1
16:08:19 <jsmith> sgallagh: +1
16:08:30 <jforbes> +1
16:08:35 <maxamillion> +1
16:09:37 <kalev> jforbes: anything to add from the kernel side? are you guys getting help with i686?
16:10:00 <sgallagh> +1 for the record
16:10:21 <jforbes> Well, there hasn't been motion on the bugs we added the blocker yet, but they aren't the most critical either.  I think things are okay as they are as long as they continue
16:10:33 <sgallagh> #agreed i686 SIG is certified functional and will be responsible for i686-specific issues (+6, 0, -0)
16:11:06 <sgallagh> Obviously, FESCo reserves the right to withdraw this approval if the SIG doesn't continue to function satisfactorily.
16:12:07 <ariSun> Understood, thank you very much for giving us a chance
16:12:15 <sgallagh> ariSun: Good luck!
16:12:23 <sgallagh> #topic #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes - Rust
16:12:23 <sgallagh> .fesco 1767
16:12:24 <zodbot> sgallagh: Issue #1767: F28 Self Contained Changes - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1767
16:12:38 <sgallagh> ignatenkobrain has asked us to revisit the Rust Change
16:14:04 <ignatenkobrain> I did ;)
16:14:18 <jforbes> With bowlofeggs not present that is kind of difficult to do
16:14:19 <sgallagh> My understanding here is that the Rust change was waiting on support for rich deps in the infrastructure tools
16:14:22 <dgilmore> I would suggest that the rust change is system wide. it has a wider system wide change involving us having to change tools in how we deliver software
16:14:23 <sgallagh> Is this correct?
16:14:41 <jsmith> To be honest, I'm not sure all the releng tools have been moved over to DNF
16:14:45 <dgilmore> sgallagh: yes, and with bodhi switching to pungi this week, we think we are okay
16:14:53 <sgallagh> dgilmore++
16:14:53 <zodbot> sgallagh: Karma for ausil changed to 7 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:14:58 <jsmith> dgilmore++
16:14:58 <zodbot> jsmith: Karma for ausil changed to 8 (for the f26 release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:15:00 <maxamillion> yeah, nothing left afaik for porting to dnf
16:15:09 <jforbes> dgilmore: did the switchover happen without issue?
16:15:17 <dgilmore> jforbes: mostly
16:15:20 <maxamillion> (for those who don't know, puiterwijk got the pungi+bodhi work across the finish line)
16:15:29 <dgilmore> puiterwijk++
16:15:35 <jforbes> excellent
16:15:38 <dgilmore> he did way too much work to make it happen
16:15:56 <ignatenkobrain> P.S. rich deps and rust packaging got approved by FPC yesterday
16:16:06 <sgallagh> puiterwijk++
16:16:09 <ignatenkobrain> and also I don't see why it should be system-wide change
16:16:13 <ignatenkobrain> but if you want so, I don't care
16:16:15 <jforbes> So, my understanding is that was the last blokcer
16:16:21 <ignatenkobrain> it's one-line change in wiki
16:17:16 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: it has a big impact outside of Rust
16:17:26 <dgilmore> if it was not the first it would be self contained
16:19:53 <jforbes> dgilmore: While I agree, I think we are arguing semantics, all of the impact outside of rust is what has led to the delay in approving this to begin with
16:20:26 <dgilmore> jforbes: perhaps them that needs/needed a different change
16:20:47 <jforbes> dgilmore: It probably did, but wasn't the bodhi change the last of it?
16:21:05 <dgilmore> jforbes: we think so
16:21:18 <maxamillion> the next steps would be to test some stuff, yes?
16:21:25 <jforbes> right, so again, arguing semantics.
16:21:33 <dgilmore> jforbes: but making sure people know Rich Deps are something that we support is kinda a big thing
16:21:41 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: ping - I think you had mentioned doing some testing in stage for rust/rich-deps .... or am I misremembering?
16:21:46 <dgilmore> I do not really care how we do that
16:22:01 <puiterwijk> maxamillion: pong. We had testing in rawhide, but nothing yet in any stable things
16:22:17 <puiterwijk> I have so far told ignatenkobrain that he could not push a test package because the policies still say it's not allowed
16:22:27 <jforbes> maxamillion: nirik said last week that pungi was tested as working during last weeks meeting
16:22:29 <ignatenkobrain> but it is allowed by FPC
16:22:39 <ignatenkobrain> I got confirmation from geppetto
16:22:41 <puiterwijk> (and I do not have the authority to give ignatenkobrain an ack to override the policy)
16:22:41 <jforbes> puiterwijk: right, that is what is being asked for here
16:23:23 <puiterwijk> jforbes: right. I would say that a limited test in e.g. f27-u-t might give us definitive proof if it'll work or not. But I see no reason why it wouldn't
16:23:46 <puiterwijk> So, to answer maxamillion: yes, we have testing in rawhide, no we don't have testing for rich deps in the updates process yet.
16:23:58 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: rgr, thanks for the info
16:24:48 <maxamillion> jforbes: yeah, however it's now in production so I was curious if that was still correct
16:25:27 <jforbes> valid concern.
16:26:36 <maxamillion> jforbes: which it seems to be :)
16:26:57 <jforbes> Seems we need a path forward though, rather than a lot of "is it ready yet?" Last week it was said that things would be good to go as soon as bodhi rolled, and we wanted to wait until this week to vote when we knew that bodhi either did or didn't make it
16:27:17 <maxamillion> yeah
16:27:51 <maxamillion> puiterwijk: since you did the work for the bodhi+pungi and the mirror sync stuff to go along with the change, what are your thoughts on the topic?
16:27:52 <dgilmore> jforbes: we believe things will work
16:28:14 <jforbes> And the backout if they don't?
16:28:32 <puiterwijk> maxamillion: my personal opinion is that we can go ahead and try at least one package/update/..., if it works, we are all good to go. If it doesn't, we'll see what broke
16:28:51 <puiterwijk> It should be really quick to figure out if it works with a small repo like f27-u-t
16:28:56 <dgilmore> the sticking point in the past has been multilib
16:29:26 <maxamillion> does rust potentially have a multilib concern associated with it?
16:29:45 <dgilmore> so the package should be something that is archful and the i686 rpms will get pulled in to x86_64
16:29:50 <ignatenkobrain> I'm wondering if FESCo approves Change Proposals when they are implemented
16:30:38 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: no, but this is a special case, we want to make sure they can be implemented
16:30:59 <dgilmore> because of the dependencies this has we are being careful
16:31:11 <ignatenkobrain> well, if it can't there is backout plan
16:31:34 <maxamillion> also this is technically past-due for F27 by quite some time, so it's a special consideration
16:31:41 <maxamillion> but that's neither here nor there
16:31:46 <dgilmore> I am okay with approving the change, if we hit issues that can't be resolved we implement the contingency plan
16:31:56 <dgilmore> maxamillion: its f28
16:32:04 <maxamillion> if this is something we can test and easily back out if it breaks things, then I'd propose we conditionally approve it
16:32:18 <maxamillion> dgilmore: I thought we discussed last meeting allowing it for f27?
16:32:33 <maxamillion> question is, can this be tested and easily backed out if needed?
16:32:33 <dgilmore> maxamillion: the issue is for f28 self contained changes
16:32:42 <maxamillion> dgilmore: yeah, I know
16:32:48 <maxamillion> I'll have to check the meeting logs
16:33:02 <jforbes> We did, as it is new packages, and if it works on one, it works on the others, but it wouldn't make the F27 release anyway, it would be an F28 feature
16:33:13 <ignatenkobrain> jforbes: +1
16:33:44 <maxamillion> oh ok
16:34:55 <jforbes> Basically just like any other new package added to the distro, it could be added to existing stable releases
16:35:09 <maxamillion> right, pending the tooling is ready
16:35:14 <maxamillion> so
16:36:11 <maxamillion> Proposal: Conditionally approve the Rust Change, pending testing of rich-deps in the RelEng tooling is successful
16:36:21 <dgilmore> proposal: we accept the RUST change for f28
16:36:27 <maxamillion> oh ok
16:36:32 <maxamillion> dgilmore: +1
16:36:39 <jsmith> maxamillion: +1 to either proposal
16:36:40 <dgilmore> +1 obviously
16:36:46 <jforbes> +1
16:36:49 <ignatenkobrain> dgilmore: +1
16:36:52 <dgilmore> if we hit issues that is what the contingency plan is for
16:37:01 <tyll> dgilmore: +1
16:37:02 <dgilmore> ignatenkobrain: you do not get a vote :)
16:37:08 <kalev> dgilmore: +1
16:37:09 <sgallagh> +1
16:37:17 <ignatenkobrain> dgilmore: just noting that I like your proposal more ;)
16:37:30 <dgilmore> I believe we have done enough work to give it the best possible chance of sucess
16:37:46 <puiterwijk> I know my vote doesn't count, but I'm +1
16:38:13 <maxamillion> eh, I like it when people vote who aren't on FESCo ... helps me better understand everyone's opinions on an issue
16:38:28 <maxamillion> it just doesn't get counted in the final tally
16:39:19 <sgallagh> Sorry, just got a phone call. Will tally the votes now
16:39:57 <sgallagh> #agreed We accept the RUST change for f28 (+6, 0, -0)
16:40:08 <sgallagh> #topic #1780 F28 System Wide Change: Annobin
16:40:08 <sgallagh> .fesco 1780
16:40:13 <zodbot> sgallagh: Issue #1780: F28 System Wide Change: Annobin - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1780
16:40:56 <jsmith> I'm still +1
16:40:58 <maxamillion> sgallagh: this was voted and approved 2 weeks ago
16:41:41 <jforbes> "On a side note - the original method of applying this change (patching the redhat-rpm-config package) has proven to be broken. I am currently trying to find an alternative method of enabling the plugin, but so far have had no luck."
16:41:42 <sgallagh> "FESCo would like to request an estimate of how much larger each binary will be so we can make an educated estimate on how much larger this will make the Everything repo."
16:42:07 <maxamillion> sgallagh: oh right, derp ... sorry
16:42:08 <sgallagh> If we want to skip this for today, that's fine.
16:42:16 <maxamillion> no, sounds good
16:42:32 <tyll> looks good enough for me (+1 on approving)
16:42:37 <maxamillion> I'm still +1 ... I think ~4% is reasonable given the positive nature of the change
16:43:12 <dgilmore> sgallagh: not sure there is anything to discuss though
16:43:12 <jsmith> I think the value it brings is more than enough to compensate for the increase in size
16:43:30 <jforbes> I do agree, I think it is inline with what we discussed when it was approved
16:43:30 * dgilmore agrees with above
16:43:33 <sgallagh> Yeah, unless that 4% number makes anyone uncomfortable, let's move on
16:43:43 <kalev> +1 from me too
16:44:13 <sgallagh> I'm not going to take a formal vote
16:44:35 <sgallagh> #info FESCo doesn't see any problems with the 4% increase in repodata
16:44:46 <sgallagh> #topic #1782 use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software
16:44:47 <sgallagh> .fesco 1782
16:44:49 <zodbot> sgallagh: Issue #1782: use of updates-testing for testing of non-update software - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1782
16:45:02 <jforbes> That issue is done and closed
16:45:21 <sgallagh> Oops, sorry
16:45:26 <sgallagh> next...
16:45:34 <sgallagh> #topic #1783 Firefox 57 and the Updates Policy
16:45:34 <sgallagh> .fesco 1783
16:45:38 <zodbot> sgallagh: Issue #1783: Firefox 57 and the Updates Policy - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1783
16:45:53 <sgallagh> We were trying to get votes in-ticket here, but here we are.
16:46:45 <jsmith> Sorry, I was out sick much of the week, and just now trying to catch up
16:46:55 <sgallagh> Proposal (from ticket): Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install
16:47:01 <jforbes> While shipping a pre-release isn't ideal, I think it is better than forcing the transition on another stable branch
16:47:02 <jsmith> I'm +1 to nirik's proposal
16:47:04 <sgallagh> reluctant +1 from me
16:47:11 <jforbes> +1
16:47:26 <maxamillion> not-super-excited +1 from me
16:47:43 <kalev> +1
16:48:34 <tyll> +1
16:48:42 <jsmith> dgilmore?
16:51:05 <dgilmore> +!
16:51:06 <sgallagh> #agreed Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+5, 0, -0)
16:51:08 <dgilmore> +1
16:51:09 <sgallagh> #undo
16:51:09 <zodbot> Removing item from minutes: AGREED by sgallagh at 16:51:06 : Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+5, 0, -0)
16:51:12 <sgallagh> #agreed Fedora 27 will ship a pre-release of Firefox 57 so that we don't hit these woes on first upgrade after install (+6, 0, -0)
16:51:19 <sgallagh> Excellent timing :-P
16:51:30 <sgallagh> #topic #1785 Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the
16:51:30 <sgallagh> locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr
16:51:30 <sgallagh> .fesco 1785
16:51:33 <zodbot> sgallagh: Issue #1785: Mesa/Nouveau maintainer(s) should be required to ship the locking patches from the QtWebEngine Copr - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1785
16:51:40 <dgilmore> -1
16:52:12 <sgallagh> -1 as well. People who know what they're doing say this isn't the right fix, I trust them.
16:52:29 <jforbes> While I understand their asking, this isn't just the maintainer refusing to carry the patches, the original author is strongly opposed.
16:52:35 <sgallagh> That said, I think we may want to propose this as a Prioritized Bug, since it does impact a large subset of our userbase.
16:52:35 <jforbes> -1 here
16:52:40 <maxamillion> -1
16:52:41 <dgilmore> given that they were removed from upstream consideration because of issues, I am against trying to force them into fedora
16:53:29 <sgallagh> Proposal: FESCo understands that this is a serious issue, but doesn't feel that it should override the decision of the subject matter experts.
16:53:36 <jsmith> I'd love to see more communication here, and get a sense of when acceptable fixes might be in place... but I tend to a agree that forcing the existing patches doesn't seem like the best answer
16:53:41 <dgilmore> +1
16:53:43 <maxamillion> sgallagh: +1
16:53:46 <jforbes> sgallagh: from Ben's response, it is a priority, just difficult to tackle
16:53:51 <jforbes> sgallagh: +1
16:53:54 <jsmith> sgallagh: +1
16:53:55 <kalev> sgallagh: +1
16:54:18 <tyll> sgallagh: +1
16:54:22 <sgallagh> #agreed FESCo understands that this is a serious issue, but doesn't feel that it should override the decision of the subject matter experts (+6, 0, -0)
16:54:37 <sgallagh> Last ticket...
16:54:41 <sgallagh> #topic #1787 releng issue 7071 as an F27 release blocker
16:54:41 <sgallagh> .fesco 1878
16:54:48 <dgilmore> -1
16:54:48 <zodbot> sgallagh: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
16:54:50 <jforbes> jsmith: any sense of when fixes might be in place is just a wild assed guess "The correct fix is really difficult to implement, especially in a
16:54:50 <jforbes> bisectable way, without breaking anything. I have been trying to do so
16:54:50 <jforbes> for quite a while now"
16:55:26 <sgallagh> .fesco 1878
16:55:26 <maxamillion> .fesco 1787
16:55:33 <jforbes> -1 on blocker here given the input from releng
16:55:33 <zodbot> sgallagh: An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
16:55:36 <zodbot> maxamillion: Issue #1787: releng issue 7071 as an F27 release blocker - fesco - Pagure - https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1787
16:55:51 <kalev> -1 as per releng's comments
16:56:38 <maxamillion> -1 as well
16:56:47 <tyll> -1 on blocking since it is nothing new
16:57:07 <sgallagh> -1
16:57:25 <dgilmore> this issue has existed for at least 8 years
16:57:26 <jsmith> I'd like more information on how the reporter thinks it's blocking composes, so I guess I'm +0
16:57:32 <dgilmore> likely forever
16:57:50 <dgilmore> jsmith: it does not block any composes
16:58:33 <kalev> it's an issue with updates-testing, not final composes that are done from properly multilibbed stable repos, as I understand it
16:58:49 <sgallagh> #agreed FESCo does not consider this blocking for the release (0, 1, -5)
16:59:18 <jforbes> Ugh, sorry. I have to run, we still have quorum?
16:59:26 <jforbes> (Sick kid needs to be picked up from school)
16:59:31 <dgilmore> kalev: it is
16:59:46 <dgilmore> jforbes: hope kid is better soon
17:00:01 <jsmith> jforbes: Family comes first...
17:00:03 <jforbes> thanks, sure it is the strep that my wife has...
17:00:04 <dgilmore> without jforbes we should still be okay
17:00:20 <puiterwijk> Can I give one extra bit of info? It looks like that multilib rpm is back, might be because of the new repo generation process
17:00:27 <puiterwijk> (aka, the issue seems resolved)
17:00:41 <kalev> ohh, awesome!
17:00:43 <jsmith> puiterwijk: Good to know -- thanks for the additional info
17:01:00 <maxamillion> jforbes: hope all is well!
17:01:07 <dgilmore> puiterwijk: or something requireing it was added
17:01:14 <puiterwijk> dgilmore: right
17:01:18 <dgilmore> the issue is super transient in nature
17:01:23 <sgallagh> OK, do we need to continue on this, then?
17:01:25 <puiterwijk> Ah, okay.
17:01:29 <dgilmore> i.e. multilib is tough and sucks
17:01:36 <maxamillion> dgilmore: indeed
17:01:41 <maxamillion> sgallagh: probably good to move on
17:02:48 <sgallagh> #topic Next week's chair
17:03:04 * sgallagh tosses the grenade into the crowd.
17:03:07 * dgilmore will not be available next week
17:03:08 <jsmith> I may be gone next week, but would be happy to volunteer for the week after
17:03:08 <sgallagh> Who's going to jump on it?
17:03:31 * dgilmore will be in a training class in Brno
17:04:09 * puiterwijk thinks the grenade has exploded by now
17:04:14 * jsmith will likely be on an airplane
17:04:25 <sgallagh> puiterwijk: That's probably why no one is volunteering
17:04:27 <maxamillion> I'll take it
17:04:30 <sgallagh> Next time I'll use a dud
17:04:33 <sgallagh> Thanks maxamillion
17:04:44 <sgallagh> #info maxamillion to chair next week's meeting
17:04:47 <puiterwijk> sgallagh: but don't tell them it's a dud, or they'll ignore it!
17:04:57 <dgilmore> cheers maxamillion
17:04:59 <tyll> maxamillion: thank you very much!
17:05:14 <sgallagh> #topic Open Floor
17:05:23 * jsmith has nothing for the open floor
17:05:28 <maxamillion> same
17:05:38 <dgilmore> nada aqui
17:06:14 <tyll> dito
17:07:44 <sgallagh> OK, thanks for coming folks!
17:07:48 <sgallagh> #endmeeting