epel-devel July 2007

epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

46 participants
74 discussions

Re: Broken dependencies: git
by Ville Skyttä 22 Jul '07

22 Jul '07

On Sunday 22 July 2007, you wrote: > git has broken dependencies in the EPEL: > On ppc: > git-cvs - 1.5.2.1-2.el4.ppc requires cvsps > On x86_64: > git-cvs - 1.5.2.1-2.el4.x86_64 requires cvsps > On i386: > git-cvs - 1.5.2.1-2.el4.i386 requires cvsps Anyone interested in looking after cvsps in EL-4? In any case, I'd rather not continue to receive these mails for it, see http://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-July/msg00039.html OT: could someone fix the spelling error in the description of this list in mailman (s/disccusion/discussion/) :)

1 0

EPEL report week 29 2007
by Thorsten Leemhuis 22 Jul '07

22 Jul '07

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports/Week29 = Weekly EPEL Summary = Week 29/2007 == Most important happenings == * RH will plans to add stuff that is part of the EL5Client (like python-imaging) to the Channels for EL5Server; that should solve most of our problem on that topic == EPEL SIG Meeting == === Attending === >From the Steering Committee: * dgilmore (DennisGilmore) * Jeff_S (Jeff Sheltren) (had to leave after half the meeting) * mmcgrath (MikeMcGrath) * nirik (KevinFenzi) (had to leave early) * quiad (KarstenWade) * stahnma (MichaelStahnke) Missing from the Steering Committee: * knurd (ThorstenLeemhuis) Others that participated the meeting: === Summary === * broken Deps - Jeff_S * still lots of broken deps * nirik> I've found that if you mail maintainers direct with a solution, most of them will do something... I can try and do that some in the next few days. * more on the list * branch for EPEL if Fedora Maintainer does not react * https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-July/msg00104.html not yet ratified as tehre were not enough people to vote * early end of meeting due to the latter fact === Full Log === https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-July/msg00164.html == Stats == === General === Number of EPEL Contributors 112 We welcome 2 new contributors: kwizart_AT_gmail.com, mattdm_AT_mattdm.org === EPEL 5 === Number of source packages: 469 Number of binary packages: 853 There are 7 new Packages: * cacti | An rrd based graphing tool * ctapi-common | Common files and packaging infrastructure for CT-API modules * ftgl | OpenGL frontend to Freetype 2 * goffice | Goffice support libraries * iksemel | An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications * logserial | Package for logging incoming bytes on asynchronous serial ports * rdiff-backup | Convenient and transparent local/remote incremental mirror/backup * tachyon | Parallel / Multiprocessor Ray Tracing System === EPEL 4 === Number of source packages: 289 Number of binary packages: 596 There are 5 new Packages: * ctapi-common | Common files and packaging infrastructure for CT-API modules * iksemel | An XML parser library designed for Jabber applications * logserial | Package for logging incoming bytes on asynchronous serial ports * rdiff-backup | Convenient and transparent local/remote incremental mirror/backup * tachyon | Parallel / Multiprocessor Ray Tracing System ---- ["CategoryEPELReports"]

2 2

EPEL Deps (spam-o-epel)
by Mike McGrath 19 Jul '07

19 Jul '07

If these look ok I'll enable the runs this weekend: http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/epel5 http://mmcgrath.fedorapeople.org/epel4 -Mike

3 5

Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-07-19
by Fedora Koji Build System 19 Jul '07

19 Jul '07

Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 1 eclipse-cdt-3.1.2-6.el5 Changes in Fedora EPEL 5: eclipse-cdt-3.1.2-6.el5 ----------------------- * Tue Jul 17 2007 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn(a)redhat.com> 3.1.2-6 - Rebase autotools to 0.1.0 - Change automake editor to embed if/else constructs in outline view For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/

1 0

python-imaging end of life in cvs
by Joel Andres Granados 19 Jul '07

19 Jul '07

Hi All: As python-imaging is no longer needed in EPEL/el given the addition in the RHEL5-Server repo, the issue must be closed. Do I follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife or is the CVS stuff just going to be erased? Thx for the info. Regards -- Joel Andres Granados

3 6

Log from this weeks EPEL-SIG meeting (20070718)
by Michael Stahnke 19 Jul '07

19 Jul '07

[12:00] <stahnma> ping dgilmore, Jeff_S, knurd, mmcgrath, nirik, quaid [12:00] * Jeff_S here [12:00] <Jeff_S> hi [12:00] * nirik is only going to be around for the first few minutes... have another meeting I have to go off to. ;( [12:00] <stahnma> ok [12:00] <stahnma> any topics, you need to ring on nirik? [12:00] <stahnma> anyone else around? [12:01] * dgilmore is here [12:01] <nirik> lets see... let me look at the schedule. [12:02] <stahnma> We'll give people another minute or so, and then get started [12:02] <nirik> would like to see the spam-o-matic active if it isn't already. We need those broken deps fixed... [12:02] --> mdomsch has joined this channel (n=Matt_Dom(a)cpe-70-124-62-55.austin.res.rr.com). [12:02] <stahnma> agreed, but it seems much/all of the issues stem from lack of packges [12:03] <nirik> yeah. [12:04] *** You set the channel topic to "EPEL Meeting - broken Deps - Jeff_S". [12:04] <stahnma> Jeff_S: not sure how your name alone got assigned to this, but any updates? [12:04] <Jeff_S> see my email I just sent out - there are still lots of missing deps [12:05] <Jeff_S> I agree with knurd that we should perhaps move them to testing next week if we still don't have a response from the maintainers [12:05] <stahnma> I saw that, do we have any plans for a solution? [12:05] <dgilmore> quaid is likely not around [12:05] <stahnma> ok, mmcgrath is also MIA [12:05] * quaid is here, sorry [12:05] <Jeff_S> if we can run the spammy script at least once more this week, that might help bug people enough to fix things [12:06] <stahnma> is it people fixing their own dependencies though, or is dependencies between other packages? [12:06] <dgilmore> mmcgrath: can you send out a summary of what be broke [12:06] <Jeff_S> but I don't think we should sit around waiting for everything to get fixed, as it may never happen [12:06] <stahnma> Only a week to add/branch/build a lot of packages seems pretty quick [12:06] <mmcgrath> pong [12:06] <mmcgrath> sorry [12:06] <mmcgrath> Sure [12:06] <Jeff_S> stahnma: it seems to me it is missing other people's packages [12:06] <mmcgrath> let me do a run right now (it takes a bit) [12:06] <stahnma> that was the impression I got also [12:06] <nirik> I've found that if you mail maintainers direct with a solution, most of them will do something... I can try and do that some in the next few days. [12:07] <Jeff_S> ie. people may need to step up and co-maintain for epel to get their needed deps [12:07] <nirik> there is some movement to fix bugzilla... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=248765 [12:07] * dgilmore wonders if mmcgrath will take fping :) or should j-rod [12:08] <Jeff_S> dgilmore: here's my list against centos: http://www.sheltren.com/epel/repoclosure/2007-07-18/ [12:08] * nirik packs up to head out. Sorry I got double meeting booked. Feel free to email me or catch me later if there is anything specific folks would like me to help with. [12:08] <stahnma> should we send an update out to the list once again, asking them to branch/update status? I feel like we have done this a number of times already [12:08] <stahnma> bye nirik [12:09] <Jeff_S> stahnma: yes, we have done that already [12:09] --> _blah_ has joined this channel (i=rob(a)216.115.88.10). [12:09] <stahnma> ok, well maybe we talk about the testing solution then [12:10] <dgilmore> i though i had blacklisted nagios from being multilib [12:10] <Jeff_S> I think we need to either do that or drop the broken packages [12:10] <stahnma> dgilmore: what's the feasability of quarentining packages with broken deps? [12:11] <dgilmore> stahnma: its manual process [12:11] <mmcgrath> hmm [12:11] <dgilmore> i.e. move them out of the tree [12:13] <stahnma> so tha't s quite painful? [12:15] <stahnma> any proposed solution? [12:15] <stahnma> should we bring it up on list again? I really don't understand the effort required from infrastructure side to remove broken dep packages. [12:15] <Jeff_S> knurd volunteered to do the work on that if needed [12:16] <stahnma> that's a plus :) [12:16] <stahnma> ok, next topic? [12:16] <Jeff_S> well, can we all agree that something needs to get done before announce? [12:16] <stahnma> +1 [12:16] <Jeff_S> we can discuss specifics on the list [12:17] <Jeff_S> is everyone gone? :) [12:17] <mmcgrath> should I enable a weekly run of the spam script? [12:17] * mmcgrath is running one right now with --nomail to get a list of whats borked. [12:17] <Jeff_S> mmcgrath: I think that would be nice [12:17] *** You set the channel topic to "EPEL Meeting - spam o magic script - mmcgrath". [12:18] <_blah_> weekly? how about daily? :) [12:18] <stahnma> I vote once the kinks are worked out, we enable it [12:18] <Jeff_S> mmcgrath: is it easy to change the script to point to testing/ once we start using that directory? [12:19] <mmcgrath> stahnma: I think the kinks are mostly worked out, Once this thing finishes I'll send it to paste bin (or the list if it takes too long) [12:20] <dgilmore> mmcgrath: id like to see a weekly run [12:20] <Jeff_S> +1 [12:21] <mmcgrath> Jeff_S: yes, it should be pretty easy. [12:22] <Jeff_S> great [12:22] <stahnma> ok [12:22] <stahnma> /topic EPEL Meeting – branch for EPEL if Fedora maintainer does not [12:22] <stahnma> react – knurd [12:22] <stahnma> friggen [12:22] <Jeff_S> :) [12:22] *** You set the channel topic to "EPEL Meeting - branch for EPEL if Fedora Maintainer does not react". [12:23] <stahnma> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-00c9e731bb7bc… [12:23] <stahnma> This is what the List has put together [12:23] <stahnma> do we like it? [12:23] <stahnma> I think knurd wanted to ratify it [12:23] <stahnma> I think it serves it's purpose [12:23] <Jeff_S> works for me [12:24] * stahnma looks around and wonders if anyone else will speak up [12:24] * mmcgrath notes - http://pastebin.ca/624953 <--- spam-o-epel script run on RHEL4 tree [12:24] <_blah_> it isn't what is on the list [12:25] <Jeff_S> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-July/msg00104.html <-- is that what should be in the wiki? [12:26] <Jeff_S> it looks good to me [12:26] <_blah_> jeff_s: yes, that is the latest from the list. [12:27] * stahnma has the wrong URL? :) [12:27] * stahnma will update the wiki [12:28] <stahnma> with the text from list [12:28] <stahnma> assuming we agree it says the right thing [12:28] <_blah_> stahnma: thanks. that is what needs to be done. [12:28] <Jeff_S> +1 [12:28] <_blah_> i don't get a vote but +1 :) [12:29] <stahnma> any thoughts quaid mmcgrath dgilmore? [12:29] * quaid reads [12:30] <quaid> I'm remiss in finishing the edit oon Guidelines... but it's all language, not details [12:30] <quaid> details seemed fine with me [12:30] <stahnma> ok [12:30] <Jeff_S> sorry, but I need to go! [12:30] <stahnma> ok [12:30] <stahnma> hmm [12:30] <stahnma> we're reaching a very small number here [12:30] <Jeff_S> I think we need knurd to discuss the meeting time anyway [12:31] * stahnma would like to talk about meeting times, but not enough people here.... [12:31] <dgilmore> i dont think we have enough people to make a descison [12:31] <stahnma> (must be a bad time to have a meeting ) [12:31] * stahnma hints [12:31] <Jeff_S> ;) [12:31] <stahnma> mmcgrath: spam-o-matic output looks good [12:31] <Jeff_S> usually this is good, but I've got a lot of stuff that just came up... [12:31] <stahnma> ok, I will move to general discussion and we'll postpone the rest [12:31] <dgilmore> We need to have things branched that are needed [12:32] *** You set the channel topic to "EPEL - general discussion". [12:32] <mmcgrath> stahnma: I expect epel5 to be finished running in a bit [12:32] <stahnma> so dgilmore, are the cvs admins behind on branching, or is it a lack of requests? [12:33] <dgilmore> nirik: has been branching like crazy [12:33] <dgilmore> its a lack of requests [12:33] <stahnma> ok [12:33] <stahnma> that's what I thought [12:34] <stahnma> any thoughts on the RHEL5 server vs RHEL5 client stuff? [12:34] <stahnma> other than, it's a headache [12:36] [470] #php ##php Forwarding to another channel [12:36] [Notice] -ChanServ- [##php] "Welcome to ##php - Help and Discussion; PHP Social channel is at #phpc" [12:37] <dgilmore> no freaking idea [12:37] <dgilmore> we need to find out what Red Hat support will find acceptable [12:37] * mmcgrath shakes head and sighs. [12:37] <dgilmore> which will probably require the skills of quaid [12:37] <mmcgrath> dgilmore: thats probably the best route. [12:38] <dgilmore> before we even think of something we need to make sure its ok [12:38] <_blah_> mmcgrath: odd i tried to diff your spam-o-epel output from mine, and the packages are slightly out of order making the diff pointless. in general they look very similar. [12:39] <mmcgrath> _blah_: thats always fun. I suppose you could sort the output of each first. [12:40] <quaid> dgilmore: sounds like we should stay away from packaging stuff in RHX for now [12:40] <quaid> give them some room to work things out [12:40] <_blah_> riek seems responsive to getting usable RHEL5 Server / Client divides. [12:40] <dgilmore> quaid: possibly yeah [12:41] <dgilmore> quaid: i still want zimbra packaged in a sane fashion [12:41] * stahnma thinks if we can fix Client/Server that would be a great start. RHX can wait a little while...at least official RHX in EPEL [12:41] <dgilmore> and a syncml plugin so i can sync my laptop/desktops/crackberry [12:42] <quaid> dgilmore: let's talk with dhuff about helping him help the ISVs? [12:42] <dgilmore> quaid: sounds good [12:42] --> JSchmitt has joined this channel (n=s4504kr(a)p54B12D6B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de). [12:42] * rdieter sits in the back, shares popcorn with knurd_afk [12:43] * dgilmore puts rdieter to work :) [12:43] <stahnma> anything else? [12:44] <_blah_> stahnma: +1 [12:44] <stahnma> _blah_: ? [12:45] <_blah_> stahnma: RHX can wait. fix Client/Server now. [12:45] <stahnma> oh, I see [12:45] <stahnma> :) [12:45] <stahnma> planning to end meeting now...unless anyone has somethign else to bring up [12:46] <stahnma> next week will include meeting times and revisit of deps [12:46] <stahnma> END in 30 [12:46] * frozty_sa wants to speak to stahnma after meeting has ended [12:46] <stahnma> END in 15 [12:46] <stahnma> frozty_sa: ok [12:47] <stahnma> END MEETING

2 1

Plan for tomorrows (20070718) EPEL SIG meeting
by Thorsten Leemhuis 18 Jul '07

18 Jul '07

Hi all, find below the list of topics that are planed for the next EPEL SIG meeting which is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-extras on irc.freenode.org. /topic EPEL Meeting – broken deps – Jeff_S /topic EPEL Meeting – spam o magic script – mmcgrath /topic EPEL Meeting – branch for EPEL if Fedora maintainer does not react – knurd /topic EPEL Meeting – push new packages to testing after EPEL annoucement – dgilmore /topic EPEL Meeting – EPEL announcement – qua8d /topic EPEL Meeting – new meeting time? – all (see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime ) /topic EPEL Meeting – how about packges that part of EL5Client, but not part of EL5Server (aka python-imaging-issue) You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to this mail and I'll add it to the schedule (I can't promise we will get to it tomorrow, but we'll most likely will if we don't run out of time). You can also propose topics at the end of the meeting itself. If your name/nick is on above list please give a update. That way all the interested parties know what up ahead of the meeting; that will avoid long delays and "status update monologues in the meeting. Thanks! CU knurd

3 4

Self-introduction: Marek Mahiut
by Marek Mahut 18 Jul '07

18 Jul '07

Hello all! Just a quick self-introduction. My name is Marek Mahut and I want to help you to build/maintain the EPEL project. I already committed my packages /2 :-)/ into EPEL trees. At daily basis (at work), I'm dealing with problems and maintenance of about 1000 RHEL4/5 stations and I find EPEL project very useful. Any questions are welcome. -- Marek Mahut http://www.fedoraproject.org/ Fedora Ambassador http://www.jamendo.com/

2 3

Log from this weeks EPEL-SIG meeting (20070711)
by Thorsten Leemhuis 18 Jul '07

18 Jul '07

00:00:12 < knurd> | Meeting ping dgilmore, Jeff_S, knurd, mmcgrath, nirik, stahnma, quaid and everyone interested in EPEL -- EPEL meeting in #fedora-meeting now! 00:00:12 < knurd> | Hi everybody; who's around? 00:00:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Sig meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process 00:00:13 * | knurd likes to remind people that the schedule and the topic list for todays meeting can be found on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule 00:00:28 * | Jeff_S here 00:00:30 * | mmcgrath here 00:00:43 * | nirik is here. 00:01:14 --> | daMaestro (Jon) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:01:31 < knurd> | lala 00:01:42 * | daMaestro sings along 00:01:48 < daMaestro> | epel++ 00:01:50 < daMaestro> | ;-) 00:02:01 < knurd> | well, let's start slowly 00:02:04 < knurd> | daMaestro, :-) 00:02:06 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – broken deps – Jeff_S 00:02:12 --> | mra (matt anderson) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:02:19 < knurd> | Jeff_S, any progress? 00:02:25 < knurd> | did you poke people? 00:02:43 < Jeff_S> | no, I thought mmcgrath did enough of that for me :) 00:02:53 < mmcgrath> | :: sigh :: 00:02:55 < Jeff_S> | actually, I know a couple packages got fixed 00:02:56 < knurd> | hehe :) 00:02:57 < daMaestro> | i got poked 00:03:05 < daMaestro> | but i have no idea how to fix it.. 00:03:09 < knurd> | daMaestro, eeryone got accidentally 00:03:12 < Jeff_S> | but I ran it again today and there is still a big list 00:03:21 < daMaestro> | ahh, ok; good 00:03:37 < knurd> | mmcgrath, is the script working now? 00:03:41 < Jeff_S> | spot says he is planning to import a bunch of his packages soon 00:03:50 < Jeff_S> | so that should help 00:03:54 < mmcgrath> | knurd: Here's the problem with the script... it requires koji. 00:04:02 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – broken deps/spam-o-magic – Jeff_S/mmcgrath 00:04:05 * | spot is working on it 00:04:07 < knurd> | mmcgrath, what? 00:04:13 < mmcgrath> | So I'm working to rewrite that part of it to read from owners.list. 00:04:19 < knurd> | how does that script run for FE-6? 00:04:19 < Jeff_S> | but there are some packages which seem to be looking at stuff that is not available in EL4 00:04:19 < spot> | i've just been sidetracked by the need to get rocksndiamonds fixed 00:04:35 * | mmcgrath has no idea. 00:04:42 < knurd> | mmcgrath, ask mschwendt? 00:04:44 < mmcgrath> | spot: Are you working on the script? 00:04:46 < knurd> | mmcgrath, he might know 00:04:56 < knurd> | mmcgrath, and remmeber, owners.epel.list ;-) 00:04:56 < nirik> | I think it has a local copy of owners.list it uses? 00:05:02 < Jeff_S> | http://www.sheltren.com/epel/repoclosure/2007-07-11/epel4-i386-repoclosure.… <--- see for example postgresql-pgpoolAdmin which requires a higher version of PHP than is in EL4 00:05:02 < mmcgrath> | :) 00:05:41 < quaid> | oi! 00:05:42 < knurd> | well, the plan is to annouce in 8 days iirc 00:05:45 < quaid> | sorry I'm late 00:05:47 < mmcgrath> | spot: ping? 00:05:55 < knurd> | do we get everything fixed until then? 00:05:59 < knurd> | I doubt that a bit 00:06:15 < nirik> | I think we should try and if we need to slip the announcement we can do that... 00:06:23 < Jeff_S> | I doubt it too. The spam script would help, IMO. 00:06:25 < knurd> | mmcgrath, spot afaik only wanted to build his packages, which should solve some of the deps 00:06:35 < mmcgrath> | knurd: ahh. thanks. 00:06:48 < nirik> | mmcgrath: did the spam-o-matic make a valid run after the invalid one? Or it hasn't made a valid run yet? 00:06:52 < knurd> | mmcgrath, send mschwendt a mail about the script 00:06:58 < knurd> | he really should know the answer 00:07:05 < knurd> | mmcgrath, or shall I do? 00:07:13 < mmcgrath> | I'll ping him 00:07:18 < knurd> | mmcgrath, thx 00:07:34 < knurd> | while we were on the shedule already 00:07:36 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – EPEL annoucement – quiad 00:07:45 < knurd> | so, broken deps not resolved yet 00:07:50 < knurd> | shall we move it one week? 00:07:58 < knurd> | annoucements isn't prepares either afaik 00:08:00 < knurd> | quaid, ? 00:08:21 < quaid> | eh, I put it off because it's not hard to write 00:08:36 < knurd> | hehe 00:08:36 < quaid> | it's not a blocking factor, fwiw 00:08:40 < Jeff_S> | mmcgrath: also if you need help w/ changing the script for epel, I can help 00:09:05 < mmcgrath> | Jeff_S: thanks. 00:09:23 < knurd> | so, move annoucement back by one week as broken deps likely won't get fixed in the next 8 days? 00:09:35 < quaid> | sounds wise 00:09:48 < quaid> | this is one of those "release early, but only when it's not broken" situations 00:09:54 < Jeff_S> | knurd: +1 -- we need to get this sorted out first 00:09:55 < knurd> | agreed 00:09:57 < nirik> | sure. 00:10:11 < knurd> | 20070726 would be the new target then 00:10:39 < Jeff_S> | and maybe we need a big warning on the wiki about pushing stuff to EPEL before deps are there? 00:10:52 * | dgilmore is here 00:10:55 < Jeff_S> | people seem to be assuming that the deps are there just because they are in fedora (extras) 00:10:55 < knurd> | Jeff_S, maybe add something to the faq 00:11:23 < knurd> | that might be the best afaics 00:11:38 < knurd> | hi dgilmore 00:11:46 < nirik> | wish we could block anything with broken deps from pushing. ;( 00:11:58 < knurd> | so, nobody yelled, so 20070726 is the new target then 00:12:09 < knurd> | nirik, bodhi in hte long term :-) 00:12:12 * | knurd moves on 00:12:19 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – push new packages to testing after EPEL annoucement – dgilmore 00:12:24 < knurd> | dgilmore, I added that 00:12:26 < nirik> | true, although bodhi doesn't currently do repoclosure either. ;) 00:12:32 < knurd> | just wanted to make sure we still are in agreement 00:12:43 < knurd> | all new packages after annoucement go to the testing/ dir? 00:12:59 < knurd> | and we hand move stuff over if peole ask for it? 00:13:26 < knurd> | any maybe do a full testing/X > X move some months later (with RHEL 5.1 maybe) 00:13:36 < knurd> | do we agree on that? 00:13:46 * | nirik thinks that sounds good. 00:13:52 < Jeff_S> | +1 00:14:16 < knurd> | dgilmore, is that possible from the infrastrucutre/pushers point? 00:14:23 < dgilmore> | knurd: i said last week I wont spend the time to manually move bits from testing to stable 00:14:33 < dgilmore> | its manual and labour intensive 00:14:44 < knurd> | dgilmore, so what do you suggest as solution 00:14:46 < dgilmore> | i can push everything to testing pretty easily 00:14:55 <-- | XulChris has quit (Read error: 113 (No route to host)) 00:14:58 < knurd> | sure, that's the plan 00:15:01 < nirik> | the only reason we would need anything manual is for security 00:15:06 < knurd> | but what about security fixes? 00:15:06 < dgilmore> | we have no easy way to move things to stable 00:15:24 < knurd> | well, we need a solution 00:15:27 < dgilmore> | how do we know whats security 00:15:39 < knurd> | someone tells us (via the wiki or a e-mail alias) 00:15:42 < dgilmore> | we can easily put things in one location 00:15:56 < dgilmore> | but to move things we have no way to do that 00:16:05 < nirik> | yeah, without a bodhi we need a manual process. ;( 00:16:19 < knurd> | dgilmore, we use the push scripts for another repo 00:16:30 < knurd> | there a simple move and createrepo works 00:16:39 < knurd> | sure, it's a ugly as hell 00:16:42 < nirik> | dgilmore: wouldn't it just be a matter of 'mv testing/foobar.rpm ../5/; createrepo '? 00:16:42 < knurd> | but possible 00:16:51 < nirik> | yeah... ;( 00:16:52 < knurd> | nirik, exactly that is what I mean 00:17:16 < dgilmore> | nirik: sure but you need to do that mv for each package for each arch and SRPMS 00:17:39 < knurd> | dgilmore, sure, but a simple script can do that 00:17:40 < nirik> | yeah. Not fun at all... but beats having no security updates. ;( 00:17:48 < knurd> | and it should not happen that often 00:17:52 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:18:09 < dgilmore> | what about new packages? 00:18:18 < nirik> | we can ponder on it and see if we can think of a better way to do it? I can't off hand tho. 00:18:20 < dgilmore> | they go to testing? 00:18:21 < knurd> | we could do monthly "make testing become official repo" until EPEL is bigger 00:18:24 < knurd> | dgilmore, yes 00:18:27 < nirik> | new packages and any other udpates go to testing. 00:18:28 < dgilmore> | when do they go stable? 00:18:43 < nirik> | when rhel does a minor bump. 00:18:46 < knurd> | dgilmore, the old plan was to do that with each RHEL minor bump 00:18:54 < nirik> | 5.0 -> 5.1... then we move testing over 00:18:58 < knurd> | but for the start phase it might be better to do it more often 00:00:07 < dgilmore> | people will want new packages immediatly 00:00:21 < knurd> | every month or ever two months maybe? 00:00:43 < knurd> | dgilmore, and when we do what people want we have lots of broken deps 00:00:46 < nirik> | couldn't people who want a new package enable testing? 00:00:47 < knurd> | just look at EPEL now 00:00:52 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:20:52 < knurd> | EPEL is for EL, not for Fedora -- thus we need to be a bit more carefull 00:20:56 < knurd> | espeially with broken deps 00:21:05 < knurd> | we don't want to scare people away 00:21:13 < knurd> | other opinions? 00:21:21 < dgilmore> | we need new push scripts then 00:21:36 < dgilmore> | we cant easily do what you want with what we have 00:21:56 < knurd> | dgilmore, I'm willing to do that 00:22:08 < knurd> | e.g. move the securty updates from testing to stable 00:22:18 < knurd> | just need access to the repo then 00:22:29 < dgilmore> | knurd: that is nota huge problem 00:22:30 < knurd> | I suppose nirik would be willing to help as well with it 00:22:39 < nirik> | sure. 00:22:42 < dgilmore> | what is is checking for broken deps before doing pushes 00:22:46 < knurd> | if we share the burden then it should work until we get bodhi for epel 00:23:10 < nirik> | dgilmore: now? nothing. :( repoclosure is really slow too unfortunately. 00:23:17 < knurd> | security updates should normally not introduce broken deps 00:23:42 < dgilmore> | nirik: exactly and each time you find something broken you have to start over 00:23:42 < nirik> | for security I would be willing to manually run repoclosure before any push... 00:23:47 < knurd> | that should be a rare prolem 00:23:57 < knurd> | nirik, +1 00:24:06 < knurd> | nirik, or just look at old package <-> new package 00:24:13 < knurd> | that's easier 00:24:14 < nirik> | I think wwoods was working on a way to get repoclosure or something like it going faster. Not sure where that is tho 00:24:20 <-- | lancelan has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:24:49 --> | lancelan (Lance Davis) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:25:00 < knurd> | so, deal? 00:25:06 < knurd> | all new packages go to testing 00:25:13 < knurd> | security updates hand-moved over 00:25:23 < knurd> | nirik and I will help with that 00:25:32 < knurd> | and we set up a wiki page or a alias up for that? 00:25:34 < nirik> | so, we need script for moving security updates and mass moving testing on minor release? The other current scripts would work ok for testing itself? 00:25:52 < knurd> | script for moving security updates > +1 00:26:06 < knurd> | mass moving testing > + 0.5 00:26:16 < Jeff_S> | well, the mass move is quite simple 00:26:19 < knurd> | that should not happen that often and likely can be done manually 00:26:24 < knurd> | Jeff_S, agreed 00:26:36 < knurd> | check that all deps are sane in stable + testing 00:26:40 < nirik> | well, one is a more general case of the other. ;) But yeah, not a big deal now. 00:26:44 < knurd> | move everything over from testing, done 00:26:47 < Jeff_S> | but yes, a script for moving security updates would be quite helpful I think 00:27:25 < knurd> | settled then? 00:27:55 * | knurd will take silence as agreement soon 00:27:55 < Jeff_S> | sure :) 00:28:03 < knurd> | so let's move on 00:28:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – new meeting time? – all (see also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime ) 00:28:18 * | knurd checks that page 00:28:25 < wwoods> | notting and skvidal and lmacken and I discussed a tool for doing quick single-package depchecking but there's no implementation yet 00:28:37 < wwoods> | no one has committed to implementing it 00:28:47 < knurd> | dgilmore, what would be your preferred time? 00:28:57 < Jeff_S> | wwoods: sounds interesting 00:29:22 < Jeff_S> | looks like everyone who edited the page likes the current time 00:29:33 < dgilmore> | knurd: i havent had time to even think about it 00:30:03 < knurd> | well, let's try to get this settled until next week 00:30:16 < dgilmore> | the times that work best for me are probably no good for knurd 00:30:40 < knurd> | dgilmore, sorry, timezone problem... 00:31:02 < knurd> | maybe I should just leave, that would make things easier :-) 00:31:17 < knurd> | dgilmore, ping me when you got some minutes, maybe we can work something out 00:31:23 * | knurd moves on for now 00:31:37 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – Communication plan for enterprise customers/ISVs/IHVs – stahnma, quaid 00:31:39 < knurd> | any news? 00:31:55 < knurd> | quaid, or just revisit after annoucement? 00:32:35 < knurd> | lala 00:32:48 * | knurd takes that as revisit next week 00:32:52 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – ExcludeArch TrackerBugs for EPEL – notting/knurd 00:32:55 < knurd> | opinions? 00:33:05 < knurd> | + 0.75 for EPEL-Excludearch trackers from me 00:33:21 < knurd> | can't hurt and is not htat much work 00:33:35 < nirik> | yeah, I think we can have epel versions... as long as the arch folks know to look at them. 00:33:44 < dgilmore> | -1 i think we should reuse what exists 00:33:56 < knurd> | dgilmore, that's to confusing 00:33:57 < quaid> | sorry, was writing :) 00:34:08 < Jeff_S> | dgilmore: but won't we have differences between EPEL/fedora? 00:34:12 < nirik> | I don't much care. I think we should track them tho. 00:34:12 < knurd> | dgilmore, as people that might want to fix Fedora stuff would run into EPEl stuf 00:34:31 <-- | tibbs has quit (Remote closed the connection) 00:34:33 --> | tibbs_ (Jason L Tibbitts III) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:34:56 < dgilmore> | having to keep track of things in two places will mean sometimes things get missed 00:35:01 --> | frozty_sa (frozt01100101) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:35:05 < knurd> | dgilmore, we can block the old Fedora bugs with the EPEL specific bug 00:35:09 < dgilmore> | we dont have different trackers for FC-6 and F-7 00:35:32 < dgilmore> | EL-4 and EL-5 are just different versions 00:35:51 < nirik> | what are the current blockers called? 00:36:12 < knurd> | FE-ExcludeArch-x86_64 iirc 00:36:37 < nirik> | were their different ones for fe and fc? 00:36:44 < knurd> | nirik, nope 00:36:53 < knurd> | not that I'm aware off 00:37:20 <-- | k0k has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:37:33 < knurd> | I'm fine going without them 00:37:39 < knurd> | as long as it's no general problem 00:38:00 < nirik> | we can always revisit... so for now we reuse the existing ones? 00:38:18 < knurd> | nirik, I'd say just ignore the issue for EPEL 00:38:34 < knurd> | devel counts, and that's fedora 00:38:42 --> | _blah_ (rob) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:38:57 < knurd> | I'll send something to the list 00:39:03 < knurd> | then we can decide next week 00:39:12 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting – RHX and EPEL – quaid 00:39:26 < knurd> | quaid, can wait for some more weeks iirc? 00:39:29 < quaid> | nothing new to report yet 00:39:34 < quaid> | yep 00:39:41 < quaid> | it's going to take the time it takes 00:39:47 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting -- Free discussion around EPEL 00:39:49 < knurd> | quaid, thx 00:39:53 < knurd> | anything else? 00:40:15 * | knurd will close the meeting in 60 00:40:17 < knurd> | seems not 00:40:29 * | quaid no tengo mas 00:40:41 < dgilmore> | i noticed that dag made some derogatory comments about epel on the centos mailing list 00:40:51 < quaid> | oh, good 00:40:58 < quaid> | nothing quite like keeping the flames warm 00:41:01 < dgilmore> | saying that we dont want to work with him 00:41:12 < quaid> | in fact 00:42:01 --- | tibbs_ is now known as tibbs 00:42:01 < quaid> | I thin that's in our guidelines 00:42:02 < quaid> | it says somewheren "EPEL refuses to work with the followng people" 00:42:02 < quaid> | and then a list 00:42:02 < dgilmore> | quaid: :) 00:42:02 * | quaid hopes his sarcasm is evident in the irclog 00:42:03 < nirik> | ok. 00:42:03 <-- | Jeff_S has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) 00:42:03 * | mmcgrath twiddles thumbs :) 00:42:05 < quaid> | it's hard because these guys all had good points 00:42:15 < quaid> | but they put way too much heat into it 00:42:29 < quaid> | and burned the bridge before it could be built 00:42:45 < quaid> | anyway, water under the ... oh, wait, nevermind 00:42:49 < knurd> | we maybe should some carefully choose words into the wiki 00:42:55 < knurd> | why we didn#t go for repotags 00:43:03 < dgilmore> | http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-July/083569.html 00:43:04 < quaid> | a good FAQ entry 00:43:08 < knurd> | and that we suggest that our contributors cooperate 00:43:26 --> | Jeff_S (Jeff Sheltren) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:43:27 < quaid> | we may be answering this for RHEL's support people when they have customers confused in the future :) 00:43:32 < dgilmore> | i didint know if we should have a statement on the wiki somewhere saying we are willing to accept anybody 00:44:15 < dgilmore> | knurd: repotags were not part of it 00:44:35 < knurd> | well, can't hurt to put some carefully choose words up 00:45:00 < knurd> | any yes, saying somewhere "we are open to annybody to join us" can't hurt either 00:45:24 < knurd> | I can work some sentences out and will send them out 00:45:24 < dgilmore> | i think skvidal would need to do some serious voodoo magic in yum to try and deal with multiple repos providing the same packages in a sane and consistent manner 00:45:29 < dgilmore> | not sure what his voodoo skills are like 00:45:49 < dgilmore> | that is all :) 00:45:53 --> | orc_emac (orc_emac) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:45:59 < knurd> | k, thx for you hints dgilmore 00:46:02 < knurd> | anything else? 00:46:02 < nirik> | priorities or something taging gpg keys to repo would be the only options I can think of. 00:46:39 < daMaestro> | ! 00:46:49 < dgilmore> | knurd: feel free to close up shop 00:47:00 * | knurd will close the meeting in 30 00:47:02 < daMaestro> | I have a question 00:47:11 < knurd> | nirik, a solution might arise over time (or not) 00:47:13 < orc_emac> | knurd: at the end of the day, epel is NOT open to anyone who wants to add patent restricted material; will not sign onto the CLA; or is unwilling to build with non-free binaries 00:47:25 < orc_emac> | that is all OK 00:47:26 < knurd> | orc_emac, okay, you have a point 00:47:35 * | knurd will close the meeting in 20 00:47:39 < orc_emac> | there cannot be total union of all independent packagerts 00:47:39 < mmcgrath> | daMaestro: yes? 00:47:46 < knurd> | knurd, I can add that to the wiki, can't hurt 00:47:50 < daMaestro> | revisor needs the pykickstart from f7; are we "allowed" to build revisor-pykickstart from the bits from f7? 00:47:57 * | knurd will close the meeting in 10 00:47:57 < daMaestro> | or do we have to branch? 00:48:06 < daMaestro> | basically, we'd like to see revisor in epel 00:48:16 < quaid> | fwiw, I'm going to work with the RH GSS (support team) to make sure their standard system checking script knows hunt for non-RHN-provided packages (such as EPEL); I'm sure they have a method, but that's one that would help the support team 00:48:21 < daMaestro> | but we have a blocker requirement of the pykickstart from f7 00:48:21 < nirik> | orc_emac: very true. Can't be everything for everyone. :) 00:48:26 < mmcgrath> | daMaestro: hit us up in #epel after the meeting :) 00:48:30 < daMaestro> | ok 00:48:30 < quaid> | there ya go :) 00:48:34 < knurd> | quaid, good to know :) 00:48:37 * | knurd will close the meeting in 10 00:48:47 < knurd> | -- MARK -- Meeting end 00:48:48 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel -- Meetings often get logged -- see schedule in the wiki for next meeting 00:48:51 <-- | _blah_ has left #fedora-meeting ( ) 00:48:51 < knurd> | thx everyone 00:48:54 < mmcgrath> | knurd: thanks 00:49:00 <-- | daMaestro has left #fedora-meeting ( "Leaving") 00:49:00 --- | You're now known as knurd_afk 00:49:03 < knurd_afk> | have fun! 00:49:08 < knurd_afk> | bye 00:49:15 <-- | orc_emac has left #fedora-meeting ( ) 00:49:28 <-- | Jeff_S has left #fedora-meeting ( )

2 2

EPEL announcement planed for 20070726
by Thorsten Leemhuis 17 Jul '07

17 Jul '07

Hi, just a heads up; the current plan is to officially announce EPEL on Thursday, 26th 2007. Yes, that's one week later that estimated last week, as we need a bit more time to fix all broken deps before the announcement. While at it: Note that new and updated packages for EPEL will go to into EPEL-testing repo after the announcement (¹) and get moved to the proper repo at a later point of time. The plan is to do the move from testing to the proper repo in parallel with the "quarterly" EL-releases like RHEL 5.1. CU knurd (¹) -- except security updates and critical bugfixes of course

7 12

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

epel-devel July 2007