================================== #fedora-meeting: EPEL (2012-07-13) ==================================

Meeting started by nirik at 16:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-07-13/epel.2012-07-13-1... .

Meeting summary --------------- * init process/agenda (nirik, 16:00:01)

* python-werkzeug (nirik, 16:07:49)

* Overlap policy discussion part 27 (nirik, 16:14:27) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages ). (nirik, 16:18:18) * will try and come up with a new proposal based on the RHEL5 AP -> RHEL6 channels mappings. (nirik, 16:27:06)

* Misc stuff status (nirik, 16:27:15)

* Open Floor (nirik, 16:32:45)

Meeting ended at 16:39:07 UTC.

Action Items ------------

Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)

People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * nirik (65) * maxamillion (16) * ianweller (10) * Jeff_S (10) * zodbot (4) * smooge (4) * abadger1999 (3) * rsc (2) * relrod (2) * densebits (1) * tremble (0) * dgilmore (0) -- 16:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL (2012-07-13) 16:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Fri Jul 13 16:00:01 2012 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:01 <nirik> #meetingname epel 16:00:01 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel' 16:00:01 <nirik> #topic init process/agenda 16:00:01 <nirik> #chair smooge tremble dgilmore 16:00:01 <nirik> EPEL meeting ping abadger1999 rsc stahnma tremble dgilmore smooge nb maxamillion tremble Jeff_S HackMan 16:00:01 <zodbot> Current chairs: dgilmore nirik smooge tremble 16:00:09 <nirik> any folks around for an epel meeting? 16:00:28 <ianweller> hi 16:00:32 <densebits> woot 16:02:06 <Jeff_S> . 16:02:09 <nirik> happy friday the 13th. ;) 16:02:31 <maxamillion> heh 16:02:37 <maxamillion> s/the 13th.// 16:02:46 * abadger1999 here 16:03:09 <maxamillion> I'm just happy its Friday, that means I get to sleep at some time in the forseeable future ;) 16:03:22 <nirik> sleep? whats that? ;) 16:03:47 <maxamillion> nirik: :P 16:05:05 <nirik> ok, so for agenda I have: our favorate overlap policy discussion, and some misc progress reports/call for help on various things I keep not getting to. 16:05:15 <nirik> anyone have additional items before we get started? 16:05:26 <ianweller> not sure if you have the python-werkzeug thread on the agenda 16:06:53 <nirik> sure, we can add that. 16:06:57 <nirik> anything else? 16:07:02 * relrod here 16:07:31 <maxamillion> nothing I can think of 16:07:44 <nirik> ok, shall we start with that then? 16:07:49 <nirik> #topic python-werkzeug 16:08:02 <ianweller> you switch to that and then my dog starts barking, oops 16:08:23 <maxamillion> coincidence? 16:08:24 <nirik> ha. 16:08:36 <nirik> anyhow, the discussion here was upgrading that in epel? 16:08:41 <nirik> is the new version incompatible? 16:09:51 <ianweller> the discussion is about upgrading it in EPEL 16:10:14 <ianweller> according to abadger1999 the changelog didn't look all that incompatible, mostly improvements 16:10:27 <ianweller> however i'm bringing it up under the incompatible policy just in case... so others can take a look 16:10:36 <ianweller> the package is also orphaned on the EL branch last i checked 16:10:57 <ianweller> was, until relrod took it 16:11:12 <abadger1999> It does have some incompatibilities. 16:11:16 <nirik> ok, so it's currently 0.6.2 16:11:18 <abadger1999> But it is mostly improvements 16:11:41 <nirik> so, my suggestion would be: 16:12:20 <nirik> a) build the new one and push it to epel-test. b) announce to epel-announce that it's in test, ask people to test or complain if there's issues, c) wait an extra long time in test, d) profit. 16:12:33 <ianweller> so basically the rest of the incompatible upgrade policy? :) 16:12:40 <nirik> yeah 16:13:11 <relrod> alright, I'll get it built/ready to be pushed to epel-test today. 16:13:36 <ianweller> nirik, abadger1999, relrod: thanks 16:13:46 <nirik> thanks for bringing it up. 16:14:27 <nirik> #topic Overlap policy discussion part 27 16:14:49 <nirik> So, I was hoping to sit down this week and re-read things and try and come up with a new proposal, but I didn't get the time to do so. 16:15:16 <nirik> I think the new info we have is a mapping of old RHEL5 AP to RHEL6 channels, which we could use to base things on. 16:16:00 <nirik> anyone have a proposal? or thoughts on next steps or ? 16:16:27 <maxamillion> I must have missed something, is there a link to this? 16:17:04 <Jeff_S> maxamillion: there is a few books worth of email exchanges on the EPEL list ;) 16:17:16 <Jeff_S> or was there something specific you missed? 16:17:32 <maxamillion> Jeff_S: is there a current proposal? 16:17:55 <nirik> yeah, basically, it boils down to: What is the EPEL6 policy on when to allow packages that RHEL ships in random channels. 16:18:15 <nirik> My last stab at it was: 16:18:17 <nirik> "EPEL6 will not normally ship packages that are shipped already in the 16:18:18 <nirik> following RHEL channels: os, optional, lb, and ha. Any overlapping 16:18:18 <nirik> packages must be to provide binary packages on arches not provided by 16:18:18 <nirik> RHEL ( following: 16:18:18 <nirik> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages ). 16:18:18 <nirik> Additional channels may be added to this list, based on a criteria the 16:18:20 <nirik> EPEL sig has yet to decide on." 16:18:35 <rsc> (since when is there a EPEL sig, again?) 16:18:36 <nirik> but there were people who still didn't like that. 16:18:38 <maxamillion> ohhhhh ok, yeah .. I remember this from a couple meetings ago 16:18:58 <Jeff_S> rsc: "when is a SIG not a SIG?" 16:18:59 <nirik> rsc: we started meeting again with this overlaps policy discussion... 16:19:44 <Jeff_S> I like what nirik just shared FWIW... we're never going to get something "perfect", and need to be flexible because, as we've seen, RH will keep changing stuff out from under us 16:20:14 <rsc> Jeff_S: sorry, I mixed up SIG vs. commitee. My fault. 16:20:16 <nirik> I think the main objections to the last proposal I had was that the list of channels seemed arbitrary. Why lb and ha? 16:20:23 <Jeff_S> rsc: np :) 16:20:49 <nirik> rsc: EPEL is weird. It's been a SIG, a subproject and a SIG again... I don't think it really matters. ;) 16:21:05 <Jeff_S> we like packages... 16:22:52 <nirik> ok, so I guess we try and add a new proposal on the list and discuss? or does anyone have anything on this to discuss right now? 16:24:05 * nirik listens to the crickets chirp 16:24:48 <Jeff_S> nirik: sure... I just think we're going to have an endless discussion :) 16:25:01 <Jeff_S> so let's get something that doesn't piss off *too* many people, and go with it 16:25:06 <nirik> Jeff_S: well, at some point we hopefully will mostly reach consensus and just do it. 16:25:09 <nirik> yeah 16:26:11 <nirik> I think we can try a proposal using the mapping of AP stuff... that should be less arbitrary, and more in line with things since thats what we don't overlap with in EPEL5 16:26:20 <nirik> but I need to sit down and figure that out. 16:26:24 <Jeff_S> seems reasonable to me 16:27:06 <nirik> #info will try and come up with a new proposal based on the RHEL5 AP -> RHEL6 channels mappings. 16:27:15 <nirik> #topic Misc stuff status 16:27:43 <nirik> So, I have a list of stuff that I keep not getting to... just thought I would mention them here if anyone wants to help: 16:27:56 <nirik> a) weekly broken dep reports. 16:28:22 <nirik> b) tracking down overlaps with baseos/optional (since we know we shouldn't overlap there) and filing bugs/getting them removed. 16:28:48 <nirik> So, if anyone wants to work on those, see me and I can fill you in. 16:29:27 <maxamillion> nirik: I might get with you on the overlaps for baseos and optional because I might be able to carve off some time or find someone from my team who could ... that is something that's rather important to us :) 16:29:38 <maxamillion> nirik: just going to depend on my schedule though :X 16:30:07 <nirik> maxamillion: that would be lovely. I have a partial list, but it needs to be manually checked thru, as it contains some packages that are in for the arch compatibility stuff. 16:31:05 <maxamillion> nirik: ah ok 16:31:26 <nirik> just takes time and I guess access to rhn to check each package. 16:31:29 <maxamillion> nirik: I'm sure there could be something about it scripted with a list from maybe koji and one from ftp.redhat.com ... or something 16:31:56 <nirik> currently the list I have doesn't take into account ppc64... 16:32:07 <nirik> possibly something could be automated there, hard to say 16:32:08 <maxamillion> hrmm... 16:32:11 <maxamillion> yeah 16:32:45 <nirik> #topic Open Floor 16:32:50 <maxamillion> I've been getting somewhat familiar with koji queries lately for some build automation stuff I've worked on for $dayjob ... I'll write it on my TODO list to revisit 16:32:53 <nirik> anything for open floor? questions, comments, flames? 16:33:11 <nirik> maxamillion: ok. cool. 16:33:40 <smooge> sorry for my delay in getting to the meeting 16:33:57 <smooge> I have a question for open floor. 16:34:11 <smooge> has anyone tested or looked at the mediawiki119 package in epel-testing? 16:34:23 * nirik hasn't. ;( 16:34:26 <nirik> well, aside from review. 16:34:45 <nirik> smooge: I think we should update stg soon and see what blows up... 16:35:12 <smooge> ok thanks 16:36:27 * nirik wonders if anyone else uses mediawiki in epel... they sure seem to be quiet if so 16:37:46 <nirik> ok, if nothing else, will close things out in a minute or two. 16:39:03 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone. 16:39:07 <nirik> #endmeeting