EPEL Meeting today... Proposed time and Agenda [2010-10-04 1930 GMT]

[Paul Howarth]

On 04/10/10 09:02, Mark Chappell wrote:
> It's a Monday again, so it's EPEL meeting day...  Since 1930 UTC
> worked so well the last couple of weeks I suggest we use it again.
>
> So the following are items I'd like to see on the agenda, any one else
> got something to add?
>
> ===
> * Signing off on the new time
> 1930 GMT in #fedora-meeting seems to be working well, some of the
> highest turnouts we've seen.
>
> * Bugs Update
> Any one got anything interesting to say on this this week?
>
> * EL-6 Branching
> There are a number of packages that didn't branch for EL-6 due to
> inclusion in beta 1 that seem to have gone.  Should we just branch
> them?  Or let people who need them branch them without waiting for a
> existing EL maintainer who's not done anything branch them?  (I've got
> at least 1 package with broken deps as a result)

Similarly, what to do about packages that are in Workstation or 
Workstation Optional packages but are needed to satisfy deps in EPEL6 
packages.

I would like to see us clone these packages in EPEL6 *and* add a higher 
than default cost to the EPEL repo so that users of Workstation continue 
to get their packages from RHEL rather than EPEL.

Currently, policy seems to be to wait for for RHEL 6 GA and see if 
there's an additional channel provided for Server users containing the 
necessary Workstation packages, leaving the broken deps in the meantime. 
I'd say that if that "productivity channel" appears then by all means 
untag the cloned packages - but if it doesn't - what then? Will we be 
unable to provide packages like bugzilla that need these dependencies? 
Or will we then clone the packages after all?

At least let's have a plan for how to resolve these dependencies.

Paul.