[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Minutes/Summary from today's EPEL meeting (2011-05-02)

#fedora-meeting: EPEL (2011-05-02)

Meeting started by nirik at 19:31:57 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process/agenda  (nirik, 19:31:58)

* Broken dep reports  (nirik, 19:35:46)

* EPEL and IUS  (nirik, 19:38:44)

* Packages that RHEL ships only on a subset of arches  (nirik, 19:46:40)
  * ACTION: nirik will make a list  (nirik, 19:51:38)

* Open Floor  (nirik, 19:51:41)

Meeting ended at 19:53:01 UTC.

Action Items
* nirik will make a list

Action Items, by person
* nirik
  * nirik will make a list
  * (none)

People Present (lines said)
* nirik (44)
* stahnma (18)
* zodbot (4)
* dgilmore (4)
* abadger1999 (3)
* nb (1)
* CodeBlock (1)
* smooge (0)
* tremble (0)
19:31:57 <nirik> #startmeeting EPEL (2011-05-02)
19:31:57 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon May  2 19:31:57 2011 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
19:31:57 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
19:31:57 <nirik> #meetingname epel
19:31:57 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'epel'
19:31:58 <nirik> #topic init process/agenda
19:31:58 <nirik> #chair smooge tremble
19:31:58 <nirik> EPEL meeting ping abadger1999 rsc stahnma tremble dgilmore smooge nb maxamillion tremble Jeff_S
19:31:58 <zodbot> Current chairs: nirik smooge tremble
19:32:26 <stahnma> hi
19:33:13 <dgilmore> hola
19:33:36 <nirik> I had just a few things today: broken deps reports, epel and ius, and packages shipped in epel for arches rhel doesn't ship on.
19:33:59 <nb> oh im here
19:34:03 <CodeBlock> o/
19:35:13 <nirik> anyone have other topics? or shall we start in?
19:35:26 <stahnma> sounds good to me
19:35:46 <nirik> #topic Broken dep reports
19:35:57 <nirik> ok, so the first round of broken dep reports went out this weekend.
19:36:07 <nirik> I've seen a few commits fixing things too.
19:36:12 <nirik> so, sounds like people got the emails.
19:36:18 <stahnma> i got them
19:36:55 <nirik> cool. ;)
19:37:06 <nirik> as far as I know they are accurate.
19:37:11 <nirik> they should run every week now.
19:37:12 <stahnma> seems like it
19:37:58 <nirik> anything more on broken deps? or shall we move on?
19:38:44 <nirik> #topic EPEL and IUS
19:38:50 <nirik> so there was some talk about this on the list.
19:39:11 <nirik> basically that IUS would be the place for things that replaced rhel packages (ie can conflict)
19:39:36 <nirik> there was some more talk about bringing IUS into the EPEL setup, but it's unclear to me what advantages that has.
19:40:06 <stahnma> so would IUS be for namespaced things also?  Like python26
19:40:09 <stahnma> ?
19:40:47 <nirik> well, IMHO, no.
19:40:47 <dgilmore> python26 doesnt conflict
19:40:58 <nirik> things that don't conflict can be in epel...
19:41:20 <nirik> but do we have any desire to work with pulling IUS into our setup? I don't even know if they want that... ;)
19:42:28 <stahnma> I don't know what the advantage would be really
19:42:44 <stahnma> and I'm not sure how stringent they are on packaging guidelines and such
19:43:02 <stahnma> the lower barrier to entry may be part of their appeal for packagers?/?
19:43:07 <nirik> well, the one listed in the thread was that epel had a 'name' ie, was well known and IUS was another repo they had to talk management into using
19:43:17 <stahnma> <--- pure speculation
19:43:47 <nirik> anyhow, I guess we can't/shouldn't do anything until we hear from them... we can see if derks can join our next meeting.
19:43:48 <stahnma> unless it would bring in more active manpower for epel, I can't see a huge upside...
19:43:58 <stahnma> as the infrastructure of epel is overtaxed today
19:44:04 <stahnma> infrastructure team that is
19:44:09 <abadger1999> <nod>
19:44:46 <stahnma> I mean, I hate fragmentation as much as the next guy, but throwing more work at epel without any more help doesn't seem good
19:45:02 <nirik> yeah.
19:45:04 <stahnma> (this being said from a complete slacker)
19:45:06 <stahnma> ;)
19:45:13 <nirik> well, lets table this until we can get IUS folks imput...
19:45:17 <stahnma> ok
19:45:46 <abadger1999> When fedora.us existed as an addon to RHL, there was supposed to be a separate repo for things that replaced core components... but I don't htink it got sufficient manpower to get off the ground.
19:46:01 <abadger1999> nirik: +1
19:46:05 <nirik> yeah, maintaining stuff is not fun/easy. ;)
19:46:11 <nirik> (at least sometimes)
19:46:19 <nirik> ok, moving along...
19:46:40 <nirik> #topic Packages that RHEL ships only on a subset of arches
19:47:03 <nirik> So, we have some packages where rhel only shipped them on one arch... and we said we could ship them to provide them on the other arches.
19:47:13 <nirik> I'm going to try and generate a list of these.
19:47:17 <dgilmore> we have to build and ship them on all arches
19:47:20 <nirik> I think we need to keep track of them much better.
19:47:26 <nirik> dgilmore: yeah.
19:47:28 <dgilmore> so should take steps to make sure our evr is lower
19:47:49 <nirik> right. Should have a guidelines section for them and a list of them.
19:48:16 <nirik> right now it's unclear how many there are or if maintainers are doing the right thing with them.
19:49:25 <nirik> so, I will generate a new list and we can go from there.
19:49:38 <nirik> Unless someone else would like to do it. :)
19:49:41 * stahnma makes a note to only maintain noarch packages from now on ;)
19:51:38 <nirik> #action nirik will make a list
19:51:41 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
19:51:45 <nirik> anything for open floor?
19:52:52 * nirik listens to the silence. ;)
19:52:59 <nirik> ok, thanks for coming everyone!
19:53:01 <nirik> #endmeeting

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]