epel-devel March 2007

epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

43 participants
41 discussions

Log from last EPEL SIG meeting
by Thorsten Leemhuis 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

= Meeting 20070325 = [[TableOfContents]] == Attending == * dgilmore * mmcgrath * nirik * quaid * stahnma * thimm * thl == Summary == * RHEL5 final should be on the builders soon (maybe already when you read this); thl will announce to Fedora contributors to actually start to build for EPEL5 -- seems to him a lot of people wait for a "Go" signal. The packages currently in EPEL5 probably need a rebuild; it was discussed to simply delete the repo and build the packages again, but between the meeting and writing the logs this issue was raised again on the list * repo layout -- outlined in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies/PackageMaintenance… might need updates/modified tools; anyone willing to help? * shortcut for branching ; dgilmore has something locally; for now send him an email or irc ping and i can ping all of a owners packages ; including a list of packages might be helpful in case you don't want all of your packages branched * we sooner or later need scripts that check upgrade paths, repoclosure and similar stuff (like: making sure no packages enter the repo that are part of the base); reuse the Fedora scripts? should work, but they probably need adjustments and enhancements ; anyone willing to help? * EPEL Steering Committee proposal http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/EPELSteeringCommittee ; small details were mentioned and added to the proposal; will get send to fedora-maintainers (happened already) and then to FESCo for further discussion and ratifying * New meeting time -- it was agreed on to meet on Wednesday at 17:00 UTC in the future == Full Log == {{{ 00:00 < dgilmore> | thl, thimm, stahnma, mmcgrath, quaid, spot, jima. EEPLE meeting ping 00:00 < mmcgrath> | pong 00:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting 00:00 < thl> | dgilmore, pong 00:01 < dgilmore> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule schedule 00:01 * | nirik is here too. 00:01 < thl> | dgilmore, what the RHEL5 on builder status? 00:01 < dgilmore> | sorry nirik forgot to ping you too 00:02 < nirik> | no worries. ;) 00:02 < dgilmore> | thl: Im going to make it happen today 00:02 < thl> | dgilmore, great 00:02 < thl> | well, that creates two questions afaics: 00:02 * | mmcgrath notes we still don't have clearence to do that. 00:02 < nirik> | for testing is the centos beta pretty close to the same as whatsa in el5? 00:02 < thl> | a) shall we tell everybody to actually start for real? 00:02 < thl> | b) rebuild everything again? 00:02 --> | thim1 (Axel Thimm) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:02 <-- | thim1 has quit (Client Quit) 00:02 < thl> | nirik, centos beta is rhel5beta2 00:02 < mmcgrath> | I think b) would be good to do if for no other reason then to help test koji. 00:03 < thl> | nirik, but that should be good enough; and the final should be out soon afaics 00:03 --> | thim1 has joined #fedora-meeting 00:03 --> | thim1 is Axel Thimm 00:03 * | dgilmore has been stuck in koji for last couple of days 00:03 < nirik> | ok. Does a rebuild mean bump release on everything? 00:03 < dgilmore> | nirik: yep 00:03 < thl> | nirik, yes, but we can use the script 00:03 < thl> | mmcgrath, -ECanFollow 00:03 < nirik> | also, only el-5? or el-4 as well? 00:04 < thl> | mmcgrath, do the builders use koji already? 00:04 < dgilmore> | nirik: only EL-5 00:04 < thl> | nirik, what dgilmore said 00:04 < nirik> | ok 00:04 < thl> | nirik, I can do that 00:04 < mmcgrath> | thl: not yet but they're close. When were you thinking the rebuild would happen? 00:04 < dgilmore> | thl: today or toomoorow they will have koji and plague 00:04 < nirik> | we also might want to make sure that everything thats in el4 is also in el5, and/or was moved into core, or some other good reason why it's not in there... 00:05 < thl> | mmcgrath, I'd say we should annouce it once, so people that want to do the rebuild theirselfs can do; then we can script the rest 00:05 < mmcgrath> | dgilmore: how close is it to actually being put into a package build -> sign -> move to mirror. 00:05 < thl> | dgilmore, sounds fun :) 00:06 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: right now all id need to do is setup a cron job to rsync results to buildsys 00:06 < mmcgrath> | Cool 00:06 < thl> | so, shall we tell people to actually start now? Seems some fedora contributors are waiting for a "go" 00:06 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: I need to get on lmacken and get bohdi working 00:06 < thim1> | I missed the first couple of minutes (irc kicked me out)=> why rebuild? 00:06 * | quaid is a'lurking 00:06 < mmcgrath> | <nod> 00:07 < thl> | hi thimm thim1 00:07 < mmcgrath> | thim1: The current packages are built against betas. 00:07 < dgilmore> | thim1: to have things linked against RHEL5 final 00:07 < thl> | thimm, sopme people feared there might be problems as we build against beta1 until now 00:07 < thl> | z00dax did, and he has a point afaics 00:07 < thim1> | I didn't know that, I thought we were riding on GA 00:07 < mmcgrath> | Personally I'm not worried about it, but I don't want people coming up to us with "such and such package doesn't work. Must be because it was compiled against the beta" 00:08 < thim1> | I agree with rebuilding against GA 00:08 < thim1> | That's why GA != beta 00:08 < thim1> | :) 00:08 < thim1> | But do we need to bump releases? 00:08 < thl> | I'll announce that; wait some days, and script-rebuild the rest 00:08 < dgilmore> | so next on the list is final repo layout 00:08 < thim1> | Can we assume that EPEL was a sandbox and rebuild on the same NVRs? 00:08 < dgilmore> | thats going to take some work to make it happen 00:09 < dgilmore> | thim1: we could if we delete everything first 00:09 < mmcgrath> | honestly since we're still not 'official' I'd be fine deleting all the bin's we currently have. 00:09 < thim1> | Lots of specfiles are now in sync Fedora <-> EPEL, would be sad to frok them all 00:09 < thl> | dgilmore, I'd still like to know if should Fedora controbutors to actually start now 00:09 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1 00:09 < thim1> | I'd go with deleting and rebuilding 00:09 < thim1> | w/o bumping releases 00:09 < mmcgrath> | it just seems less.... murky :-) 00:10 < thim1> | Well, we're not started yet 00:10 < thim1> | ;) 00:10 < dgilmore> | that can be done 00:10 < thl> | mmcgrath, but then you or dgilmore have to do it afaics 00:10 < thl> | I don#t think i have the permissions everywhere to do that 00:10 < thim1> | NExt time we should consider using a disttag of el4.92 for example 00:10 < dgilmore> | thl: id like to wait until we have RHEL5 final but then open the flood gates 00:10 < mmcgrath> | I'm not even sure I have permission to do that. 00:10 < mmcgrath> | I still don't have direct access to the main mirror (I think I'm caught up in a ticket queue) 00:10 < thl> | dgilmore, sure, that what I mean; but if you reall do it today, then we could annouce "go" soon 00:11 < dgilmore> | thl: sure 00:11 < dgilmore> | thl: what do you want me to do? 00:11 < thl> | dgilmore, k, then I'll annouce it when you annouce the RHEL5 GA is in place 00:11 < thl> | dgilmore, well, the rebuild with delete 00:11 < dgilmore> | thl: deleting ok 00:11 < thl> | can you handle that? 00:12 < dgilmore> | thl: yes 00:12 < thl> | also queuing the rebuilds? Or do you need help with that? 00:12 < mmcgrath> | dgilmore: how do we delete whats there? I'm not that familiar with the actual sync script. do they just do a rsync --delete? 00:12 < dgilmore> | thl: there are some scripts to do that 00:12 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: rm -rf on buildsys 00:12 < thl> | dgilmore, remember to keep the buildorder if possible 00:13 < mmcgrath> | dgilmore:k 00:13 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: the rsync to master mirror has a --delete-after 00:13 <-- | thimm has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 00:13 < stahnma> | sorry im late 00:13 < mmcgrath> | I figured, didn't want to assume. 00:14 < thl> | k, move to "final repo layout"? 00:14 < thl> | hi stahnma ; thim1 still around? 00:14 < thl> | (just wondering) 00:14 * | thim1 is here 00:14 < dgilmore> | thl: i think what you have proposed is fine but current tools can not work with it 00:14 < thl> | dgilmore, would it be hard to adjust? where is the problem? push scripts? 00:15 < dgilmore> | current tools do do testing either 00:15 < dgilmore> | thl: pushscripts 00:15 < thl> | do do? 00:15 < dgilmore> | thl: bohdi may be better 00:15 < nirik> | what is the proposed repo layout? 00:15 < thl> | nirik, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies/PackageMaintenance… 00:15 < thl> | (near the end) 00:16 < thl> | dgilmore, so what do we do? 00:16 < dgilmore> | i need to get with lmacken and make sure it will work for us 00:16 < thl> | dgilmore, can we have different build targets for now, that get pushed to different directories? 00:16 < thl> | dgilmore, the stuff from lmacken supports testing afaik 00:16 < dgilmore> | thl: we could but that will require work on packagers 00:17 < dgilmore> | thl: it supports testing. Not sure about the sub dir part 00:17 < thl> | dgilmore, can we simply use the testing repo for now as in the layout 00:17 < dgilmore> | does anyone object to the layout? 00:17 < mmcgrath> | not me. 00:18 < thim1> | Where do security updates go into? 00:18 < dgilmore> | thl: for the tetsing part requires changes to push scripts 00:18 < thl> | dgilmore, no, I meant just use testing for now 00:18 < dgilmore> | thim1: straight into the repo not testing 00:18 < thl> | and nothing else 00:18 < thl> | that makes it obvious that this stuff is not ready for the public yet, too 00:18 < dgilmore> | thl: it would require me to for the extras push scripts to do 00:18 < thim1> | OK, are we discussion rebuilds or layout? 00:19 < dgilmore> | s/for/fork/ 00:19 < thl> | dgilmore, can't you just configure a different target dir? 00:19 < thl> | thim1, layout 00:19 < dgilmore> | thl: not that im aware ill look see if i can 00:19 < thim1> | Why are push scripts a problem for the layout? 00:19 < nirik> | how far away is bodhi? 00:19 < dgilmore> | nirik: AFAIK close 00:20 < mmcgrath> | lmacken: ping? 00:20 < dgilmore> | hopefully we can switch to bohdi and koji at the same time 00:20 < thl> | dgilmore, thx; let me know if I can help you with them 00:20 < thim1> | We already have similar setup on the Fedora side of the infrastructure, can't we reuse that? 00:20 < nirik> | cool. That would be ideal... then we have testing support, security updates marking, etc. 00:20 < thl> | thim1, the fedora extras stuff does not handle testing at all 00:20 < thl> | the new stuff from lmacken should 00:21 < thim1> | thl: Understand, thanks! 00:21 < dgilmore> | lets move on 00:21 < thl> | dgilmore, +1 00:21 < dgilmore> | Next on teh list is shortcut for branching 00:21 < mmcgrath> | thim1: 'bohdi' is a whole updates system, its more robust then just our current scripts. Its a good thing :-) 00:21 < thim1> | I know, looking forward to it :) 00:21 < dgilmore> | for now send me an email or irc ping and i can ping all of a owners packages 00:21 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting -- shortcut for branching 00:22 < thl> | dgilmore, is there a way to say "don't branch foo"? 00:22 < dgilmore> | thl: not in what i currently have 00:22 * | nirik needs to branch another of his packages soon... but needs to get the maintainer of the prereqs to branch first. 00:22 < thl> | I for example have several packages that got moved to core 00:22 < thl> | (and thus to RHEL5) 00:22 < dgilmore> | i could quite easily pass a list of packages and branch them 00:23 < thim1> | branch and delete superfluous branches? 00:23 < thl> | dgilmore, maybe something like that would be nice 00:23 < dgilmore> | thl: ill add tho my script the ability to exclude a list 00:23 < thl> | dgilmore, sounds sane, too 00:23 < nirik> | we do need to make sure if something was branched for epel-4 that it's still in epel-5 or rhel-5 core... 00:23 < dgilmore> | nirik: indeed 00:23 < thim1> | We can't control RHEL5 core :) 00:24 < nirik> | sure, but we shouldn't drop a package on upgrade if we can at all avoid it. 00:24 < dgilmore> | nirik: though AFAIK upgrades fron RHEL4 ->RHEL5 are unsupported 00:24 < thim1> | That's not true anymore 00:24 < nirik> | really? wow. ok. 00:24 < dgilmore> | thim1: im wrong? i konda hope so 00:25 < thim1> | Yes, it was an important discussion topic between customers/partners and RHEL 00:25 < thim1> | But maybe not all subscribtion models support it, though 00:25 < dgilmore> | no idea 00:25 < thim1> | Ask you local RHEL representatiove for a detailed product view ;) 00:25 < dgilmore> | but regardless we want to make sure the same functionality exists 00:26 < thim1> | We must make sure that upgrades are not obstructed by EPEL 00:26 < thl> | scripts? 00:26 < thim1> | Otherwise what RHEL and partners have agreed is a different thing 00:26 < dgilmore> | all the branching needs to happen on the cvs server so an admin has to handle it 00:26 < thim1> | thl: scripts? 00:26 < thl> | scripts could check if the upgrade path are fine 00:27 < thim1> | thl+++ 00:27 < thl> | or if a pacakge accidentally enters EPEL5, even if it is part of RHEL5 00:27 < thl> | someone would just need to write them 00:27 < thim1> | Like for FC6+FE6 currently 00:27 < thl> | yeah, but they probably need some adjustments for RHEL 00:27 < thim1> | Reuse the Fedora scripts? 00:27 < thim1> | Sure, depends also on layout 00:27 < thim1> | And testing the testing repo, too 00:28 < nirik> | I think also bodhi does some checking on newly built packages... 00:28 < nirik> | ie, EVR, broken deps, etc. 00:28 < thim1> | About the layout: Do we really want /epel/5/5.0/... or epel/5/5/....? 00:28 < thl> | nirik, yeah, I think so, too 00:28 < dgilmore> | nirik: its supposed to not push packages if it breaks deps 00:28 < thl> | thim1, the reasons for that are in the proposal 00:29 < thl> | I'd say we should keep those scripts in mind, but they are no high priority for the start 00:29 < nirik> | well, if we can start with bodhi they shouldn't be needed... 00:30 < dgilmore> | thl: Tell contributors to start | as sson as RHEL5 is sorted out 00:30 < thl> | dgilmore, will do 00:30 < dgilmore> | moving to next areas 00:30 < thl> | nirik, I don#t want to be a testbed for new stuff ;-) 00:30 < thim1> | thl: I reread the proposal, where is the reason for "5/5.0" ? 00:30 --> | stahnma_ (Michael Stahnke) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:30 < thl> | nirik, at least not more then strictly needed 00:30 < nirik> | thl: sure, but we already are to some extent... koji, etc. ;) 00:31 < dgilmore> | koji will happen for all soon 00:31 < thl> | thim1, below it; starts with "This layout may looks complicated, but has one major benefit:..." 00:31 < thim1> | That explains 5.0, 5.1 etc 00:31 < thim1> | not 5/5.0 00:32 < dgilmore> | thim1: can we talk about the layout on the list please 00:32 < thl> | thim1, you mean the extra 5/ in it? 00:32 < thl> | dgilmore, +1 00:32 < thim1> | thl: yes 00:32 < dgilmore> | lets move on for now and discuss it on the list and come to an agreement 00:32 < thl> | thim1, makes everything a bit easier IMHO 00:32 < thl> | dgilmore, +1 00:32 < dgilmore> | I want to talk about thl's EPEL Steering Committie proposal 00:33 < stahnma_> | +1 00:33 < thl> | dgilmore, I just modified it a small bit 00:33 < thl> | as requested by thim1 on the list 00:33 < thl> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/EPELSteeringCommittee?action… 00:34 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting -- EPEL Steering Committee 00:34 < thl> | I'd say I post it to fedora-maintainers tomorrow 00:34 < dgilmore> | thl: ok 00:34 < thl> | and then FESCo can look at it on Thursday, people agree that this is the way forward 00:34 * | mmcgrath is apathetic about SIG vs Steering Committee. 00:35 < thim1> | thl: I like it +1 00:35 < dgilmore> | does anyone have anything to say for or against the propossal 00:35 < mmcgrath> | just as long as progress continues to get made. 00:35 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1 00:35 < thl> | mmcgrath, we probably need to use the wiki a bit more for votings 00:35 < nirik> | it's fine with me, I don't much care either, but if we need to vote on hard things and make decisions, thats fine. 00:35 < dgilmore> | thl: wiki or mailing list 00:36 < thl> | dgilmore, +1 00:36 < thl> | and we should annouce votings beforehand if possible 00:36 < thl> | to make sure people can send in their opinions, even if they can't make the meeting 00:36 < mmcgrath> | thl: +1, yeah people get very picky about that type of voting. 00:36 < thl> | I'll add a note to the proposal 00:37 < thl> | mmcgrath, I know, I'm one of those people sometimes (see FAB list, even if it was no voting) ;-) 00:37 < thl> | other stuff that is missing? 00:38 < dgilmore> | OK time to moveon thl send the propossal out today or toomoorw 00:38 < thl> | k 00:38 < stahnma_> | me fear about the SC is that if we want to get companies and customers involved in EPEL, the SC seems to close them out 00:38 < thim1> | New meeting time? 00:38 --- | dgilmore has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting -- Free Chat 00:38 < stahnma_> | it's like they have to jump through hoops to get a voice 00:39 < stahnma_> | (my isp will probabl drop during this meeting, so just keep talking if I die) 00:39 < thl> | stahnma_, primary discussion channel is the list 00:39 < thim1> | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime 00:39 < thim1> | Only thl and myself added some time slots 00:39 < nirik> | I think we should strive for reaching a consensus on issues, and only vote when there is some kind of deadlock... so normally they would have a voice I would think. 00:39 < thl> | IRC is always just a add on, as not all people can do / like IRC 00:39 < dgilmore> | thim1: all the available times i cant attend 00:40 < thim1> | dgilmore: Which weekday time slots are free for you? 00:40 < nirik> | thim1: almost anytime is ok for me... 00:40 < stahnma_> | just curious, do we a have a US west-coasters? 00:40 < thl> | stahnma_, yes, quaid is 00:40 < mmcgrath> | stahnma_: just quaid 00:40 < mmcgrath> | AFAIK 00:40 < quaid> | but 00:41 < stahnma_> | I thought most were out of Eastern and Central 00:41 < quaid> | I'm very flexible 00:41 < quaid> | like, i was going to approve some Midnight PDT times 00:41 < dgilmore> | thim1: 00:41 < dgilmore> | 23:00-3:00 UTC or 00:41 < dgilmore> | 11:30-12:30 UTC 00:41 < quaid> | and others :) 00:42 < quaid> | there are some early mornings PDT I can do, like Noon UTC 00:42 < dgilmore> | basicly i cant do it doing work time $DayJob wont allow me any more time 00:42 <-- | stahnma has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)) 00:42 < thim1> | The how about a noon UTc slot? 00:42 < thl> | bad for me 00:42 * | stahnma_ has a similar situation... I am normally on IRC at work, but can't promise a time 00:42 < quaid> | hmm 00:43 < dgilmore> | 11:30UTC is when i get up 00:43 < quaid> | I usually don't have this problem with just East Coast/Europe 00:43 < quaid> | like, what about 2200 UTC? 00:44 < thim1> | That's 0:00 in main parts of Europe 00:44 * | thl heads to bead at around 01:00 UTC 00:44 < quaid> | ah, early to bed, early to rise :) 00:44 < thl> | bed 00:44 < thl> | quaid, yes :) 00:44 < dgilmore> | quaid: i finish work at 23:00UTC 00:44 * | stahnma_ too or 0:00 00:45 < quaid> | evil bosses! 00:45 < thl> | I think the sunday meeting time still seems to match most people best 00:45 < thl> | I know it's not ideal 00:45 < thim1> | I won't be able to come on Sundays 00:45 < thl> | but for now it seems the best afaics 00:45 < dgilmore> | quaid: i hope to have a new one soon but dont want to assume i will 00:45 < quaid> | dgilmore: yeah, i hear dat 00:46 < stahnma_> | I can probably do a day meeting---but I might be unresponsive if I have "real work" to do :) 00:46 < dgilmore> | the only time i could possibly commit to is lunch 00:47 < nirik> | would sat be any better than sunday? 00:47 < dgilmore> | which is when FESCo meeting happens 00:47 < thl> | nirik, thim1's times are http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime 00:47 < thl> | (mine, too, but no one else used it) 00:48 < thim1> | dgilmore: lunch: when is that in UTC? 00:48 < nirik> | thl: so wed at 00:00UTC wouldn't work for you? 00:49 < thl> | a bit critical now with the dst switch... 00:49 < thl> | (often it's a bit earlier than 01:00 UTC when I seitch of the computers) 00:49 < thim1> | dgilmore: lunchtime=fesco: How about fesco slot on Wed? 00:50 < thl> | btw, FESCo is back to 17:00 UTC iirc, isn#t it? 00:50 < thl> | now with the DST change? 00:50 < dgilmore> | thim1: i added to the list 00:50 < dgilmore> | i cant guarantee my availablility 00:50 < dgilmore> | thl: i cant remeber 00:50 < thim1> | thl: DST changes in the US were two weeks ago 00:50 < thl> | I'd say we give this another week, and try to sort out the details on the list 00:50 < thim1> | So it wn't change agin 00:51 < thl> | thim1, they already switched FESCo last time iirc 00:51 < thim1> | That's what I mean 00:51 < thim1> | They won't switch again 00:51 < thl> | thim1, but it's wrong in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/NewMeetingTime then 00:51 < thim1> | Currently it is 00:00 UTC, that's what it will stay for the summer time 00:52 < thl> | thim1, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/SteeringCommittee 00:52 < thl> | "Affectionately known as FESCo. Currently meets every Thursday on the Freenode IRC Network in #fedora-meeting at 17:00 UTC." 00:52 < thl> | that what I'm trying to tell you ;-) 00:52 < mmcgrath> | heh 00:52 < thim1> | OK, one of the wiki pages is wrong :) 00:52 < thim1> | Anyway, we should just pick another day than fesco to not collide 00:52 < mmcgrath> | s/one/many/ s/is/are/ :) 00:53 < thl> | thim1, no, it was 00:00 until one or two weeks ago iirc 00:53 < dgilmore> | anyone else have anything else to talk about 00:53 < nirik> | I have one quick Q... 00:53 < mmcgrath> | not I 00:53 < thim1> | dgilmore: when is your lunch time in UTC? 00:53 --> | FrancescoUgolini (Francesco Ugolini) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:54 < nirik> | centos has a 'extras' repo... do we know if they are going to keep doing that? or get those things in epel? do we have any centos contacts? 00:54 < mmcgrath> | don't ask him to give up his lunch. he's a busy guy as it is :P 00:54 < thl> | z00dax in #epel should know 00:54 < nirik> | The main reason I ask is that they have Xfce in there... but it's the old version. I have gotten several requests for 4.4 for epel, but I don't want to step on their toes. 00:54 < dgilmore> | thim1: 17:00:00 UTC 00:54 < thim1> | mmcgrath: dgilmore offered, I'm wouldn't ask otheriwse 00:55 < dgilmore> | nirik: i think they are dropping it not sure 00:55 < mmcgrath> | oh :) 00:55 < thl> | nirik, I'd say asz z00dax 00:55 < nirik> | ok, can check with him. thanks. 00:55 < dgilmore> | thim1: i usually only take lunch one or two days a week 00:56 < stahnma_> | dgilmore: that is a sad state of affairs 00:56 < dgilmore> | stahnma_: it is but i usually dont ahve time to take it 00:56 < dgilmore> | thursdays i take it for fesco 00:58 < dgilmore> | lancelan: ping 00:59 < thim1> | thl: Wed 00:00 UTC? 00:59 < thl> | Wed 17:00 UTC? 01:00 <-- | FrancescoUgolini has quit ("Leaving") 01:00 < dgilmore> | thl: i cant guarantte but i could try 01:00 < mmcgrath> | both WORKSFORME 01:00 < mmcgrath> | as long as I remember :D 01:01 < stahnma_> | please send out a notice on list, and I will try to attend 01:01 < stahnma_> | also a reminder in #epel will help :) 01:01 < thl> | stahnma_, sorry, forgot about it this week 01:01 < stahnma_> | thl it's ok, that's not why I was late today 01:01 < thl> | quaid, wed 17:00 UTC? 01:02 < thim1> | thl: Wed 17:00 UTC OK with me :) 01:02 < dgilmore> | ok So next meeting will be at 17:00 UTC on wednesday 01:03 < dgilmore> | im going to close this meeting in 60 01:03 < thl> | this wednesday? 01:03 < thl> | e.g. in three days? 01:03 < thl> | or in 10 from now? 01:03 < dgilmore> | yes unless you want to wait 10 days 01:03 < thl> | unsure; I'm fine with both :) 01:03 < dgilmore> | lets make it 10 days 01:04 < thl> | dgilmore, +1 01:04 < dgilmore> | probaly wont have much to report in 3 01:04 < stahnma_> | +1 01:04 < dgilmore> | closing in 30 01:04 < dgilmore> | closing in 20 01:04 < dgilmore> | closing in 10 01:05 < dgilmore> | --- Meeting closed -- }}}

3 2

Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-03-29
by Fedora Koji Build System 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 30 NEW TurboGears-1.0.1-2.el5 NEW cmucl-19d-3.el5 firmware-addon-dell-1.2.6-1.el5 NEW libnet-1.1.2.1-10.el5 libsmbios-0.13.5-1.el5 NEW nas-1.8b-1.el5 NEW numpy-1.0.1-2.2.el5 NEW pgfouine-0.7.2-3.el5 NEW phpPgAdmin-4.1.1-1.el5 NEW python-TestGears-0.2-4.el5 NEW python-cherrytemplate-1.0.0-5.el5 NEW python-clientform-0.2.6-1.el5 NEW python-configobj-4.4.0-1.el5 NEW python-formencode-0.7-2.el5 NEW python-irclib-0.4.6-3.el5 NEW python-json-3.4-3.el5 NEW python-mechanize-0.1.6-0.1.b.el5 NEW python-myghty-1.1-3.el5 NEW python-nose-0.9.2-1.el5 NEW python-paste-1.2.1-1.el5 NEW python-paste-deploy-1.1-1.el5 NEW python-paste-script-1.1-1.el5 NEW python-psycopg2-2.0.5.1-3.el5 NEW python-ruledispatch-0.5a0-0.4.svnr2115.el5 NEW python-simplejson-1.5-1.el5 NEW python-sqlobject-0.7.3-1.el5 NEW python-tgfastdata-0.9a6-6.el5 NEW python-turbocheetah-0.9.5-7.el5 NEW python-turbojson-0.9.9-3.el5 NEW python-turbokid-0.9.9-4.el5 Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 10 jasper-1.900.1-1.el4 NEW libnet-1.1.2.1-7.el4 libsmbios-0.13.5-1.el4 maxima-5.11.0-8.el4 nas-1.8b-1.el4 NEW pgfouine-0.7.2-1.el4 NEW phpPgAdmin-4.1.1-1.el4 NEW python-psycopg2-2.0.5.1-8.el4 NEW queuegraph-1.1-1.el4 sbcl-1.0.4-1.el4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/

1 0

brp-python-bytecompile in EL4
by Bernard Johnson 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Is there anything that we can do to add the brp-python-bytecompile to EPEL4 buildsys? Out of all the "current" buildsys environments (FE5, FE6, F7 devel, EPEL4, EPEL5), it is the only one that doesn't do the automatic byte compilation. Because of this, I have to either add conditional code specifically to byte-compile for EL4 in my spec (ugly) or branch my spec specifically for EL4 (ugly). Neither of these is ideal. It would be easy to add this brp-* script and the macros to trigger it in the EPEL4 system. This has the side effect of requiring scripts/macros that a base EL4 doesn't have and the package will not build on a base EL4. But I don't see this as a blocker, since we are already adding macros that will break building on a base EL4 system (if used). The way to fix this would be assure that the macros can be made available back to the EL4 system. There is currently a discussion on fedora-devel regarding adding macros back into the base system. Check it out "Opinions: Providing 'buildsys-macros' in the installed system". It cover most of the stuff that I just brought up, just not specifically about brp-python-bytecompile..

2 1

Rebuild for RHEL5 final
by Thorsten Leemhuis 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

Hi all! In the meeting last Sunday (I'll write the summary later) it was agreed on to rebuild all the packages of EPEL5 once we have RHEL5 in place on the builders (which should happen soon or has already happened) as everything which is in EPEL5 now was build against RHEL5Beta1, which is quite old and a lot of stuff changed for the final. The idea that was agreed on in the meeting was to just delete the EEPL5 repo and rebuild everything once automatically in the proper order without changing %release. Now that I've thought about it some more I don't like that plan that much anymore, as then it's not possible to differentiate if people have the old or the new package installed. Sure, that shouldn't be many people yet, but nevertheless it could create problems. Opinions? Just ignore that? Or simply do a script-build mass rebuild of EPEL5 with increased %release? CUI thl

6 8

fyi: qt4: rhel5 vs epel-4
by Rex Dieter 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Just checked that rhel5 includes qt4. Biggest issue being: 1. upgrade path is busted. rhel5's qt4-4.2.1-1 vs epel4's qt4-4.2.3 I guess there's not much to do about that now. Suggestions? Is it worth worrying much about at this point? And to a lesser degree: 2. the rhel5 pkg only loosely followed extras's qt4 packaging (it varies in a few significant ways). I'll make rh maintainer aware. -- Rex

2 1

epel4/ppc? missing sqlite?
by Rex Dieter 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

wtf? http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=30189 First off, I guess I didn't even realize el4/ppc existed, ok, fine. But, No Package Found for sqlite-devel ? -- Rex

8 17

howto coordinate with RHEL packages/pakagers?
by Patrice Dumas 27 Mar '07

27 Mar '07

Hello, Maybe there is something obvious I didn't figured out, but I don't know where to look for some information about RHEL packages: * is there somewhere a list of packages in RHEL? And versions/maintainer information? * where are the spec file available? Do we have to expand srpms or is there something convenient similar with the fedora cvs? I can't even find the srpms. I can see a communication channel, bugzilla, but it is not necessarily the most convenient, it can be a bit heavy sometime. -- Pat

2 2

Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-03-26
by Fedora Koji Build System 26 Mar '07

26 Mar '07

Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 8 ganglia-3.0.4-2.el5 NEW php-pecl-zip-1.8.8-1.el5 NEW postgresql-dbi-link-2.0.0-3.el5 NEW python-html2text-2.26-2.el5 NEW rss2email-2.60-3.el5 NEW ssmtp-2.61-11.1.el5 NEW yumex-1.9.5-1.0.el5 NEW zziplib-0.13.49-1.el5 Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 6 NEW epel-release-4-5 lzo-1.08-2.el4 NEW postgresql-dbi-link-2.0.0-3.el4 NEW python-html2text-2.26-2.el4 NEW rss2email-2.60-3.el4 NEW zziplib-0.13.49-1.el4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/

1 0

ABI diff tools
by Patrice Dumas 24 Mar '07

24 Mar '07

Hello, I am searching for a program that would allow to compare 2 libs or a lib and an application, find the binary interface differences and display them conveniently. Does something like that exist? I think that it would be very convenient to help maintaining ABI compatibility in EPEL packages. -- Pat

2 4

Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-03-23
by Fedora Koji Build System 23 Mar '07

23 Mar '07

Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 5 NEW apcupsd-3.14.0-1.el5 NEW lzo-2.02-2.el5 NEW openvpn-2.1-0.17.rc2.el5 NEW python-setuptools-0.6c5-1.el5 NEW sqlgrey-1.7.5-1.el5 Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 4 NEW apcupsd-3.14.0-1.el4 NEW lzo-1.08-2 NEW openvpn-2.1-0.17.rc2.el4 NEW sqlgrey-1.7.5-1.el4 For more information about the built packages please see the repository or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

epel-devel March 2007