Meeting started at 2026-07-08 18:02:02 UTC

The Meeting name is 'EPEL (2026-07-01)'

The Meeting Name is now epel

!hi

Diego Herrera: Diego Herrera (dherrera) - he / him / his

!hi

Robby Callicotte: Robby Callicotte (rcallicotte) - he / him / his

Hi Diego Herrera and Robby Callicotte

!hi

Carl George: Carl George (carlwgeorge) - he / him / his

!hi

Conan Kudo 😌: Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

Hi Carl George and Conan Kudo 😌

!hi

Davide Cavalca: Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his

Hi Davide Cavalca

I could have sworn that we had an incompatible issue that was a week old ....

We currently have two that aren't a week old.

!epel 369

● **Last Updated:** Never

**epel/steering #369** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/steering/issues/369):**(Slightly) Incompatible update request for rust-routinator**

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

● **Opened:** 5 days ago by salimma

Issue querying Pagure: Issue not found

That ones been on the books for 5 days ... so it's a slightly incompatible update, that is slightly not been out for week.

calendar week or business week? 😉

The email was sent the 3rd of July.

5 days?

solar week or lunar week?

Anyway ... take a look at it, though all the details are in the emails, so we can discuss and vote next week.

The other one, that is just one day old, is mine

I guess I show up every week now 😅

!epel 370

**epel/steering #370** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/steering/issues/370):**EPEL9 Incompatible Update - ffmpeg 5 to 7**

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

● **Last Updated:** Never

● **Opened:** 20 hours ago by tdawson

Issue querying Pagure: Issue not found

!hi

Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

it seems okay to me, I don't have any objection

Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️: If you want, we could do an async voting (if that is the term) so that we put a +1 on the issue, then by friday, if it's reached the majority, you should be able to work on it.

this was already previously discussed a while ago, so I think we should still be good on the ffmpeg update

That will be nice, thanks

Just in case it starts blocking other rust updates

In-ticket voting?

That's it. In-ticket voting.

I might have another incompatible request or two next week 😅

/me hates AI driven CVEs

!hi

Jonathan Wright: Jonathan Wright (jonathanspw)

Hi Jonathan Wright

someone should tell those rust lib maintainers about https://0ver.org

I don't hear any negatives, so please put your Plus 1's on issue 369, and if we have a majority (4) by Friday, Michel Lind ☘ UTC+1 ⏱️ should be able to start moving forward.

Anything else about either of these tickets before we move on?

i'm ok with moving on 👍️

Does anyone have any old business to bring forward?

I'll take the silence for a no, and move on

Does anyone have anything for Open Floor?

I think Carl has something

Go for it Carl

perhaps should have been in the issues topic, but i didn't file an issue and just went straight to a pr

!epel 361

● **Assignee:** Not Assigned

● **Last Updated:** a month ago

● **Opened:** 4 months ago by salimma

**epel/steering #361** (https://forge.fedoraproject.org/epel/steering/issues/361):**EPEL 9 incompatible update request for python-django-allauth; also surfacing issue with ipa packaging**

Issue querying Pagure: Issue not found

disregard that one, wrong repo

!issue epel docs pr 361

Doh ... and it's even marked with meeting. The one week I don't check.

looks like prs with the meeting tag don't show up in that filter

i was "inspired" to submit this change because i noticed epel9 has a postgresql16-credcheck package that fails to install by default

Oh ... it's built off a non default module? That's rather hard to do isn't it?

in fedora credcheck (no prefix) buildrequires the default postgresql-server-devel. in epel9 they removed the buildrequires and made it just a requires so it would build. it does install if you enable the postgresql:16 module, but this felt very much against the spirit of the target base policy.

so i submitted what i think makes sense to clarify the policy and make it explicit instead of implicit

I agree, it's pretty much against the intent of the policy here.

hold up what? this is for a customer?

why didn't they just extend the RHEL module for this?

that's a great question, i have no idea, and i told them the same thing in the bug

(yes I know there's no answers here, this is rhetorical)

thankfully modules are ending in general, but I'm supportive of making it painfully explicit that people should not do this

regardless of that chicanery, i think our purview is to clarify the policy, then i'll continue to work with the maintainer to get it retired or switched to the default postgres

Carl George: Did you want a vote on that before it get's merged?

probably, since one could argue it's technically a policy change

I don't think it's a change of policy, merely a better wording, but if it helps, I'm ok voting.

yeah could argue either way

i think it's just a clarification, but meh

Let's vote then, so that it's clear.

+1 from me of course

+1 from me

+1 from me

+1

+1

Jonathan Wright: Are you here enough to vote on this?

Not really, mobile ATM.

Fair enough, we had enough votes.

Does someone mind putting the vote on the ticket.

Do we have any other items for Open Floor?

I'll take that as a no, and that everyone is ready to get out of the meeting early.

Thank you all for the good discussions. And thank you all for all you do for EPEL and it's community.

I'll talk to ya'll next week.

bye Troy!