<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:01:18
!startmeeting ELN SIG 03 Jul '25
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:19
Meeting started at 2025-07-03 19:01:18 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:20
The Meeting name is 'ELN SIG 03 Jul '25'
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:01:22
!meetingname eln
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
19:01:23
The Meeting Name is now eln
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:01:38
!topic Init process
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:01:44
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:01:45
Troy Dawson (tdawson)
<@gmoro:matrix.org>
19:05:16
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:05:18
Guilherme Moro (guilhermemoro)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:05:22
hmm have all the americans started their long weekend early?
<@gmoro:matrix.org>
19:05:31
Seems like
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:05:51
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:05:52
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca) - he / him / his
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:06:44
I'm over on the west coast, so it's not as late for me.
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:06:57
Conan Kudo ?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:07:09
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:07:12
Neal Gompa (ngompa) - he / him / his
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:07:19
!hi
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
19:07:20
Michel Lind (salimma) - he / him / his
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:07:40
ok much better now, let's get started
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:07:45
!topic New business
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:08:01
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/261
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:08:04
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/262
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:08:07
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/263
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:08:14
these are related
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:09:16
by supporting distro-specific flags in ELN comps, we can not only narrow the differences between ELN and CS, but we can also add ELN-specific things, such as KDE (which is Extras)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:09:52
so installing KDE on top of ELN can be just like with EPEL, and AltImages also becomes possible
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:09:56
thoughts?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:10:33
I'm not against it.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:11:00
I have one curiosity question. Have people been asking for ELN Aternative Images?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:11:22
Or is this something that this sig has been wanting to do.
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:11:53
I haven't heard anyone asking, but it at least becomes possible
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:12:05
True
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:12:26
And, it really isn't that hard, just some additions to the kiwi descriptions files.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:13:10
Well, after the additions to the comps file.
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:14:25
the comps I'll do regardless for usability purposes
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:14:50
altimages is an additional step we could do after that
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:15:10
OK
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:15:22
any other thoughts here?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:15:42
I would like this
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:15:53
because I want continuous qualification of KDE on EL
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:16:26
I know Davide Cavalca and I have talked about doing Hyperscale KDE continuous qualification, which requires us to have KDE in ELN Extras in good shape
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:17:12
In general I think it would be good to have the ability to provide equivalent ELN artifacts for anything that CentOS Stream ships, including sig content
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:17:31
That doesn't mean we will actually build all these, but I think keeping the door open is valuable
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:17:59
For Hyperscale specifically I could definitely see us building ELN artifacts
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:18:20
As that's also something I need at work to expand our validation efforts
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:18:58
if you put that in #263 wrt altimages or a new ticket for other things not already covered, that would be great
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:19:35
expanding and improving ELN Extras is a goal as well, and a great place for the community to contribute to ELN
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:20:20
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/259
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:20:47
I just restarted ELN builds, which of course were disabled for most of the week due to the datacenter move
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:21:15
releng isn't ready to restart composes yet though
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:22:04
!topic Old business
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:22:11
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/236
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:22:41
the OpenStack team has not been able to provide a maintainer of their Extras workload, so it has been disabled for now
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:23:18
a few dozen packages (mostly python, some rubygems and others) were dropped from Extras as a result
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:24:44
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/247
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:25:01
Troy Dawson update on fedora-eln-icons?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:25:46
We're at the review request stage. But I've gotten conflicting requests for changes, so I thought maybe talking here would be easier than a bunch of bugilla comments.
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:26:53
One request says to do "Obsoletes: fedora-logos" another says no to that, but says "Conflicts: fedora-logos"
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:27:54
conflicts definitely, but the reason I mentioned obsoletes was for upgrading purposes
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:28:10
since fedora-eln-logos will have to be ELN-specific (unlike backgrounds)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:28:16
it seems safe to do
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:28:21
yeah we explicitly don't want upgrades
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:28:31
why not?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:29:51
because it makes things messy wrt generic-logos vs branding logos packages
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:30:15
??
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:30:22
branding packages must not use obsoletes because it screws up swapping them
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:30:23
This isn't expected to be in either Fedora, or EPEL
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:30:55
Is someone making their own ELN based distro?
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:31:04
that would be news to me
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:31:07
and also, it would constantly need bumping because fedora branding packages are revved every six months
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:31:26
and unversioned obsoletes are not allowed, full stop
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:31:45
if we get hyperscale ELN working, that definitely will happen
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:32:10
fedora-logos would be essentially blocked in ELN , with fedora-eln-logos replacing it
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:32:21
So, if we don't have a "Provides" or an "Obsoletes" ... what is going to pull this package in? Why would it ever get installed?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:32:33
it should provides system-logos
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:32:38
which it does
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:32:45
all packages in fedora must use that name instead of the branded name
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:33:07
there's only a couple of exceptions, mostly for branding subpackages
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:33:34
this upgrade path is a one-time thing to manage the transition from fedora-logos to fedora-eln-logos
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:33:53
after that, what fedora-logos does is irrelevant because it won't be in ELN
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:34:13
So, if we put fedora-eln-logos in our kiwi descriptions, so they get installed in the images, and some installs from those. What keeps that from being updated with an update?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:34:36
if we operate on the premise there are no real users right now, then there's no need for an upgrade path either for this case
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:35:00
I'm not sure I understand the question
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:35:08
Davide Cavalca Michel Lind UTC-5 are you guys upgrading ELN instances or just reinstalling all the time?
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:35:47
Just reinstalling right now
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:35:49
yselkowitz: reinstalling, I think
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:35:51
ah jinkx
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:36:21
I have an instance for testing purposes but I could always reinstall or just dnf swap
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:36:22
It's my fear of dnf not doing the right thing. If fedora-logos provides system-logos, and it's a higher version that fedora-eln-logos ... will dnf try to replace fedora-eln-logos with fedora-logos.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:30
no
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:36:30
Upgrades is something I might consider down the road but it's not a priority at the moment
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:36
libsolv does not allow that
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:36:51
yeah, we are increasingly moving away from upgrades internally anyway
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:36:53
not if fedora-logos is *no longer in ELN* after fedora-eln-logos is added
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:36:57
this is actually the reason we don't put versions on the system-release provides
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:37:00
OK ... then I'm ok with not having them, if dnf will keep it.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:37:09
when they are unversioned provides, libsolv will not consider upgrade candidates
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:37:30
because the package's real version does not factor in here
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:38:20
err, system-logos
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:38:25
but principle is the same across the board
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:38:25
OK, then let's just put "Conflicts: fedora-logos", and nothing else. And if we have to deal with updates later, we'll deal with that later.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:38:29
yes
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:39:20
If we're all ok with that, I can have that updated by the end of this meeting.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:39:27
that seems to be fine
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:39:39
it does seem like a conflict and not a provide, anyway
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:40:13
Yeah agreed
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:40:33
once that's done I'll approve it
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:40:35
As long as it provides system-logos it should be fine
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:40:42
I assume this is going straight into the eln branch and not the rawhide one
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:40:53
Correct
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:40:55
!agreed fedora-eln-logos will Conflicts: fedora-logos but not Obsoletes it
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:41:10
this has to be an ELN-specific package, as it conflicts with fedora-logos regardless
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:41:16
branding packages are super-special :P
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:41:29
we already have conflicting packages since generic-* and fedora-* conflict
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:41:50
those are in rawhide today, so if we didn't already have that figured out, we'd be shipping a _lot_ of "Generic Linux"
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:42:37
(and really, some people do this because they can and find an electric plug and a dancing hot dog as better logos than the official ones)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:42:57
backgrounds and logos are not the same
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:43:13
yes, we have it for -release, -logos, and -backgrounds
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:43:16
we have to
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:43:40
well, we don't have generic-backgrounds anymore
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:43:51
since people don't put the fedora logo in official wallpapers anymore
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:44:20
(yes, that's why we stopped after ~F8)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:45:09
!link https://github.com/fedora-eln/eln/issues/241
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:45:25
groan, Java 25 has come to us too
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:45:35
ugh
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:45:42
iiuc fesco just approved the Java 25 change, which means we'll soon have two possible default javas in rawhide and ELN
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:45:45
so we're still doing this anyway even if Fedora isn't?
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:45:51
it's not??
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:45:52
damn it, this is strictly worse
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:45:54
the wiki says accepted
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:46:10
but I missed a few meetings during conference season so not sure when that happened
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:23
iirc, default java is no longer getting updated in fedora
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:46:36
and packages aren't getting rebuilt with new java in fedora anymore
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:46:39
the Java state in EPEL is really bad fwiw so ... this is part of the reason golang ended up vendoring by default
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:47:19
so I guess the only question is what the impact will be on the Java packages RH cares about in RHEL/Stream
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:47:25
like... eln being 25 and fedora being 21 is madness
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:47:42
yeah, but it says changeacceptedf43
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:47:47
why do you say fedora is staying on 21?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:47:52
so should we just rebuild java in eln once it's in Fedora?
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:48:23
yeah sgallagh marked it as accepted a month ago https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3385
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:48:34
May 20 actually. hmm
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:48:38
that was what I inferred from the several confusing meetings about it
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:02
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:02
well the fesco ticket ends off with:
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:02
Modify all Java packages to explicitly require JDK25 instead of versionless. This will be done before the Fedora 43 mass-rebuild (2025-07-23).
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:02
Perform the mass-rebuild.
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:02
Change packages that fail the mass-rebuild to explicitly require JDK21.
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:49:08
so from the summary just before accepting, there's going to be both java-25-openjdk and java-21-openjdk
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:49:14
packages that don't build with 25 will be built with 21
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:19
which isn't exactly the way I understood the change either
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:37
bottom line, I want to move ELN to 25 as soon as we can and drop 21
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:49:46
yeah ... everytime fesco asked the change owner something we just end up more confused
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:49:48
or leave 21 in extras if needed there
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:50:06
I think it makes sense to not ship 21 in ELN *if* the core packages all end up rebuilding with 25 fine
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:50:17
but that might be out of our control right
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:50:52
I mean, it's just like we have two Django packages (oh I need to announce 4.2 is getting removed from rawhide) ...
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:51:05
it's just that for some reason the maintainers cannot state the policy they want to follow clearly
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:51:05
if everything rebuilds with 25 then it's very much in our control to not ship 21 in ELN
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:51:12
yes, but the django policy is clear
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:51:21
agreed, if everything rebuilds we can and should drop 21
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:51:22
I understand what we're doing there
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:51:34
yeah, if we don't need jdk21 let's not have it
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:51:37
if packages don't rebuild, then we're probably dependent on the java team to fix those
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:51:45
the Java policy *could* be that clear if they get someone who can write to .. write it
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:51:50
but I imagine they'll be doing that anyway
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:51:54
fixing, that is
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:52:04
but yeah in ELN we should probably drop 21 first, deal with the fallout, and worst case bring 21 back
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:52:19
and if it's broken for a few months that's probably fine
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:52:20
well that's not how it works
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:53:30
(waiting for Yaakov's typing)
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:53:34
we'll have 21 and 25 at least for the duration of the f43 mass rebuild, and then if everything builds, then nothing should have a build or runtime dep on 21 and it will drop off
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:54:28
Quck fedora-eln-logos question. Right now on my spec file I have all of the Provides versioned. Should I take those versions off? (redhat-logos gnome-logos system-logos)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:54:38
yes
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:54:48
OK, thanks.
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:54:58
anything else on java?
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:32
redhat-logos and system-logos should be versioned apparently
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:35
the others do this
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:55:48
I'm not sure why, but it does
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:56:01
see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/generic-logos/blob/rawhide/f/generic-logos.spec as a guide
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:56:20
see also https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/centos-logos/-/blob/c10s/centos-logos.spec?ref_type=heads
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:56:46
Obsoletes *cough*
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:56:54
OK, so keep the versions on.
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:57:07
that one was because of file conflict stuff iirc
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
19:57:16
that obsoletes was because of file conflict stuff iirc
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:57:45
!topic Next meeting
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:57:55
any conflicts for next week?
<@tdawson:fedora.im>
19:58:32
No conflicts for me, I should be here.
<@davide:cavalca.name>
19:58:44
Yeah should be fine
<@salimma:fedora.im>
19:58:58
I'll be there
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:59:00
!info next meeting will be next Thursday 10 July 15:00 EDT in #meeting:fedoraproject.org
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:59:06
!topic Open Floor
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
19:59:11
1 minute left
<@salimma:fedora.im>
20:00:09
very tiny floor
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
20:00:43
!endmeeting
<@yselkowitz:fedora.im>
20:00:43
thank you all for your contributions to this meeting and to ELN in general, see you next week or on matrix in the meantime