<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:10
!startmeeting FESCo (2025-04-01)
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:11
Meeting started at 2025-04-01 17:01:10 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:11
The Meeting name is 'FESCo (2025-04-01)'
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:23
!meetingname fesco
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:23
The Meeting Name is now fesco
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:33
Chairs: @conan_kudo:matrix.org, @ngompa:fedora.im, @nirik:matrix.scrye.com, @humaton:fedora.im, @zbyszek:fedora.im, @sgallagh:fedora.im, @fale:fale.io, @dcantrell:fedora.im, @decathorpe:fedora.im, @salimma:fedora.im
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:01:42
!topic Roll Call
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:02:04
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:05
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbyszek)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:02:06
morning
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:02:15
'evening ;)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:02:36
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:38
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:02:41
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:02:43
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:02:58
Michel Lind UTC-6: you don't get bonus points for being early :)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:03:01
TFW when you're just a bit late you preemptively hi-ed and then realized the meeting has not started
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:03:16
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:03:17
Tomáš Hrčka (humaton) - he / him / his
<@emma:rory.gay>
17:04:27
sounds like its time to attach a broom to that stick then :p
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:04:40
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:04:41
Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh) - he / him / his
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:05:34
ok, it's :05 and we are seven, so we have quorum. Fale can join us later when no longer stick in traffic
<@emma:rory.gay>
17:05:52
(dont count me)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:05:56
!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/PUJKSYSMP5QZ4L4LRYJZ3CJIYMUSJRYQ/
<@emma:rory.gay>
17:06:01
(dont count me, i just wanted to play my joke)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:08
link to today's agenda, for convenience.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:28
!topic #3364 F42 Incomplete Changes Report
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:37
!fesco 3364
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:38
● **Assignee:** Not Assigned
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:38
**fesco #3364** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3364):**F42 Incomplete Changes Report**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:38
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:38
● **Opened:** a month ago by amoloney
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:06:38
● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:06:55
just making sure we didn't miss anything.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:07:12
I think we completed that list two weeks ago.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:07:12
nirik: we'll get you up to speed in no time
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:07:19
So if nothing degenerated since then, we should be fine.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:08:00
> Anaconda as native Wayland application
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:08:00
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:08:00
is still MODIFIED, is that OK?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:08:21
same as "Anaconda WebUI Partitioning", but they're ... overlapping anyway
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:08:50
I think that's a clerical error. It's definitely testable at this point.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:08:56
Effectively, if nobody has filed for activation of contingency plans, we can probably ignore this.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:01
yeah, that should be done/QA
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:09:05
ah, right, the tracker bugs are now both ON_QA.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:09:25
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:09:25
this one was dropped?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:09:25
> Reduce the amount of "dontaudit" rules pertaining to unlabeled_t
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:09:57
moved to 43 I think
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:26
> Idris 2
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:26
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:26
still in progress?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:10:26
Ack, the change 'Reduce the amount of "dontaudit" rules pertaining to unlabeled_t' has now been updated to F43.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:53
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:53
I have seen Jens build stuff, so this is in progress too
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:10:53
> Haskell GHC 9.8 and Stackage 23
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:11:30
zezere and bpfman are done too.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:11:36
so I think we're all good
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:11:53
the idris2 is still pending review. I think we should defer it to 43 at this point
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:11:56
bpfman status should be changed to ON_QA probably right
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:12:39
idris2 is a new langue stack, so it can be added at any point… I don't think it makes sense to *not* add in F42 if it becomes ready within a month or two.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:12:55
> Review Request: idris2
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:13:07
this looks parallel-installable, so I don't think it needs to be re-targeted *yet*
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:13:32
Yes, they can add it, but let’s defer announcement to 43 at this point.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:13:48
right, it would be odd to have it a approved change.. and not be there.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:13:49
Since we are post-Beta now
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:13:53
we are in final freeze now.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:14:14
Yeah, but it wouldn't be on the installation images anyway.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:14:24
So if it appears before the Release, that should be fine, no?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:14:50
I guess... but are we going to check and fix it if it does not?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:14:50
I think it's 90% done, so it's likely that it'll be ready before the official release date.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:15:11
*nods* if it's in updates-testing and available once we unfreeze I think that's good enough?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:15:24
Proposal: Re-target Idris 2 Change Proposal to Fedora 43 if the package has not been imported by next week (April 8)
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:15:35
well, it would still be a bit odd to me to not be in the base repos... but sure.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:15:51
we should make sure Jens is aware so this does not get accidentally dropped
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:14
since it's a new package, adding it via FE would be straightforward, though
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:16:15
+1 to that proposal
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:16:16
Fabio Valentini: -1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:16:16
Can we reword?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:16:29
NEVER
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:16:35
if there is time...
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:16:47
it might be it gets a FE, but we don't need to do any more RC's...
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:17:20
Hmm, when are we planning to release?
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:17:27
it's just anoying to deal with all this when we are supposed to be frozen/trying to release. ;) But sure, I'm ok giving another week
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:17:28
current final target date is April 15
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:17:36
Counter-proposal: The Idris 2 Change is deferred to Fedora 43. It may still be delivered in Fedora 42, but there will be no announcements and it will be considered "experimental".
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:17:43
!link https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-42/f-42-key-tasks.html
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:17:48
which means go/nogo has to be go on the 10th
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:17:56
Counter-proposal: The Idris 2 Change is deferred to Fedora 43. It may still be delivered in Fedora 42 post-GA, but there will be no announcements and it will be considered "experimental".
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:17:58
which means we need a rc by the 7th/8thish
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:18:32
ok, this is tighter than I thought, so landing via FE is unlikely, true
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:18:59
I don't think we'd allow a FE for it anyway. It doesn't check any of the required boxes.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:19:21
Why can't we make the deadline the release date?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:19:36
If the release slips, it's fine if the package comes in a week later.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:19:49
zbyszek: I don't like the idea of us advertising new features that had zero soak time in Beta
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:20:17
If we were discussing "we shipped an RC in Beta and we want to land the GA release in our GA", that would be different.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:20:20
I worry about reviewers... "this change was listed, but I can't find the package? I wonder what went wrong"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:20:42
yeah it's not a good look
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:21:22
OK, so I'll be +1 to Fabio Valentini 's proposal
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:21:23
So I'm open to allowing it to land as normal package additions in F42 post-GA, and we announce it as a major feature of F43 once it's had time to marinate a bit
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:39
makes sense to me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:21:40
+1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:21:55
yeah, given the lack of status updates that's probably better anyway
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:22:06
I'm still -1 to allowing it in this late.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:22:09
*orderrrr*
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:22:35
(in to the frozen repo and announcements, I mean)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:22:51
Conan Kudo: you were +1 to Stephen or to my proposal?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:23:10
frozen repo, yes, this is late, but announcement should be fine if it's in "updates" or "testing" repos, I think
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:23:16
yours
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:23:50
I don't feel too strongly one way or another, but I do feel the change should move if it's not in the frozen repo
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:24:08
either we let it in this week or we push it off to f43
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:24:11
Conan Kudo: That sounds more like my proposal than his, then
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:24:30
fesco can do 'fesco blockers'... perhaps this should be a 'fesco freeze exception' :)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:24:35
We're already in GA Freeze and we're unlikely to grant it a Freeze Exception
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:24:56
New proposal: This Change is Re-targeted at Fedora 43, but the package can still land in Fedora 42 as a normal "newpackage" update at any time.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:25:02
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:25:39
Fabio Valentini: That's my proposal, rephrased isn't it?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:25:49
Stephen Gallagher: mostly, yes
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:26:05
I think I'm missing the distinction
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:26:12
except for not calling it "experimental", which seems unnecessary.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:26:39
I can live with that. +1 to Fabio's latest proposal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:26:46
I am saying we as fesco could just do that... but sounds like most of us just think it should move to 43 at this point
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:26:47
0
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:28:28
+1 to Fabio's latest proposal
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:28:57
nirik: I don't know much about Idris 2, but I feel like that sort of action would be best reserved for us deciding that we needed to bend the rules to be first-to-market on a particular new tech. Is this important enough to do that?
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:29:04
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:29:40
(Though, realistically I feel like we'd call for it to be a blocker in that case)
<@fale:fale.io>
17:29:57
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:30:21
yes, that would be a blocker, FE means it doesn't have to be added if QE doesn't request it, or if there's no RC for other blockery reasons.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:30:43
Stephen Gallagher: https://repology.org/project/idris2/versions says it's not widely available yet.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:30:45
so we are at (+6, 1, -0) if I'm counting correctly (with me +1 to my own proposal)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:31:07
any objections?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:31:51
nirik: OK, do you want to make a pitch for us to treat it as a blocker?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:32:45
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:32:50
no, thats not what I was suggesting. ;)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:33:13
err, my +1 was to Fabio's proposal
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
17:33:16
I was saying we could treat it as a FE... but I'll stop because we already decided something else. ;)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:33:27
indeed
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:33:38
!agreed The Idris 2 Change Proposal is re-targeted at Fedora 43, but the package can still land in Fedora 42 as a normal "newpackage" update at any time. (+7, 1, -0)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:34:03
Sorry, I think I skipped a step in my thought process. I was arguing that we should leave FEs to the normal process and that the case where FESCo REALLY wants something to land would imply a blocker, not an FE. So "FESCo FE" doesn't really make sense to me.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:34:03
!info All other previously-incomplete Changes for Fedora 42 are either complete, testable, or in-progress.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:35:06
I'll add a summary of what we discussed to the ticket and let Aoife Moloney know that the Idris 2 change needs to be modified for 42 -> 43.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:35:14
Anything else to add to this topic?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:36:14
Fabio Valentini: A moment of appreciation for your patient handling of my nitpicking? :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:31
let's move on then :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:39
!topic Change: Fix limitations in gpgverify
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:36:45
!fesco 3373
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:36:46
● **Assignee:** rombobeorn
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:36:46
● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:36:46
● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by amoloney
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:36:46
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:36:46
**fesco #3373** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3373):**Change: Fix limitations in gpgverify**
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:37:24
Conan Kudo: I think you asked for changes here? I counted your "I don't like it this way" as a negative vote ;)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:37:36
yeah
<@rombobeorn:fedora.im>
17:37:36
As I wrote before, I can make a gpgverify package if that's preferred. Is the choice between redhat-rpm-config and a separate package a thing for Fesco to vote on?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:38:26
not directly, no, but we try to find consensus, and the Change might not be approved in one form but not in the other
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:38:34
not directly, no, but we try to find consensus, and the Change might get approved in one form but not in the other
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:38:58
and as one of the redhat-rpm-config maintainers, I feel the complexity has reached a point where it should be split out
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:02
FWIW I would also prefer a separate package. there is already too much stuff in redhat-rpm-config, and it makes maintenance hard
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:39:03
I don't think we want to have thousands of tiny packages for various bits.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:39:15
We have a hard time updating and maintaining the bits that we have.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:39:31
given one of the maintainer of redhat-rpm-config suggests making it a separate package, and has good reasons for doing that, I'm leaning to deferring to their call
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:39:34
yes, because right now, everything needs to go through overloaded redhat-rpm-config maintainers :)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:39:43
And every such "package" that'll see an update may once a year or every to years is increased potential for bitrot.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:40:01
Sure, but in this case the "overloaded maintainers" are just creating work.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:40:14
This could have been merged months ago.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:40:14
the bitrot argument doesn't change whether its in a separate package or in redhat-rpm-config
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:40:24
It definitely changes things.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:40:38
If it in the main package, people will look at it while looking at other things.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:40:51
people don't look over it now _generally_
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:40:54
If the tests start failing, they will fix them to get other things done.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:41:30
the fact that it is a program with tests and that sort of thing means it's reached a level of complexity that it should stand on its own
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:41:44
not to mention I do expect it to change over time because of the gradual move away from GnuPG in Fedora
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:41:57
Nah, with that rule we'd need to split out every little script that is properly developed.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:42:15
Maybe I should...
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:42:42
the kernel and kmod packaging macros were split out from redhat-rpm-config for similar reasons a few years ago
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:43:19
and we continually have problems with stuff in redhat-rpm-config because of how the Fedora->ELN->CentOS Stream flow is done
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:43:41
and despite my best efforts to get the CentOS/RHEL folks to fix it, it's still a mess
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:44:08
so no, I disagree that we should keep gpgverify in redhat-rpm-config if it's become more sophisticated
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:44:23
Anyway, this is not something that is worth arguing too much, if Björn Persson is willing to make it a separate package.
<@fale:fale.io>
17:46:42
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:46:43
I'm prepared to add `Requires: (gpgverify if gnupg2)` to redhat-rpm-config once it's done
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:46:56
PROPOSAL: Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:46:56
OK, then:
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:47:03
+1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
17:47:16
+1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
17:47:27
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:47:36
0
<@rombobeorn:fedora.im>
17:48:12
Shall I rewrite the change page to propose a separate package?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:48:28
Yes, please.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:48:37
Assuming that this does get approved.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:48:47
But we're at +5, 1, 0, so it should.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:48:52
that's putting the cart before the horse a bit, but meh
<@rombobeorn:fedora.im>
17:49:14
Or I can rewrite the change page to list alternative implementations with pros and cons, and then you guys choose one.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:49:51
let's just say "the Change Proposal will be reworked and we will discuss it again once it's ready"?
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:50:08
OK, I guess that's better.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:50:19
Sorry, so I withdraw the earlier proposal.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:50:27
+1 to Fabio Valentini
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:50:37
We just approved it contingent upon it being made a separate package
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:50:40
(also, fwiw, I know other distros have been copying gpgverify into their things, so having it as a separate package also means everyone can share it rather than doing weird forks)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
17:50:53
I think Björn Persson can just update the Change to match, at this point
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:51:04
OK, sorry, I'll just shut up then.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:51:13
fwiw I don't like "forcing" people to do work "by vote"
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:51:50
Fabio Valentini: but in this case Bjorn explicitly said that it's OK, so I don't think we're forcing anything.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:52:58
that's not what I read, but my English reading comprehension is not on native speaker level either ;)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:54:18
> As I wrote before, I can make a gpgverify package if that's preferred.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:54:40
and
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:54:42
> I'm prepared to add Requires: (gpgverify if gnupg2) to redhat-rpm-config once it's done
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
17:54:51
(from Neal)
<@rombobeorn:fedora.im>
17:55:05
I offered to do the work. I just want to know how you guys want it done. It's true that it's more work with the review process and all, but I'm willing to do it to get this fixed.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:55:31
Björn Persson: thank you for making this explicit
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:55:47
then I am +1 to zbyszek's proposal.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:56:19
just ping me once the review request bug is made and I'll take it
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:56:27
we can get it done fairly quickly
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:57:17
proposed !agreed Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package. (+6, 1, -0)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:57:28
... ack?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:57:40
I didn't think we did proposed flow in fesco meetings
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:57:57
I just copied it again to make sure I didn't make any mistakes :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:58:03
ah okay
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
17:58:07
lgtm
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:07
!agreed Change is approved with the modification that gpgverify will become a separate package. (+6, 1, -0)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:26
!info The Change Proposal document will be updated accordingly.
<@rombobeorn:fedora.im>
17:58:36
OK, I'll get to work then.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:58:45
thanks Björn Persson for being here!
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:59:44
!topic Change: Disabling Support of buidling OpenSSL engines
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:59:50
!fesco 3375
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:51
● **Opened:** 3 weeks ago by amoloney
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:51
**fesco #3375** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3375):**Change: Disabling Support of buidling OpenSSL engines**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:51
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:51
● **Assignee:** dbelyavs
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:59:51
● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
17:59:55
is this a quick one? :)
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:00:00
Yes.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:00:04
I think we all agree to reject it
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:00:21
We were -6 in the ticket.
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:00:45
I did have a proposal in the ticket that we should discuss
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:00:57
To help the security team with planning
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:01:24
> we won't accept a removal of OpenSSL Engines ahead of at least a Beta (or equivalent prerelease) of OpenSSL 4.0 where upstream has made the same removal.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:01:24
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:01:24
from https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3375#comment-961671
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:01:36
I think this is reasonable.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:01:59
yeah, I think this will save time down the line and set expectations
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:02:12
I understand why they want to push this, but... yeah....
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:02:16
yup
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:02:48
does anybody who hasn't voted in the ticket want to vote now, or is anybody tempted to change their in-ticket vote now?
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:02:49
The OpenSSL 4.0 release doesn't actually have a date yet that I can find. It's an *eventual* plan.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:14
To be honest, I don't. It's extremely premature, and breaking everyone for the sake of it when nobody knows when OpenSSL 4.0 is even going to happen is not sensible to me.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:03:57
It would be different if there was a timeline.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:04:04
well, it's gonna break... I think they want (slow moving) upstreams to move
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:04:51
They want to use Fedora as a lever to move that boulder. I can understand that, but I don't like being the fulcrum they're pushing against
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:05:27
yeah. we want to shake the mistaken assumption that "we're just the beta for RHEL"
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:05:33
Fabio Valentini: I think silence is consent to your last question
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:05:36
(not mentioning that breaking builds but keeping packages installable is *bad*, since it doesn't allow shipping updates for those packages)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:05:40
And the range of things that break makes it even more painful.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:05:43
Proposal: FESCo rejects this Change Proposal, and requests that OpenSSL Engine functionality is not dropped eariler than the OpenSSL (pre-)release where this functionality is dropped upstream.
<@fale:fale.io>
18:05:46
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:06:05
Michel Lind UTC-6: Right? We're also the Beta for Amazon Linux 😛
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:06:05
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:06:11
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:06:35
(fix the typo when you get to !agreed)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:06:40
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:06:44
Stephen Gallagher: is this positively worded? or still a vote on a negative? :D you are making me doubt myself
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:07:04
My bid for that got rejected, so 🤷
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:07:09
+1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:07:13
+1
<@humaton:fedora.im>
18:07:31
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:07:39
+1
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:08:06
Fabio Valentini: I could rephrase it as "For the sake of scheduling, FESCo will not entertain a removal of OpenSSL Engine functionality earlier than a public prerelease of OpenSSL Upstream that also drops it".
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:08:33
Fabio Valentini: I could rephrase it as "For the sake of scheduling, FESCo will not entertain a removal of OpenSSL Engine functionality earlier than a public prerelease of OpenSSL upstream that also drops it".
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:08:34
could or would?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:08:51
because I wouldn't, because we have already voted now ;)
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:09:09
Let's not get caught up with it. Your proposal was accepted and we know what it means.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:09:13
!agreed FESCo rejects this Change Proposal, and requests that OpenSSL Engine functionality is not dropped earlier than the OpenSSL (pre-)release where this functionality is dropped upstream. (+8, 0, -0)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:09:40
*deep breath*
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:09:40
(sorry for the long meeting, I will try to speed things up)
<@fale:fale.io>
18:10:49
nope :D
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:01
Fale: typing?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:34
meh, I thought you wanted to say something so I waited. nevermind then
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:36
!topic Change: Java25 and No More System JDK
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:36
!fesco 3385
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:11:49
!fesco 3385
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:12:07
ah it's just pagure being DDoSd again
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:12:23
or did I crash meetbot
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:12:31
uh oh
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:12:39
!fesco 3385
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:41
**fesco #3385** (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3385):**Change: Java25 And No More System JDK**
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:41
● **Opened:** 5 hours ago by amoloney
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:41
● **Last Updated:** 2 hours ago
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:41
● **Assignee:** jvanek
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
18:12:41
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:12:47
ah.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:12:52
I don't understand this change
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:13:14
I don't understand it either. And the answers I got on the discussion thread just made it worse :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:13:15
I've read it a few times and I still don't understand what's happening
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:13:39
I'm OK with punting this until next week, it's only on the agenda because I put a -1 vote on the ticket.
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:14:00
another class C blocked. ;)
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:14:14
I sense this is similar to what we were doing for Django - except they want to have both LTS and non LTS versions in Fedora
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:14:29
yeah.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:14:31
but yeah I think we should punt, I also find the description rather unclear
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:14:40
perhaps we invite change owners next week?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:14:47
sure
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:14:50
Yes, let's do that
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:15:17
Proposal: Discussion of this Change Proposal will happen next week, and Proposal Owner(s) will be invited to join.
<@fale:fale.io>
18:15:20
+1
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:15:30
+1
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:15:37
yep. +1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:15:50
that gives you all some time to read the discussion thread, hopefully I'm not just there asking confused questions ;)#
<@humaton:fedora.im>
18:15:51
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:15:57
+1
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:15:57
+1
<@salimma:fedora.im>
18:16:26
+1
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:17:30
!agreed The "Java25 and No More System JDK" Change Proposal will be discussed at next week's FESCo meeting (April 8, 2025). The Proposal Owners are invited to join. (+7, 0, -0)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:18:15
ok, those were all the issues on the agenda.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:18:30
!topic Pending changes for FESCo docs
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:18:57
Just wanted to quickly mention that we don't have a good process to look at fesco-docs issues / PRs, they're not covered by the FESCo meeting process.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:19:16
Yeah.
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:19:26
But I think we should just vote in the PR.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:19:48
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:19:48
https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/issues
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:19:48
https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-requests
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:19:48
Homework: take a look at open issues and PRs and vote in ticket :)
<@fale:fale.io>
18:19:55
would it make sense to have the same majority as for the fesco tickets?
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:20:11
It might also be a good idea to regularly put these into the meeting agenda so they're not forgotten.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:20:43
it might
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:21:29
Fale: can you be more precise? Which "majority"?
<@fale:fale.io>
18:21:40
zbyszek: what I mean is: should we extend all the "usual" rules to approve standard fesco tickets to fesco docs tickets as well?
<@fale:fale.io>
18:21:57
example: 1 week, 5 +1, 0 -1 => approval
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:22:26
I think we implicitly treated them this way until now, yes
<@fale:fale.io>
18:23:01
I agree :)
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:23:09
It would be good to make this explicit, and to also include looking at fesco-docs issues / PRs in the meeting prep
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:23:34
anyway that's all I wanted to say here, not to make this meeting even longer
<@fale:fale.io>
18:23:43
I can do it
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:23:43
!topic Next Week's 🪑
<@zbyszek:fedora.im>
18:24:05
I'll most likely miss the meeting next week.
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:24:27
great, thanks!
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:24:59
!action Fale to chair next week's FESCo meeting on April 8, 2025
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:25:11
!topic Open Floor
<@sgallagh:fedora.im>
18:26:33
I'll be away next week
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:27:21
There should still be 6 or 7 of us if I'm counting right, so I don't think we need to cancel, right?
<@fale:fale.io>
18:27:37
we can try to make it, worst case we skip if we don't have a majority
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:28:11
if we lack quorum, we can cancel the meeting at the time next week
<@nirik:matrix.scrye.com>
18:28:13
yeah
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:28:28
yup
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:28:41
anything else for open floor? otherwise I'll close shop at :30
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:30:07
⏱️
<@decathorpe:fedora.im>
18:30:13
!endmeeting