================================== #fedora-meeting: EPEL (2012-07-27) ==================================

Meeting started by nirik at 16:00:00 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-07-27/epel.2012-07-27-1... .

Meeting summary --------------- * init process/agenda (nirik, 16:00:00)

* Broken deps reporting script (nirik, 16:03:39)

* Overlapping packages part 12 (nirik, 16:14:21) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages (nirik, 16:18:22) * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741324#c5 (jpokorny, 16:20:51) * ACTION: nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome. (nirik, 16:26:40)

* Open Floor (nirik, 16:27:53)

Meeting ended at 16:32:17 UTC.

Action Items ------------ * nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome.

Action Items, by person ----------------------- * nirik * nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)

People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (58) * smooge (9) * jokajak (7) * abadger1999 (5) * zodbot (4) * jpokorny (3) * rsc (2) * nich0s (1) * skvidal (1) * pyther24 (1) * tremble (0) * dgilmore (0) -- 16:00:00 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL (2012-07-27) 16:00:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jul 27 16:00:00 2012 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:00 <nirik> #meetingname epel 16:00:00 <nirik> #topic init process/agenda 16:00:00 <nirik> #chair smooge tremble dgilmore 16:00:00 <nirik> EPEL meeting ping abadger1999 rsc stahnma tremble dgilmore smooge nb maxamillion tremble Jeff_S HackMan 16:00:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 16:00:00 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore nirik smooge tremble 16:00:08 <nirik> any folks around for an epel meeting? 16:00:09 <smooge> here 16:00:12 * abadger1999 here 16:00:54 * pyther24 is just a fly on the wall 16:00:59 <nirik> anyone have items for agenda? 16:01:12 * nirik was going to go over the broken deps script which ran last weekend. 16:01:16 * nich0s is with pyther24 16:01:20 <jokajak> Oh, oh, I'm curious about the policy for packages that exist in both EPEL and RHEL 16:01:33 <nirik> jokajak: so are we all. ;) 16:01:56 <nirik> I meant to write up a new proposal this week, but didn't get to it again sadly. 16:02:53 <nirik> we can discuss some more in meeting today if folks like. 16:03:02 <nirik> anyhow, anything else for agenda? or shall we start in? 16:03:39 <nirik> #topic Broken deps reporting script 16:03:49 * skvidal is here... just lurking 16:03:52 <nirik> so, we have a broken deps script again and it ran this last weekend. 16:04:00 <smooge> keeps readig that as Broken Derps 16:04:09 <nirik> Strangely, I haven't heard any complaints about it... ;) 16:04:47 <nirik> there's a few enhancements it needs... better text explaining when it's talking about epel vs epel+epel-testing 16:05:01 <nirik> and it would be nice if it sent to the mailing list as well. 16:05:22 <nirik> finally it would be great if it could also have a whitelist of some corner cases that aren't really broken... 16:05:37 <nirik> If anyone wants to work on that, I'd be happy to point you to the code. ;) 16:05:50 <smooge> Do you have a link to the output of the script? 16:05:56 <smooge> I may have D'd it 16:06:08 <nirik> it mails each owner about each broken dep 16:06:31 <jokajak> nirik: sure, I might could use it for $job 16:06:45 <nirik> for example, here's one I get (which turns out to be kind of a false positive): 16:06:48 <nirik> collectd has broken dependencies in the epel-5 tree: 16:06:49 <nirik> On x86_64: 16:06:49 <nirik> collectd-4.10.3-1.el5.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 16:06:49 <nirik> Please resolve this as soon as possible. 16:07:13 <nirik> (this is due to python not being multilib in rhel5) 16:07:37 <smooge> ah 16:08:35 <nirik> jokajak: I can get the scripts pushed to the rel-eng git tree and point you at them... 16:08:49 <rsc> nirik: yes, I'm more or less around 16:09:22 <rsc> nirik: regarding the broken dependencies...I think the optional channel is missing for these checks. At least it was for mine IIRC 16:09:45 <nirik> rsc: oh? odd. it should have been in there... 16:12:11 <smooge> rsc, what was the package that was missing 16:12:35 <nirik> anyhow, I will get the scripts pushed out. 16:13:43 <nirik> ok, anything else on broken deps? 16:14:21 <nirik> #topic Overlapping packages part 12 16:14:35 <nirik> As noted I meant to make a new proposal, but keep getting sidetracked. ;( 16:14:36 <smooge> DUH-DUH-DUUUUUUUUUUUH 16:14:42 <nirik> I'll really work on it this next week... 16:14:47 <nirik> but basically it will be: 16:14:48 <jokajak> it's a 12 part series, how exciting 16:15:08 <nirik> jokajak: just that this discussion has been going on for a long time now sadly. ;( 16:17:21 <nirik> epel6 will not overlap with rhel6 in the channels that match up to advanced platform, except where they are needed for limited arch support. 16:17:37 <nirik> I need to try and figure out what channels match up to AP. 16:17:41 <nirik> and see if that will work out 16:18:02 <jokajak> what about when packages are needed for limited arch support, will they still be built for the supported arches? 16:18:22 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages 16:18:30 * nirik thinks that policy is pretty set. 16:19:00 <nirik> so, yes, if rhel6 ships foo only on x86_64, we can ship foo-0.x for all arches we support. 16:19:17 <jokajak> ok, that is quite clear :) thanks 16:19:40 <nirik> the big problem has been figuring out which channels we will look at for overlaps. 16:19:43 <jokajak> and if a package violates that policy, what is the recourse? 16:20:14 <nirik> file bug? ask maintainer to fix it. escalate to sig or rel-eng to fix it if they don't. 16:20:47 <jpokorny> when I accidentally got into this meeting, I would point out one personal example of EPEL vs. RHEL 16:20:48 <jokajak> great :) 16:20:51 <jpokorny> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741324#c5 16:21:55 <jpokorny> (the comment in the link was not intentional) 16:21:56 <nirik> jpokorny: right. 16:22:17 <nirik> the problem/question is if we care about ha channel or not. various of our proposals would have had us doing so. 16:22:56 <nirik> thanks for the good example jpokorny 16:23:22 <smooge> I think we need some sort of ven diagram.. if we stick to X how much of EPEL goes away. if we stick to X+X0 , etc etc. 16:23:26 <abadger1999> Don't almost all of our proposals include hs? 16:23:29 <abadger1999> *ha 16:23:38 <nirik> abadger1999: many of them yeah. 16:24:08 <nirik> the last one did, but inode0 asked why ha and lb... and we didn't really have much reason, just 'we added them a while back' 16:25:23 <abadger1999> The kind of de facto right now is.. if they're in the buildsystem's definition of rhel 16:25:27 <nirik> anyhow, I will try and look over the AP mappings and see if they help us. 16:25:30 <abadger1999> <nod> 16:25:43 <nirik> I can't seem to find the email with them, but will keep looking. 16:26:40 <nirik> #action nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome. 16:26:45 <nirik> anything else on this? 16:27:53 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 16:27:59 <nirik> any items for open floor? 16:29:10 * nirik will wait for a few minutes, then close out if nothing comes up 16:31:29 <smooge> nothing for open floor from me 16:32:11 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyon. 16:32:16 <nirik> everyone even 16:32:17 <nirik> #endmeeting