Meeting started at 2025-02-27 20:00:34 UTC

The Meeting name is 'ELN SIG 27 Feb'

The Meeting Name is now eln

!hi

Troy Dawson (tdawson)

!hi

Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his

!hi

Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his

!hi

Neil Hanlon (neil) - he / him / his

g'day folks

g'day Neil ... and Neal

* old business, starting with the desktop backgrounds topic

* new business

* open floor

anything to add today?

!hi

Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his

mhroncok filed some tickets today, anything in particular you wanted to discuss?

hi. I think none fo the tickets are urgent -- the discussion can continue in the tickets

hi. I think none of the tickets are urgent -- the discussion can continue in the tickets

I was going to leave the computer now anyway :)

ok np

226 is a known issue (at least to me!), but not much we can do about it right now

228 does need a two-part fix, so that gnome-kiosk-search-appliance is properly accounted for in CR but without pulling in the firefox RPM

which they didn't want for 10, ended up having to do anyway, but really don't want in 11

hmm that's weird

this is something I packaged because Chef still needs the old compat API

Talking about gnome-kiosk ... anyway we can have it stop using X ?

For ELN at least?

I guess the compat package is published internally at RH and used by some appstream packages, but not pushed out to the repos?

the goal was to not have libxcrypt-compat in 10, but because VDDK still needs it, it was kept in 10, still not wanted for 11 though

there's probably a mechanism to exclude it right? as long as it still shows up in the eln extras workload it's fine

Sorry, I'll file an issue in the right area and leave this out of this meeting.

we can't exclude it from ELN without FTI'ing virt-v2v

it doesn't hurt to keep it there I guess

yeah it's a tricky one, but either way libxcrypt-epel (the SRPM) won't be allowed to branch into c11s

229 is a bigger question about how to handle HA

most of HA is currently placeholders in ELN workloads, but they're being built anyway because they are fully listed in ELN Extras workloads

sigh... HA

If we try to handle HA, would we also do all of the other "non-standard" RHEL repos?

technically we already do, but they're mostly empty

firefox should be going back to appstream anyway

it doesn't belong on extras since it's being shipped

Could we do a view just for them?

for 10, but it is still unwanted (in RPM form) for 11

And addon view ... because I think that's what they are.

Or do we want them in ELN proper?

ff/tb *are* an addon in CR, but they're being pulled into non-Extras repos because of the dependency

Rephrased: There's a package in ELN that has an incorrect dependency that happens to be satisfied by a package in EPEL. Due to the way the repos are resolved, this leads to FF/TB being pulled into the official repos, when it should not be.

Rephrased: There's a package in ELN that has an incorrect dependency that happens to be satisfied by a package in ELN Extras. Due to the way the repos are resolved, this leads to FF/TB being pulled into the official repos, when it should not be.

the package dependency isn't wrong

that, and that package is not listed in CR so neither is firefox (which is good), but it's messy

it _does_ actually depend on firefox

not in RHEL 10 it doesn't

there the flatpak is used

This is a side-effect of the fact that we really shouldn't be using the same tag for both ELN and ELN Extras, but that's a whole other problem to untangle

But, the packages would be getting pulled in anyway, just from Fedora. Either way, they would end of in ELN.

But, the packages would be getting pulled in anyway, just from Fedora. Either way, they would end up in ELN.

wrong

the script in the search appliance is coded to /usr/bin/firefox

normally the answer would be to use the RHEL patch in ELN to avoid the dependency (and get that package listed), but we don't have a flatpak, so it would be unusable ootb

so it cannot use the flatpak even if you changed the dependency

RHEL carries a patch

Conan Kudo: I think you're misunderstanding: we're saying the package has a bug, not necessarily the packag*ing*

I'm saying it's not a bug

as the package is right now, it is doing what it should do

It's expecting a binary where one doesn't exist. That's a bug :)

In this situation, the FF that's in ELN Extras is essentially a third-party package that happens to own the same binary name.

sure, the wrong thing isn't the package though, it's how we are carving things up as it is right now

The package is making an assumption about where its dependency is coming from that is wrong.

this is going to go in circles if we keep going

since we have a prescheduled topic for today, in the interest of time, I'll ask that anyone interested in these follow up in the tickets

Either that package needs to use the dependency from RHEL where it lives in RHEL, or that package needs to be removed from RHEL and made part of ELN Extras.

Those are the two outcomes that make sense.

and the package built for ELN should mimic the behavior when built for RHEL, right?

yes

or at least how we want it for the /next/ RHEL

so let's not split hairs, move on?

^^^

so let's not split hairs, shall we move on?

sorry but trying to be conscious of time

it was decided three weeks ago that we would vote at this meeting

I am excited to bring back Beefy

Same.

The latest one with a little bit of everything is my favorite

2. the latest fNN-backgrounds package

1. the desktop-backgrounds package

right now, the options are:

3. Troy's first draft, with the relish near the logo

4. Troy's second draft, without the relish

5. Troy's third draft, with all the condiments on the hotdog

though you should add the dribbles of relish to

am I missing anything

can we add the relish to the third draft?

I thought the relish was the green stripe on the hotdog?

It's certainly possible, if enough people want it.

to be clear, add the relish *where*?

to the logo

I tried adding the relish "clumps" to the hot dog, but it looked terrible.

Thus the green stripe.

maybe to simplify this, and allow for further refinement, let's do this in multiple stages?

I like the latest iteration on the ticket fwiw

first question: which of the following overall options do we want?

1. desktop-backgrounds

2. fNN-backgrounds

3. Troy's prototype, with details TBD in next round(s) of voting

any objections to that as the first question?

no, good with me

seeing none, I'll put the first question now

please vote 1, 2, or 3

3

3

3

3

(also I might want a variation of that prototype without the ELN logo for a `generic-backgrounds` package)

(since we currently do not have one and that would be useful for educating people on how branding packages work)

Neil Hanlon Stephen Gallagher ?

I abstain. I don't really like any of the choices (sorry, Troy)

Neither 1 or 2 give the impression of being ELN, and the specific options provided for 3 are too whimsical for me.

Neither 1 or 2 give me the impression of being ELN, and the specific options provided for 3 are too whimsical for me.

we need the corporate drone variant maybe :)

mmm

I don't have a problem with opinions. If that's what you feel, that's what you feel.

Michel Lind UTC-6: You jest, but I kinda feel like an ELN background should be mostly... boring?

I am half joking - I understand the concern

we can always add a second background later, right? but I think we should ship Troy's first

majority roolz

Right, that's why I'm abstaining, not voting against.

I have no strong preferences

you could use some kind of hive thing and use the corporate drone badge artwork

this is already way better than the Rawhide default background... right? :)

I don't feel strongly enough about it to try to argue with the majority opinion.

that looks like +4, -0, 2?

for option 3, that is

I think so

you didn't vote Yaakov?

I count Neil and Stephen abstaining

So, I quickly made two more based on feedback.

One for Conan Kudo https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/eln/background/eln-beefy-miracle-everything-extra-relish.png

yeeee

One for Stephen Gallagher https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/eln/background/eln-plain.png

my eyes want something to be present in that version

it's a bit empty

or maybe if the ELN logo was in the dead center, it'd be better

second question: relish next to the ELN logo?

-1

+1

+1

https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/eln/background/eln-plain-big.png

-0 I guess, I have a weak preference for the one without the relish but I don't feel strongly either way

I thought everyone felt strongly about the relish one way or the other /jk

Oh ... I just noticed that those plain ones were exported wrong ... just a second.

the big one is nicer I think

https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/eln/background/eln-plain-big.png

right now we're at +2, -1, 1 for the relish

I'm at a -1 for the relish. I like it plain.

let me double check the images again

Stephen Gallagher: What do you think of the last plain one I put up?

and we're just about at time

can we decide on the relish today and continue next week?

Troy Dawson: I like it more than the other options.

the color seems duplicate with the bottles so I guess I'll change my mind and vote no on relish

sorry Neal

ps Troy I do like ketchup on my hot dogs... sowwy

I'm again +0, sorry 😕

I like all condiments!

we're at time, so we'll have to carry this over to next week

Troy Dawson can you revise your options based on today's discussion and update the ticket?

Sorry, got the wrong line. Yes, I'll do that.

we're already over time, anything urgent?

nothing from me

in that case, let's follow up in tickets and in #eln:fedoraproject.org, and we'll continue next week. thanks everyone for your contributions!