#fedora-meeting: EPEL (2012-07-27)
Meeting started by nirik at 16:00:00 UTC. The full logs are available at
* init process/agenda (nirik, 16:00:00)
* Broken deps reporting script (nirik, 16:03:39)
* Overlapping packages part 12 (nirik, 16:14:21)
* LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741324#c5
* ACTION: nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome. (nirik,
* Open Floor (nirik, 16:27:53)
Meeting ended at 16:32:17 UTC.
* nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome.
Action Items, by person
* nirik to work on a new policy draft. help welcome.
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
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
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
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
16:25:30 <abadger1999> <nod>
16:25:43 <nirik> I can't seem to find the email with them, but will keep
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