Log from last weeks EPEL SIG meeting (20070912)

Mon Sep 17 17:15:17 UTC 2007

Reminder: next meeting on Wednesday (20070919) at 23:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting

00:00:56 <knurd>	Hi everybody; who's around?
00:01:07 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Sig meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
00:01:11 <knurd>	Meeting ping dgilmore, Jeff_S, knurd, mmcgrath, nirik, stahnma, quaid and everyone interested in EPEL -- EPEL meeting in #fedora-meeting now!
00:01:17 *	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
00:01:30 *	f13 peeks in
00:01:45 *	knurd has a cold and should be in bed...
00:02:11 <dgilmore>	knurd: pushing should be easier now
00:02:27 <knurd>	dgilmore, yeah, I've read about it in my inbox
00:02:38 <knurd>	dgilmore, does it work like Michael expected it now?
00:02:52 <dgilmore>	knurd: it seems to yes
00:03:03 <knurd>	dgilmore, great
00:03:30 <knurd>	dgilmore, btw, the current repo is "5"
00:03:47 <knurd>	the plan was to have "5.0" and "5.1" repos and let 5 point to the current one
00:03:54 <knurd>	dgilmore, should that still be possible to do?
00:04:16 <knurd>	having "5.0" and "5.1" repos would make it possible for users to stick to 5.0
00:04:25 <knurd>	if they don#t want to upgreade yet to 5.1
00:04:27 -->	sharkcz () has joined #fedora-meeting
00:04:41 <f13>	given that Red Hat has an update model that is like that, this is probably a good idea.
00:04:55 <dgilmore>	knurd: they should be symlinks to 5
00:04:58 <knurd>	btw, I supose there is no public official date when RHEl 5.1 is going to be released?
00:04:58 <f13>	Red Hat has an update model that will allow you to stay on say 5.0 and get only critical updates built for 5.0.
00:05:06 <f13>	knurd: I don't think so
00:05:26 -->	trashy (n=trashy at fedora/trashy) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:05:33 <knurd>	dgilmore, no, that does not work if there is something in the normal repo then that requires stuff from 5.1
00:05:39 <knurd>	so we need 5.0 and 5.1 repos
00:05:47 <dgilmore>	knurd: we can not do that
00:05:49 <knurd>	and just link from 5 -> latest (e.g. 5.1 soon)
00:05:58 <knurd>	dgilmore, why not?
00:06:01 <dgilmore>	we do not have the resources to offer something like that
00:06:20 <knurd>	resources as in "hard-disk space"?
00:06:27 <knurd>	it's just for some months
00:06:31 <knurd>	we could hardlink the files
00:06:42 <knurd>	and remove the 5.0 directory when RHEL drops 5.0 completely
00:06:50 <dgilmore>	as in hard disk space  and scripst that hardlink and set multiple repositories
00:06:57 <f13>	you'd need multiple scm branches too
00:07:03 <f13>	one for each point release.
00:07:04 *	nirik is here now finally. 
00:07:05 <warren>	RH ourselves builds something on 5.0 if it is meant for both 5.0 and 5.1
00:07:13 <knurd>	f13, well, I don#t think we need to update the old branches
00:07:18 <knurd>	f13, that is to much work for epel
00:07:23 <f13>	knurd: you do if htere is a security issue
00:07:35 <dgilmore>	knurd: it will blow up the world  we dont have resouces to do such a thing
00:07:56 *	mmcgrath tends to agree with dgilmore.
00:08:02 <knurd>	dgilmore, it's in the guidelines
00:08:03 <knurd>	for motnhs
00:08:07 <nirik>	centos doesn't do that either, do they? 
00:08:12 <knurd>	why didn#t you speak up once about it
00:08:12 <mmcgrath>	nirik: they don't.
00:08:28 <knurd>	nirik, they have different directories for their releases as well
00:08:40 <dgilmore>	knurd: I had assumed we would keep a single tree and create symlinks for releases
00:08:58 *	quaid is here, had to come back from an unexpected reboot
00:08:59 <knurd>	dgilmore, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283ee336393aec81cf6fc90543c0f2277
00:09:05 <knurd>	nirik, mmcgrath read that as well
00:09:07 <nirik>	they only build against the current tho I thought and the others were symlinks to the current
00:09:16 <knurd>	that's why we agreed on months ago
00:09:35 <dgilmore>	nirik: thats my take on it also
00:09:47 *	nirik reads
00:09:51 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | RHEL / EPEL 5.1 -- unassigned
00:09:55 <mmcgrath>	knurd: they keep the old trees around but they don't have anything in them.
00:09:58 <mmcgrath>	http://mirror.steadfast.net/centos/4.4/readme
00:00:02 <nirik>	yeah, that was my understanding too. ;( Sorry if I misread/misunderstood the written guideline... 
00:00:05 <knurd>	I thought they keept the old tree around for some weeks/months
00:00:21 <dgilmore>	anyways it is not really my problem since i am no longer part of the EPEL SIG
00:00:23 <knurd>	so users that don#t want to update yet don#t run into issues
00:00:29 <mmcgrath>	knurd: the problem here is that someone (and its going to have to be a person) will need to track the trees if some packages have a different destination at different times.
00:00:43 <knurd>	dgilmore, well, I wanted you opinion in general
00:00:48 <mmcgrath>	they'll need to make decisions on what rpms end up where and when.
00:12:05 <knurd>	mmcgrath, we would just keep the 5.0 tree around for some months
00:12:11 <knurd>	no updates anymore
00:12:13 <mmcgrath>	for what purpose?
00:12:21 <knurd>	for users that are not yet on 5.1
00:12:27 <knurd>	or don#t want to go there yet
00:12:47 <knurd>	for example as yum-utils is iirc in 5.1
00:13:02 <knurd>	we are oing to delete it in epel soon (I suppose)
00:13:08 <nirik>	but they could just use the symlinked 5.1 repo. If there was some dependency that was in 5.1 and not 5.0 it would error or pull in the upgrade?
00:13:17 <knurd>	but users still on 5.0 would run into broken deps problems then
00:13:55 <knurd>	well, seems I'm the only one htat thinks that we do it like that
00:14:04 <knurd>	so let's ignore the issue for now
00:14:20 <knurd>	it's not that important (but I think it would be nice to have and shouldn#t be to much work to realize)
00:14:20 <nirik>	knurd: we might bring it up on list... if we were confused, there might be others as well... 
00:14:31 <knurd>	yeah, maybe
00:14:34 <mmcgrath>	so the specific use case is people who do not or cannot upgrade to 5.1 but still want to use epel for a few months.
00:14:40 -->	mcepl () has joined #fedora-meeting
00:14:43 <knurd>	mmcgrath, yes
00:15:12 <nirik>	then the expectation is that they would upgrade after a few months? and not just always stay on 5.0
00:15:15 <mmcgrath>	and to do that we'll have to create a directory full of hard links, decide when it should expire, update our scripts to point to the new location but possibly have it do security updates to 5.0.
00:15:43 <mmcgrath>	I guess my concern is, if its on our mirror I would consider it supported so if I'm using 5.0, I'd expect it to be up to date until it disappears.
00:15:59 <mmcgrath>	yeah, we should take it to the list for input.
00:16:09 <knurd>	mmcgrath, k
00:16:52 <knurd>	I suppose I'll do that then
00:16:56 *	knurd moves on
00:17:03 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | push to stable easily -- knurd/nirik/dgilmore
00:17:19 <knurd>	dgilmore, I suppose that I can remove that from the schedule for now?
00:17:20 <nirik>	so the scripts are all setup now? 
00:17:31 <knurd>	nirik, seems so
00:17:35 *	nirik hasn't had time to remove things that need to be removed... will try and do that today. 
00:17:47 <knurd>	dgilmore said they are working as expected now as far as he knows
00:17:48 <nirik>	also there are some security updates that need to push direct to stable
00:17:58 <mmcgrath>	I don't think we've fully tested the test -> stable part yet have we?
00:18:09 <knurd>	mmcgrath, not sure
00:18:33 <nirik>	yeah, I don't think we have. 
00:18:53 <knurd>	well, someone should
00:19:10 <knurd>	nirik, are those packages that should go to testing a good testbed?
00:19:11 <nirik>	I guess I can setup a mirror repo here, add in the security updates and make sure it's ok, delete the broken dep packages, and then if all looks ok try a push
00:19:42 <nirik>	which packages? built but not in testing?
00:19:54 <knurd>	nirik, wouldn#t it be easier for those security updates to just diff "requirements of old and new package"?
00:19:57 -->	llaumgui () has joined #fedora-meeting
00:19:58 <knurd>	those should be identical
00:20:21 <knurd>	nirik, not sure; are those "security updates that need to push direct to stable" build already or in testing?
00:20:52 <knurd>	I suppose we need to do the real testing -> stable move soon as well
00:20:55 <nirik>	well, for example, thttpd is one... I think it's built but not in testing yet. So, it would need to go from nothing to stable, bypassing testing. 
00:21:13 <knurd>	RHEL 5.1 is planed for this quarter iirc
00:21:49 <nirik>	I will try and clean up things and test pushing tonight... 
00:21:54 <knurd>	nirik, did you get instructions from michael about the new commands?
00:22:07 <nirik>	yeah, in that orig email you forwarded I think. 
00:22:13 <knurd>	e.g. how to push to stable directly or how to move from testing to stable
00:22:16 <knurd>	nirik, k
00:22:19 <knurd>	so how about this:
00:22:24 <nirik>	yeah, if they work I can do it. :) 
00:22:31 <knurd>	we create a backup on the master repo
00:22:34 <knurd>	try the push script
00:22:48 <knurd>	and abort if it does stupid things?
00:23:24 <nirik>	well, I think the way it works is that it works on a copy until the final sync, then it syncs to the real repo... 
00:23:40 <nirik>	so in theory we can copy back if the script messes up. 
00:23:47 <nirik>	I can make a backup copy tho too. 
00:24:17 <nirik>	as long as their is space for it. 
00:24:35 -->	knurd_ (n=thl at fedora/thl) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:25:15 <knurd_>	sorry, the machine with "knurd" on it just crashed afaics
00:25:17 <mmcgrath>	knurd_: :)
00:25:24 <dgilmore>	knurd, nirik: can one of you document that in the wiki
00:25:41 <knurd_>	"that" -> what michael send us?
00:25:49 <dgilmore>	knurd: yes
00:26:11 <nirik>	sure... anywhere sound good, or just a new page?
00:26:27 <knurd_>	nirik, can you take care of it?
00:26:31 <nirik>	sure. will do now. 
00:26:34 <knurd_>	nirik, thx
00:27:02 <--	knurd has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
00:27:11 <knurd_>	nirik, so can you try to move a pacakge from testing to stable?
00:27:18 <knurd_>	and one from needsign directly to stable?
00:27:23 <knurd_>	so we know that it works?
00:27:26 ---	knurd_ is now known as knurd
00:27:33 <nirik>	sure. What package from testing should be moved to stable? 
00:28:13 <knurd>	are there maybe two security updates in needsign?
00:28:18 <knurd>	then push one to testing
00:28:24 <knurd>	and from there to stable right after?
00:28:29 <knurd>	and the other one directly?
00:28:50 <nirik>	yeah, I can't recall, but I think there might be another one or two
00:28:55 <nirik>	can try that
00:29:03 <knurd>	nirik, that would be great
00:29:06 <knurd>	thx for your help
00:29:16 <nirik>	also, there are package s that need to be removed... 
00:29:21 <mmcgrath>	nirik rocks the house.
00:29:34 *	knurd has really not enought time atm
00:29:35 -->	fab__ () has joined #fedora-meeting
00:29:43 <knurd>	should get better in two weeks again
00:29:47 <nirik>	ha. I wish I had more time to figure out the scripts and have been able to get things going sooner. 
00:30:00 ---	knurd is now known as knurd_
00:30:14 -->	knurd (n=thl at fedora/thl) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:30:35 *	knurd_ moves on
00:30:40 ---	knurd_ has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | RHEL / EPEL 5.1 -- unassigned
00:30:43 <knurd_>	forgot something
00:30:49 <knurd_>	RHEL 5.1 is likely out soon
00:30:52 <knurd_>	we don#t know when
00:30:56 -->	linux_geek () has joined #fedora-meeting
00:31:14 <knurd_>	so I suppose we need to do the EPEL testing -> stable move a week or two after 5.1 is out
00:31:26 <knurd_>	is that fine for everybody?
00:31:47 <nirik>	yeah, sounds good. Again, we will want to make sure there are no broken deps, etc. 
00:31:50 <mmcgrath>	that sounds reasonable.
00:32:08 <knurd>	nirik, yeah, I suppose we should leave those broken deps in testing
00:32:10 <nirik>	Also, there are a few packages that are pulled into 5.1 that were in EPEL. We will want to tell maintaners to dead.package them?
00:32:18 <knurd>	nirik, good idea
00:33:09 *	knurd moves on for real then again
00:33:17 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | do more on the list and less in the meetings; "Power to the people with no delay." aka "Steering Committee's are slow and old style" -- all
00:33:41 <knurd>	I suppose we really somehow need to discuss this on the list and then just start it
00:33:44 <--	kital has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
00:33:46 <knurd>	and see how it goes
00:33:52 <knurd>	and fine-tune it while doing it
00:34:00 <mmcgrath>	It'd be nice if we had an official way to make decisions on the list.
00:34:21 -->	kital (n=Joerg_Si at fedora/kital) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:34:37 <knurd>	mmcgrath, yeah, agreed
00:35:12 <knurd>	like in "if no one objects within some days it's considered accepted?"
00:35:20 <--	enemy99 has quit (Remote closed the connection)
00:35:34 <warren>	BTW, I inserted this rule into RH's processes for adding a new package to RHEL.
00:35:39 <mmcgrath>	yeah.
00:35:53 <warren>	something like "Check EPEL to be sure your new package is newer"
00:36:05 <nirik>	warren: excellent. 
00:36:11 <knurd>	warren, thx
00:36:34 <warren>	also "smooth upgrade from EPEL"
00:36:40 <knurd>	mmcgrath, I'd say let's discuss that on the list
00:36:49 *	knurd has to leave soon for some minutes
00:36:51 *	tux_440volt will be back soon: Gone away for now.
00:37:17 <knurd>	does that sounds sane?
00:37:32 <knurd>	e.g. discuss on the list how to do more things on the list?
00:37:39 <nirik>	sure. ;) 
00:37:54 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting -- Free discussion around EPEL
00:38:09 <knurd>	if there anything else we need to discuss today?
00:38:10 <nirik>	knurd, mmcgrath, dgilmore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/EPEL_repositoryinfo (feel free to correct/add/etc)
00:38:28 <knurd>	Generic Job Description? Communication plan] for enterprise customers/ISVs/IHVs?
00:38:37 <knurd>	or shall we try to finish those on hte list as well?
00:38:55 <mmcgrath>	knurd: yeah, especially since the meetings have just been the few of us.
00:39:07 <knurd>	k
00:39:08 <nirik>	so are we sticking with the alternate meeting time? it didn't seem to help much last week except that knurd wasn't able to make it. 
00:39:29 <knurd>	nirik, I'd say we try antoher two or three weeks and decide afterwards
00:39:32 <nirik>	ok
00:39:56 <knurd>	k, anything else?
00:40:09 <mmcgrath>	nope
00:40:27 *	knurd will close the meeting in 30
00:41:02 *	nirik has nothing. 
00:41:16 *	knurd will close the meeting in 10
00:41:27 <knurd>	-- MARK -- Meeting end
00:41:27 ---	knurd has changed the topic to: Channel is used by various Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel for meeting schedule
00:41:31 <knurd>	thx everyone
00:41:40 <mmcgrath>	thanks knurd
00:41:40 <--	knurd_ has quit ("knurd again")
00:41:59 *	knurd afk for a few minutes
00:42:07 -->	enemy99 () has joined #Fedora-Meeting
00:42:08 <nirik>	thanks knurd 