Sep 12 11:00:56 Hi everybody; who's around? Sep 12 11:01:07 --- knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Sig meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process Sep 12 11:01:11 Meeting ping dgilmore, Jeff_S, knurd, mmcgrath, nirik, stahnma, quaid and everyone interested in EPEL -- EPEL meeting in #fedora-meeting now! Sep 12 11:01:17 * 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 Sep 12 11:01:30 * f13 peeks in Sep 12 11:01:45 * knurd has a cold and should be in bed... Sep 12 11:02:11 knurd: pushing should be easier now Sep 12 11:02:27 dgilmore, yeah, I've read about it in my inbox Sep 12 11:02:38 dgilmore, does it work like Michael expected it now? Sep 12 11:02:52 knurd: it seems to yes Sep 12 11:03:03 dgilmore, great Sep 12 11:03:30 dgilmore, btw, the current repo is "5" Sep 12 11:03:47 the plan was to have "5.0" and "5.1" repos and let 5 point to the current one Sep 12 11:03:54 dgilmore, should that still be possible to do? Sep 12 11:04:16 having "5.0" and "5.1" repos would make it possible for users to stick to 5.0 Sep 12 11:04:25 if they don#t want to upgreade yet to 5.1 Sep 12 11:04:27 --> sharkcz (n=dan@195.113.166.90) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:04:41 given that Red Hat has an update model that is like that, this is probably a good idea. Sep 12 11:04:55 knurd: they should be symlinks to 5 Sep 12 11:04:58 btw, I supose there is no public official date when RHEl 5.1 is going to be released? Sep 12 11:04:58 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. Sep 12 11:05:06 knurd: I don't think so Sep 12 11:05:26 --> trashy (n=trashy@fedora/trashy) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:05:33 dgilmore, no, that does not work if there is something in the normal repo then that requires stuff from 5.1 Sep 12 11:05:39 so we need 5.0 and 5.1 repos Sep 12 11:05:47 knurd: we can not do that Sep 12 11:05:49 and just link from 5 -> latest (e.g. 5.1 soon) Sep 12 11:05:58 dgilmore, why not? Sep 12 11:06:01 we do not have the resources to offer something like that Sep 12 11:06:20 resources as in "hard-disk space"? Sep 12 11:06:27 it's just for some months Sep 12 11:06:31 we could hardlink the files Sep 12 11:06:42 and remove the 5.0 directory when RHEL drops 5.0 completely Sep 12 11:06:50 as in hard disk space and scripst that hardlink and set multiple repositories Sep 12 11:06:57 you'd need multiple scm branches too Sep 12 11:07:03 one for each point release. Sep 12 11:07:04 * nirik is here now finally. Sep 12 11:07:05 RH ourselves builds something on 5.0 if it is meant for both 5.0 and 5.1 Sep 12 11:07:13 f13, well, I don#t think we need to update the old branches Sep 12 11:07:18 f13, that is to much work for epel Sep 12 11:07:23 knurd: you do if htere is a security issue Sep 12 11:07:35 knurd: it will blow up the world we dont have resouces to do such a thing Sep 12 11:07:56 * mmcgrath tends to agree with dgilmore. Sep 12 11:08:02 dgilmore, it's in the guidelines Sep 12 11:08:03 for motnhs Sep 12 11:08:07 centos doesn't do that either, do they? Sep 12 11:08:12 why didn#t you speak up once about it Sep 12 11:08:12 nirik: they don't. Sep 12 11:08:28 nirik, they have different directories for their releases as well Sep 12 11:08:40 knurd: I had assumed we would keep a single tree and create symlinks for releases Sep 12 11:08:58 * quaid is here, had to come back from an unexpected reboot Sep 12 11:08:59 dgilmore, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-a98bce5283ee336393aec81cf6fc90543c0f2277 Sep 12 11:09:05 nirik, mmcgrath read that as well Sep 12 11:09:07 they only build against the current tho I thought and the others were symlinks to the current Sep 12 11:09:16 that's why we agreed on months ago Sep 12 11:09:35 nirik: thats my take on it also Sep 12 11:09:47 * nirik reads Sep 12 11:09:51 --- knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | RHEL / EPEL 5.1 -- unassigned Sep 12 11:09:55 knurd: they keep the old trees around but they don't have anything in them. Sep 12 11:09:58 http://mirror.steadfast.net/centos/4.4/readme Sep 12 11:11:02 yeah, that was my understanding too. ;( Sorry if I misread/misunderstood the written guideline... Sep 12 11:11:05 I thought they keept the old tree around for some weeks/months Sep 12 11:11:21 anyways it is not really my problem since i am no longer part of the EPEL SIG Sep 12 11:11:23 so users that don#t want to update yet don#t run into issues Sep 12 11:11:29 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. Sep 12 11:11:43 dgilmore, well, I wanted you opinion in general Sep 12 11:11:48 they'll need to make decisions on what rpms end up where and when. Sep 12 11:12:05 mmcgrath, we would just keep the 5.0 tree around for some months Sep 12 11:12:11 no updates anymore Sep 12 11:12:13 for what purpose? Sep 12 11:12:21 for users that are not yet on 5.1 Sep 12 11:12:27 or don#t want to go there yet Sep 12 11:12:47 for example as yum-utils is iirc in 5.1 Sep 12 11:13:02 we are oing to delete it in epel soon (I suppose) Sep 12 11:13:08 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? Sep 12 11:13:17 but users still on 5.0 would run into broken deps problems then Sep 12 11:13:55 well, seems I'm the only one htat thinks that we do it like that Sep 12 11:14:04 so let's ignore the issue for now Sep 12 11:14:20 it's not that important (but I think it would be nice to have and shouldn#t be to much work to realize) Sep 12 11:14:20 knurd: we might bring it up on list... if we were confused, there might be others as well... Sep 12 11:14:31 yeah, maybe Sep 12 11:14:34 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. Sep 12 11:14:40 --> mcepl (n=mcepl@adsl2009.in.ipex.cz) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:14:43 mmcgrath, yes Sep 12 11:15:12 then the expectation is that they would upgrade after a few months? and not just always stay on 5.0 Sep 12 11:15:15 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. Sep 12 11:15:43 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. Sep 12 11:15:59 yeah, we should take it to the list for input. Sep 12 11:16:09 mmcgrath, k Sep 12 11:16:52 I suppose I'll do that then Sep 12 11:16:56 * knurd moves on Sep 12 11:17:03 --- knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | push to stable easily -- knurd/nirik/dgilmore Sep 12 11:17:19 dgilmore, I suppose that I can remove that from the schedule for now? Sep 12 11:17:20 so the scripts are all setup now? Sep 12 11:17:31 nirik, seems so Sep 12 11:17:35 * nirik hasn't had time to remove things that need to be removed... will try and do that today. Sep 12 11:17:47 dgilmore said they are working as expected now as far as he knows Sep 12 11:17:48 also there are some security updates that need to push direct to stable Sep 12 11:17:58 I don't think we've fully tested the test -> stable part yet have we? Sep 12 11:18:09 mmcgrath, not sure Sep 12 11:18:33 yeah, I don't think we have. Sep 12 11:18:53 well, someone should Sep 12 11:19:10 nirik, are those packages that should go to testing a good testbed? Sep 12 11:19:11 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 Sep 12 11:19:42 which packages? built but not in testing? Sep 12 11:19:54 nirik, wouldn#t it be easier for those security updates to just diff "requirements of old and new package"? Sep 12 11:19:57 --> llaumgui (n=llaumgui@cro34-2-82-226-153-125.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:19:58 those should be identical Sep 12 11:20:21 nirik, not sure; are those "security updates that need to push direct to stable" build already or in testing? Sep 12 11:20:52 I suppose we need to do the real testing -> stable move soon as well Sep 12 11:20:55 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. Sep 12 11:21:13 RHEL 5.1 is planed for this quarter iirc Sep 12 11:21:49 I will try and clean up things and test pushing tonight... Sep 12 11:21:54 nirik, did you get instructions from michael about the new commands? Sep 12 11:22:07 yeah, in that orig email you forwarded I think. Sep 12 11:22:13 e.g. how to push to stable directly or how to move from testing to stable Sep 12 11:22:16 nirik, k Sep 12 11:22:19 so how about this: Sep 12 11:22:24 yeah, if they work I can do it. :) Sep 12 11:22:31 we create a backup on the master repo Sep 12 11:22:34 try the push script Sep 12 11:22:48 and abort if it does stupid things? Sep 12 11:23:24 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... Sep 12 11:23:40 so in theory we can copy back if the script messes up. Sep 12 11:23:47 I can make a backup copy tho too. Sep 12 11:24:17 as long as their is space for it. Sep 12 11:24:35 --> knurd_ (n=thl@fedora/thl) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:25:15 sorry, the machine with "knurd" on it just crashed afaics Sep 12 11:25:17 knurd_: :) Sep 12 11:25:24 knurd, nirik: can one of you document that in the wiki Sep 12 11:25:41 "that" -> what michael send us? Sep 12 11:25:49 knurd: yes Sep 12 11:26:11 sure... anywhere sound good, or just a new page? Sep 12 11:26:27 nirik, can you take care of it? Sep 12 11:26:31 sure. will do now. Sep 12 11:26:34 nirik, thx Sep 12 11:27:02 <-- knurd has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) Sep 12 11:27:11 nirik, so can you try to move a pacakge from testing to stable? Sep 12 11:27:18 and one from needsign directly to stable? Sep 12 11:27:23 so we know that it works? Sep 12 11:27:26 --- knurd_ is now known as knurd Sep 12 11:27:33 sure. What package from testing should be moved to stable? Sep 12 11:28:13 are there maybe two security updates in needsign? Sep 12 11:28:18 then push one to testing Sep 12 11:28:24 and from there to stable right after? Sep 12 11:28:29 and the other one directly? Sep 12 11:28:50 yeah, I can't recall, but I think there might be another one or two Sep 12 11:28:55 can try that Sep 12 11:29:03 nirik, that would be great Sep 12 11:29:06 thx for your help Sep 12 11:29:16 also, there are package s that need to be removed... Sep 12 11:29:21 nirik rocks the house. Sep 12 11:29:34 * knurd has really not enought time atm Sep 12 11:29:35 --> fab__ (n=bellet@bellet.info) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:29:43 should get better in two weeks again Sep 12 11:29:47 ha. I wish I had more time to figure out the scripts and have been able to get things going sooner. Sep 12 11:30:00 --- knurd is now known as knurd_ Sep 12 11:30:14 --> knurd (n=thl@fedora/thl) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:30:35 * knurd_ moves on Sep 12 11:30:40 --- knurd_ has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting | RHEL / EPEL 5.1 -- unassigned Sep 12 11:30:43 forgot something Sep 12 11:30:49 RHEL 5.1 is likely out soon Sep 12 11:30:52 we don#t know when Sep 12 11:30:56 --> linux_geek (n=linux_ge@122.169.154.82) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:31:14 so I suppose we need to do the EPEL testing -> stable move a week or two after 5.1 is out Sep 12 11:31:26 is that fine for everybody? Sep 12 11:31:47 yeah, sounds good. Again, we will want to make sure there are no broken deps, etc. Sep 12 11:31:50 that sounds reasonable. Sep 12 11:32:08 nirik, yeah, I suppose we should leave those broken deps in testing Sep 12 11:32:10 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? Sep 12 11:32:18 nirik, good idea Sep 12 11:33:09 * knurd moves on for real then again Sep 12 11:33:17 --- 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 Sep 12 11:33:41 I suppose we really somehow need to discuss this on the list and then just start it Sep 12 11:33:44 <-- kital has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)) Sep 12 11:33:46 and see how it goes Sep 12 11:33:52 and fine-tune it while doing it Sep 12 11:34:00 It'd be nice if we had an official way to make decisions on the list. Sep 12 11:34:21 --> kital (n=Joerg_Si@fedora/kital) has joined #fedora-meeting Sep 12 11:34:37 mmcgrath, yeah, agreed Sep 12 11:35:12 like in "if no one objects within some days it's considered accepted?" Sep 12 11:35:20 <-- enemy99 has quit (Remote closed the connection) Sep 12 11:35:34 BTW, I inserted this rule into RH's processes for adding a new package to RHEL. Sep 12 11:35:39 yeah. Sep 12 11:35:53 something like "Check EPEL to be sure your new package is newer" Sep 12 11:36:05 warren: excellent. Sep 12 11:36:11 warren, thx Sep 12 11:36:34 also "smooth upgrade from EPEL" Sep 12 11:36:40 mmcgrath, I'd say let's discuss that on the list Sep 12 11:36:49 * knurd has to leave soon for some minutes Sep 12 11:36:51 * tux_440volt will be back soon: Gone away for now. Sep 12 11:37:17 does that sounds sane? Sep 12 11:37:32 e.g. discuss on the list how to do more things on the list? Sep 12 11:37:39 sure. ;) Sep 12 11:37:54 --- knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting -- Free discussion around EPEL Sep 12 11:38:09 if there anything else we need to discuss today? Sep 12 11:38:10 knurd, mmcgrath, dgilmore: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/EPEL_repositoryinfo (feel free to correct/add/etc) Sep 12 11:38:28 Generic Job Description? Communication plan] for enterprise customers/ISVs/IHVs? Sep 12 11:38:37 or shall we try to finish those on hte list as well? Sep 12 11:38:55 knurd: yeah, especially since the meetings have just been the few of us. Sep 12 11:39:07 k Sep 12 11:39:08 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. Sep 12 11:39:29 nirik, I'd say we try antoher two or three weeks and decide afterwards Sep 12 11:39:32 ok Sep 12 11:39:56 k, anything else? Sep 12 11:40:09 nope Sep 12 11:40:27 * knurd will close the meeting in 30 Sep 12 11:41:02 * nirik has nothing. Sep 12 11:41:16 * knurd will close the meeting in 10 Sep 12 11:41:27 -- MARK -- Meeting end Sep 12 11:41:27 --- 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 Sep 12 11:41:31 thx everyone Sep 12 11:41:40 thanks knurd Sep 12 11:41:40 <-- knurd_ has quit ("knurd again") Sep 12 11:41:59 * knurd afk for a few minutes Sep 12 11:42:07 --> enemy99 (i=enemy@platinum.linux.pl) has joined #Fedora-Meeting Sep 12 11:42:08 thanks knurd