perl-TimeDate
by Orion Poplawski
So, perl-TimeDate is currently a Core package, but does not appear to be
part of RHEL. Can we get it into EPEL?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
17 years
Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-04-23
by Fedora Koji Build System
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 10
apcupsd-3.14.0-3.el5
NEW atomix-2.14.0-2.el5
cfengine-2.1.22-2.el5
NEW cmake-2.4.6-2.el5
NEW ebtables-2.0.8-0.8.rc3.el5
NEW php-pear-Crypt-CHAP-1.0.1-1.el5
NEW php-pear-Date-1.4.7-2.el5
NEW php-pear-Date-Holidays-0.17.0-1.el5
NEW php-pear-XML-Serializer-0.18.0-3.el5
NEW php-pear-XML-Util-1.1.4-2.el5
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 3
apcupsd-3.14.0-2.el4
NEW cmake-2.4.6-2.el4
NEW ebtables-2.0.8-0.8.rc3.el4
For more information about the built packages please see the repository
or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/
17 years, 1 month
Re: xmlrpc-c for EPEL
by Orion Poplawski
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com> writes:
>
>> I'm trying to get cmake into EPEL but it requires xmlrpc-c. Would
>> you be able to maintain it for EPEL, or would you like me (or someone
>> else) to maintain it?
>
> I did not looked into EPEL yet and do not know its requirements and
> processes.
>
You can check out the EPEL pages in the wiki for more info. The main
differences are layed out here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies
Mainly that you don't upgrade packages in a release without good reason
(security fixes) and you don't break compatibility. Otherwise you cat
request EPEL branches (EL-4, EL-5) in the normal way or you can ask
Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us> to do all of your packages wholesale if
you want.
> Nevertheless, there will be a chicken-egg problem: xmlrpc-c buildrequires
> cmake and cmake buildrequires xmlrpc-c.
I'm CCing the epel list for how to get around this.
Some notes:
- cmake can be built with its own copy of xmlrpc-c. Could do this to
get it in then shift to system version.
- Perhaps we could could grab older versions of the two packages from a
compatible FE release and then rebuild?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
17 years, 1 month
Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-04-21
by Fedora Koji Build System
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 14
NEW environment-modules-3.2.5-1.el5
firmware-addon-dell-1.2.11-1.el5.1
NEW freefont-20060126-4.el5
NEW ftnchek-3.3.1-5.el5
NEW gv-3.6.2-2.el5
NEW hdf-4.2r1-12.el5
NEW hdf5-1.6.5-7.el5
libsmbios-0.13.6-1.el5
otrs-2.1.5-2.el5
NEW perl-Sub-Identify-0.02-2.el5
NEW php-pear-Benchmark-1.2.6-1.el5
NEW python-louie-1.1-1.el5
NEW sparse-0.2-1.el5.1
NEW ttywatch-0.14-7.el5.1
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 9
NEW environment-modules-3.2.5-1.el4
NEW freefont-20060126-4.el4
NEW ftnchek-3.3.1-5.el4
NEW gv-3.6.2-2.el4
NEW hdf-4.2r1-8.el4
libsmbios-0.13.6-1.el4
otrs-2.1.5-2.el4
NEW perl-Sub-Identify-0.02-2.el4
NEW python-louie-1.1-1.el4
For more information about the built packages please see the repository
or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/
17 years, 1 month
Fedora EPEL Package Build Report 2007-04-19
by Fedora Koji Build System
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 5: 42
aiccu-2007.01.15-2.el5
apcupsd-3.14.0-2.el5
firmware-tools-1.2.4-1.el5.1
NEW gpsbabel-1.3.3-1.el5
konversation-1.0.1-3.el5
libnet-1.1.2.1-11.el5
NEW libsieve-2.2.5-1.el5
libsmbios-0.13.5-1.el5.1
NEW mimedefang-2.62-1.el5
nagios-2.7-2.1.el5
NEW nagios-plugins-1.4.6-3.el5
NEW otrs-2.1.5-1.el5
NEW perl-Crypt-PasswdMD5-1.3-2.el5
NEW perl-Date-Pcalc-1.2-4.el5
NEW perl-File-ReadBackwards-1.04-2.el5
NEW perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect-0.98-3.el5
NEW perl-MIME-Lite-3.01-5.el5
NEW perl-Pod-Escapes-1.04-5.el5
NEW perl-Pod-Simple-3.04-3.el5
NEW perl-SOAP-Lite-0.68-4.el5
NEW perl-Spiffy-0.30-6.el5
NEW perl-String-ShellQuote-1.03-4.el5
NEW perl-Test-Pod-1.26-1.el5
NEW perl-Unix-Syslog-0.100-9.el5
NEW php-pear-Auth-SASL-1.0.2-4.el5
NEW php-pear-Console-Getargs-1.3.3-1.el5
NEW php-pear-Console-Table-1.0.6-1.el5
NEW php-pear-HTTP-1.4.0-7.el5
NEW php-pear-Mail-1.1.14-1.el5
NEW php-pear-Net-SMTP-1.2.10-1.el5
NEW php-pear-Net-Socket-1.0.7-1.el5
NEW php-pear-XML-Parser-1.2.8-1.el5
php-pecl-zip-1.8.8-1.el5.1
NEW queuegraph-1.1-1.el5
rbldnsd-0.996a-2.el5.1
NEW rpl-1.5.3-4.el5
ssmtp-2.61-11.1.el5.1
tiobench-0.3.3-6.el5
NEW tmda-1.1.11-3.el5
NEW uuid-1.5.1-3.el5
NEW whatmask-1.2-4.el5
yumex-1.9.6-1.0.el5
Packages built and released for Fedora EPEL 4: 9
NEW perl-File-ReadBackwards-1.04-2.el4
NEW perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect-0.98-3.el4
NEW perl-Pod-Escapes-1.04-5.el4
NEW perl-Pod-Simple-3.04-3.el4
NEW perl-Spiffy-0.30-6.el4
NEW perl-String-ShellQuote-1.03-4.el4
NEW perl-Unix-Syslog-0.100-9.el4
NEW rpl-1.5.3-4.el4
NEW whatmask-1.2-4.el4
For more information about the built packages please see the repository
or the Fedora Info Feed: http://fedoraproject.org/infofeed/
17 years, 1 month
Summary of yesterdays EPEL SIG meeting
by Thorsten Leemhuis
= Meeting 20070419 =
== Attending ==
>From the Steering Committee:
* dgilmore
* mmcgrath
* nirik
* quaid
* stahnma
* thl
* thimm
Other contributors that joined the meeting:
* entr0py, rdieter
== Summary ==
* RHEL5 is now on the builders thx to dgilmore; note that the RHEL5-ppc
tree is based on the RHEL5-server version that that misses some packages
that are part of the RHEL-desktops (which are only available for x86 and
x86_64); see this mail from thimm for details:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-March/msg00250.html
of the differences
* Mass rebuild for RHEL5 final -- we give contributors a chance to
rebuild their stuff over the next week until the next SIG meeting; arch
packages should be build, noarch don't have to; we discuss in the next
meeting what to do with those packages that didn't get rebuild
* Elect chairmen and discuss responsibilities -- six out of seven
Steering Committee members want a chairmen; we discuss responsibleness,
expectations and powers of the next week on the list
* Relations to 3rd party distro -- hard to write a summary; see 0:44
an later for details;
== Full Log ==
{{{
00:00 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL meeting
00:00 < thl> | ping dgilmore quaid stahnma thimm nirik mmcgrath
00:00 * | nirik is here.
00:00 * | mmcgrath here
00:01 * | thimm also
00:02 < entr0py> | rabble rabble
00:02 < thl> | hmm, that makes four people
00:03 < thl> | well, maybe others show up over time, so let's start
00:03 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting --
RHEL5 on the builders -- dgilmore/mmcgrath
00:03 < thl> | dgilmore told be we have RHEL5 on the builders now
00:03 < mmcgrath> | AFAIK we're good to go.
00:03 < thl> | but he said something else:
00:03 < mmcgrath> | We still don't have a good way to keep the
builders up to date.
00:03 < thl> | "my only concern is that some ppc builds may fail
since there is only a server version for ppc"
00:04 < thl> | mmcgrath, k, I'll put that up the schedule to
make sure it doesn't get forgotten
00:04 < thimm> | mmcgrath: what is the issue?
00:04 < thl> | but I'd say it should be fine for now
00:04 < mmcgrath> | thimm: actually getting the RPM's to a location
to sync to in an automated fashion. We could use satsync but thats nasty.
00:04 < entr0py> | so go ahead and build but look for problems?
00:04 < mmcgrath> | did RH not release a PPC client version?
00:05 < thl> | entr0py, yes
00:05 < thl> | mmcgrath, no, they didn't
00:05 --> | stahnma (Michael Stahnke) has joined
#fedora-meeting
00:05 < thl> | so some packages might be missing
00:05 < thl> | and builds might fail
00:05 < thl> | is " go ahead and build but look for problems "
okay for everyone?
00:05 * | stahnma is here (meeting moved)
00:05 < thl> | I asked dgilmore to provide a "ls -l" of the trees
00:06 < thl> | then we can analyse of what to do
00:06 < mmcgrath> | thl: yep
00:06 < thimm> | Out of client, the only thing I would be missing
is fribidi
00:07 < thimm> | So not a very big deal
00:07 --> | silug (S. Ill. Linux UG - http://www.silug.org/)
has joined #fedora-meeting
00:07 < mmcgrath> | heh, thats funny.
00:07 < thl> | thimm, maybe, I'm not sure of the exact differences
00:07 --> | FrancescoUgolini (Francesco Ugolini) has joined
#fedora-meeting
00:07 < mmcgrath> | We can always compile that on our own.
00:07 < thimm> | thl, I have the diffs here
00:07 < nirik> | so we are going to tell people to rebuild? or
just mass rebuild?
00:07 < thl> | thimm, can you send them my way please? tia!
00:08 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting --
mass rebuild for RHEL5 -- thl
00:08 < thl> | nirik, well, I'd say we go further as planed last
friday
00:08 --> | rdieter (Rex Dieter) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:08 < thl> | e.g. tell contributors to rebuild their stuff
00:08 < thl> | we wait 3|4|7 days
00:08 < thl> | and then we add a .1 to every pacakge that didn#t
get rebuild
00:08 < thimm> | thl: they are on the epel-devel list ...
00:08 < thl> | commit, tag, build
00:09 < mmcgrath> | Playing devil's advocate: Would it be horrible if
we didn't require a rebuild and just let people file bugs if any are found?
00:10 < thl> | mmcgrath, I'd prefer a clean build
00:10 < thl> | thimm, "they are on the epel-devel list" -> what
do you mean?
00:10 < mmcgrath> | I would to, but its not as simple as snapping
ones fingers :-/
00:10 < thl> | thimm, I wanted to annouce it on epel-devel list
00:10 < thimm> | thl and rest: diffs server/client on
http://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-March/msg00250.html
00:10 < thimm> | already done
00:10 < thimm> | if you like so
00:10 * | dgilmore is somewhat here
00:11 < thimm> | mmcgrath: is also an option
00:11 < thl> | I got told a lot got changed, z00dax said that
and suggested we rebuild everything
00:11 * | quaid is here now
00:11 < thimm> | I can't imagine RHEL5beta2 being further away
than RHEL5, than FC6-F7
00:12 < thl> | thimm, it was RHEL5beta1...
00:12 < thimm> | Even so
00:12 < mmcgrath> | thl: I'd defer to z00dax on that. He'd know
better than I.
00:12 < thimm> | (who is zoodax?)
00:12 < mmcgrath> | thimm: centos.karan.org
00:12 < thl> | thimm, from centos and http://centos.karan.org/
00:12 < thimm> | Karanbir Singh?
00:13 < mmcgrath> | <nod>
00:13 < thl> | thimm, yes
00:13 < thimm> | k
00:13 < stahnma> | do we expect a lot of people to not rebuild if we
ask them to nicely?
00:13 < dgilmore> | stahnma: most will
00:13 < mmcgrath> | especially if we start to nag.
00:13 < thl> | stahnma, it will be a whole lot quicker if we do
it outselfes after some days
00:13 < mmcgrath> | I'm fine with either.
00:14 < stahnma> | so, a time limit of 5 or 7 days seems reasonable
00:14 < thl> | I'd say we give them some days, and then to it
ourselfs
00:14 < thl> | +1 for 5 to 7 days
00:14 < stahnma> | if they can't meet that, they can always select a
co-maintainer also
00:14 < thimm> | I would be upset if I get my spefiles forked ...
00:14 < stahnma> | some people are very concered about forked spec
files and some seem not to be, what is the general consensus?
00:14 < thl> | thimm, yeah, but 7 days should be enough normally
00:15 < mmcgrath> | thimm: I feel the same way but we can't say we
didn't warn them :-)
00:15 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1
00:15 < stahnma> | if we announce today, and put a due date of next
wednesday, how would that be?
00:16 < stahnma> | we can have a status at this meeting next week?
00:16 < thl> | stahnma, should be fine
00:16 < stahnma> | pick up stragglers
00:16 < thimm> | What happens if I know a package of mine needs no
rebuild
00:16 < thl> | stahnma, I can annouce the rebuild later
00:16 < stahnma> | then and beat them with 1s and 0s
00:16 < thimm> | For example it is a python app
00:16 < thl> | I actually started to prepare a mail already
00:16 < dgilmore> | thimm: noarch could be excluded
00:17 < thl> | dgilmore, +1
00:17 < thimm> | Can we leave that to packager's discretion?
00:17 < stahnma> | does that make sense in all cases?
00:17 < stahnma> | I am just asking becuase I am not 100% sure
00:17 < dgilmore> | noarch should need no compilation and work
regardless
00:17 < thimm> | It need to be checked on a package by package basis
00:17 < stahnma> | that being dgilmore's noarch exclusion above :)
00:17 < thl> | thimm, are you volunteering to do this?
00:18 < thimm> | What?
00:18 < dgilmore> | if it really needs a rebuild it should not be no
arch
00:18 < thl> | otherwise we'll never get this of the table
00:18 < thl> | thimm, look "on a package by package basis"
00:18 < thimm> | Yes, for my packages ...
00:18 < thimm> | "Can we leave that to packager's discretion?"
00:18 < stahnma> | that brings us back to a voluntary rebuild from
each contributor though right?
00:19 < thimm> | yes
00:19 * | thl wonders thy this comes up now, as the
decisions to have a rebuild was done weeks ago
00:19 < thimm> | Consider it the following way:
00:19 < dgilmore> | thimm: they could try sell us on why it doesnt
need a rebuild
00:19 * | stahnma was also thinking that
00:19 < thl> | we could have saved a lot of trouble if we would
have decided to ahve a colunettered mass rebuild only
00:19 < mmcgrath> | Could we ask a voluntary rebuild and meet about
it next week to decide what to do next?
00:19 < thl> | we could use the "needs.rebuild" cvs trick again
00:20 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1
00:20 < nirik> | mmcgrath: +1
00:20 < mmcgrath> | I just want something to happen in epel, it feels
like no actual action has taken place in weeks :-/
00:20 * | nirik has several noarch packages that are very
unlikely to be needing rebuild.
00:20 < stahnma> | mmcgrath: ++
00:20 < thimm> | mmcgrath: I think dgilmore is doing a lot of work
00:20 < thl> | that makes four for "ask a voluntary rebuild and
meet about it next week to decide what to do next"
00:20 < mmcgrath> | he got the RHEL5 builders going yes.
00:20 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: thats fine
00:21 < thl> | five
00:21 < mmcgrath> | dgilmore aside though, nothing has happened :-/
00:21 < stahnma> | yay dgilmore !
00:21 < thl> | I'll annouce that on the list then if that's okay
for everybody
00:21 < thimm> | thl and I fight every day, does that count? ;)
00:21 < stahnma> | thl +1
00:21 < thl> | thimm, we leave out some days
00:21 < stahnma> | it adds to my amusement :)
00:21 * | dgilmore is unlikely to be able to be here the
next 2 weeks
00:21 < thl> | thimm, today iirc ;-)
00:22 < thl> | (well, until now at least)
00:22 < thimm> | day is still young
00:22 < mmcgrath> | :)
00:22 < nirik> | perhaps some days count double. ;)
00:22 < thl> | anyway, anything else?
00:22 < thimm> | OK, 4 of 7 have agreed, go ahead
00:22 < thl> | or move on?
00:22 < dgilmore> | move on
00:22 < nirik> | moveon++
00:22 < mmcgrath> | Ok, so that email will get sent and then we will
discuss next week what to do.
00:22 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting --
Elect chairmen and discuss responsibilities
00:22 < thl> | thimm, spot is the defacto chairmen of FPC
00:23 < thl> | thimm, he actually started that group and is
responsible for it afaik
00:23 < thimm> | He doesn't veto votes ...
00:23 < thl> | afaik
00:23 < thl> | thimm, the chairmen can't veto votes
00:23 < nirik> | wheres the wiki page with proposed duties of the
chair?
00:23 --> | GeroldKa (GeroldKa) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:23 < stahnma> | I don't think anyone was proposing veto of votes
00:23 < thl> | he has just to coordinate them
00:23 * | nirik is unconvinced we need one.
00:23 <-- | MauricioPretto has quit ("Leaving")
00:23 < thimm> | nirik++
00:23 < dgilmore> | thimm: chairperson is to make sure things are
happening
00:23 < thimm> | what would a chairman solve?
00:23 < thl> | last week the decisions was to have one
00:23 < thimm> | ???
00:24 < thimm> | What decision?
00:24 < dgilmore> | thimm: it would solve things seeming to be
disorganised
00:24 < thl> | that was afaics the conclusion of last week
00:24 < stahnma> | I thought it was more of an administrivia role
and not so much formal power
00:24 < mmcgrath> | a chairman would be someone that has a vision and
can make decisions.
00:24 < thl> | stahnma, +1
00:24 < dgilmore> | well because they are
00:24 < mmcgrath> | If we don't like his decisions, we don't re-elect
him.
00:24 < stahnma> | and beat him!
00:24 < thimm> | So it is an empowerment position, not administrative
00:25 < thimm> | E.g. not a chairman bit a president
00:25 * | thimm don't like that
00:25 < mmcgrath> | The fact is even the few people we have involved
right now are bumping heads regularly.
00:25 < dgilmore> | thimm: bit of both
00:25 < thl> | dgilmore, +1
00:25 < dgilmore> | sometimes things just need doing
00:25 < thimm> | That's why we vote
00:25 < mmcgrath> | thimm: voting is slow.
00:25 < thimm> | We din't get off because there was reluctance to
a committee
00:25 < mmcgrath> | and voting on everything shows a lack of vision.
00:26 < thimm> | So fesco/fpc have a lack of vision?
00:26 < mmcgrath> | I'm not talking about fesco or fpc.
00:26 < mmcgrath> | I'm talking about EPEL, specifically the
bickering that has started over the last couple of months that is A)
counter productive and B) making sure that nothing gets done.
00:27 < thimm> | And a chairman will stop flames on the list?
00:27 < dgilmore> | mmcgrath: indeed
00:27 < mmcgrath> | Not everyone can be happy all the time.
00:27 < mmcgrath> | a chairman will make sure the flames only last a
day or so.
00:27 < thimm> | And then? what does he do?
00:28 < mmcgrath> | people on the list are treating every little
decision as if they don't get their way means that epel will cease to
exist in a few weeks and thats just not the case.
00:28 < thimm> | He contacts the mailman admin to shutdown the
thread?
00:28 < thimm> | Or he make a decision on his own?
00:28 < mmcgrath> | No, he makes the decision and tries to find
someone to take action unless he takes the action himself.
00:28 < stahnma> | ask to present your case formally, and have both
sides present
00:28 < nirik> | or he brings it to a vote?
00:28 < mmcgrath> | he can bring it to a vote if he feels wants.
00:28 < stahnma> | a well informed EPEL group then makes the call
(vote possible)
00:28 < nirik> | so this is more of a manager position that a
admin of meetings and such?
00:28 < mmcgrath> | we talked about only having a chariman for 6
months anyway right?
00:29 < mmcgrath> | so lets just do it and see where we stand in 6
months.
00:29 < thl> | mmcgrath, yes
00:29 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1
00:29 --- | couf_afk is now known as couf
00:29 < quaid> | nirik: facilitator
00:29 < quaid> | that's the main role of chair, IME
00:29 < dgilmore> | thimm: im the mailman admin for epel im not
going to censor any threads
00:29 < quaid> | and occasionally person to make decisions when a
decision needs to be done and a consensus is not clear, yet no formal
vote is needed
00:30 < nirik> | well, if he's making decisions by himself (or
herself) then they are more than a facilitator...
00:30 < quaid> | ok, then
00:30 < quaid> | 70% facilitator
00:30 < thimm> | quaid: And *who* decides whether a formal vote is
needed?
00:30 < thl> | nirik, we have this committee for decisions
00:30 < quaid> | 29% front face
00:30 < quaid> | 1% decider
00:30 < thimm> | decider -----
00:30 <-- | FrancescoUgolini has quit (Remote closed the
connection)
00:30 < thimm> | Let's look at the history
00:31 < thimm> | chairman is supposed to solve thl's and my
diagreements?
00:31 < quaid> | thimm: I've never made a decision as a chair that
wasn't from the FDSCo members asking me to decide
00:31 < dgilmore> | thimm: i dont know if anyone can solve them
00:31 < thimm> | s/solve/end/
00:31 < nirik> | I guess I would be ok with that, as long as their
decisions could be overruled/revisted...
00:31 < mmcgrath> | They won't end or solve them.
00:31 < quaid> | thimm: what is your suggestion as to how to break
stalemates?
00:31 < mmcgrath> | but they'll make sure it doesn't get in the way
of epel progress.
00:31 < thl> | mmcgrath, +1
00:31 < thimm> | quaid: votes
00:32 < quaid> | chair is to help move things forward
00:32 < thimm> | The issues last week or so was that thl didn't
even want my proposed votes to get on the table
00:32 < mmcgrath> | IMHO, someone like a chairman would be perfect to
get EPEL off the ground. THen in 6 months we can re-evaluate.
00:32 < quaid> | thimm: how do you know when to stop debate and
have a vote?
00:32 < thimm> | I don't see how having thl as a chair will help
there
00:32 < mmcgrath> | then don't vote for him.
00:32 < quaid> | thimm: in that case, it was more like ....
00:33 < quaid> | from my perspective ...
00:33 * | quaid tries to think how to put this
00:33 < dgilmore> | thimm: the cair will be responsible for
coordinating all vote's as proposed by everyone
00:33 < quaid> | thimm: without a fair chair to mitigate, it felt
to me as a committee member that a vote was forced that I was never
clear was needed.
00:33 < thimm> | Let's show that votes can be effective
00:33 < quaid> | at least with a chair, I could vote for that
person and trust their judgment to know when to vote or not vote.
00:33 < thimm> | Let's just vote on whether we want a chair or not
00:34 < thl> | chair +1
00:34 < dgilmore> | +1 for a chair
00:34 < thimm> | -1
00:34 < mmcgrath> | Ok, Vote on the table: do we want a chair
00:34 < mmcgrath> | +1 for chair for 6 months.
00:34 < stahnma> | +1 chair
00:34 < quaid> | +1 for chair for 6 months (trial)
00:34 < thimm> | OK, vote's done, discussion is over
00:34 < nirik> | +1 as long as we can override or revist their
decisions
00:34 < quaid> | again, the biggest value is not in voting
00:34 < quaid> | it is in having a facilitator who is fair
00:35 < stahnma> | quaid: +1
00:35 < mmcgrath> | quaid: exactly.
00:35 < quaid> | if they are not fair, we call them on it - "no,
we won't stop discussing, you are wrong"
00:35 < dgilmore> | so we will have a chair for 6 months
00:35 < dgilmore> | stahnma, and thl have been nominated
00:35 < dgilmore> | anyone else wish to nominate someone
00:36 < mmcgrath> | Who are the current nominees? thl and?
00:36 < dgilmore> | stahnma
00:36 < thimm> | What are the powers of the cahir now?
00:36 < thimm> | People here have different POV on that.
00:36 < quaid> | good question
00:37 < thl> | thimm, I wrote something to the list yesterday
00:37 < mmcgrath> | I'll nominate thimm. He's passionate about this
and should be in the running.
00:37 < thimm> | what you wrote was purely admin stuff
00:37 < quaid> | do we need to have a week's worth of discussions
first?
00:37 < thl> | I added that to the wiki as proposal at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SteeringCommittee
00:37 < nirik> | yeah, no decision making in that list
00:37 < thimm> | mmcgrath: Thanks, but I cannot step into
something I argue shouldn't exist
00:37 < quaid> | ah, the irony!
00:38 < mmcgrath> | thimm: totally fine, I'll remove the nomination.
Thought I'd throw it out there if you were interested ;-)
00:38 < thimm> | No, thanks, I'm not
00:38 < thimm> | My nominee was "no chairman", he's out ;)
00:38 < mmcgrath> | So powers of the chair.
00:39 < thl> | so, elect a chairmen today or next week?
00:39 < thimm> | "issue and coordinate the votings in the meetings
and in the wiki, to prevent chaos that might arise if anybody would
issue votings"
00:39 < thimm> | -1000
00:39 < mmcgrath> | thl: who's going to vote on the chair? Just us
or are we going to use the voting app?
00:39 < thimm> | Anyone in the SC should be able to issue votings
00:39 < thl> | mmcgrath, I'd say us
00:39 < mmcgrath> | k
00:39 < thl> | FESCo elects its chair itself, too
00:40 < thl> | thimm, there needs to be some coordination
00:40 < quaid> | yeah, *SCo elects its own chair
00:40 < thl> | the last wiki votings showed why IMHO
00:40 < thimm> | So the chairman can mute SC memebers?
00:40 < thl> | thimm, no
00:40 < mmcgrath> | no one can be muted.
00:40 < dgilmore> | thimm: youu are free to propose them the
chairperson is a conduit
00:41 < thimm> | So the chairman auto-issues a vote if one of us
proposes one?
00:41 * | spot mutes everyone
00:41 < mmcgrath> | k
00:41 * | dgilmore slaps spot
00:41 < mmcgrath> | :)
00:41 < thl> | thimm, I wrote what I think is important in the wiki
00:41 < thl> | everything else is not written
00:41 < thl> | and thuis doesn#t exists imho
00:41 < dgilmore> | thimm: yes if its proposed it needs to be brought
up for discussion
00:41 < thl> | so there are no such powers like "So the chairman
auto-issues a vote if one of us proposes one?" afaics
00:41 < mmcgrath> | thl: lets take a week to figure out exactly what
we're looking for in a chairman and vote next week?
00:41 < nirik> | thl: what is the wiki page for that?
00:42 < thimm> | dgimore and thl contradict in the interpretation.
00:42 < quaid> | mmcgrath: +1
00:42 < thl> | mmcgrath, fine
00:42 < thl> | nirik, ?
00:42 < thl> | nirik, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SteeringCommittee#head-b5f8a5f5e875abb...
00:42 < nirik> | ah, there it is. Thanks.
00:43 < mmcgrath> | Would people be opposed to writing up
individually what they're looking for in /wiki/YourWikiName/chair ?
00:43 < thimm> | You mean 7 lists to choose from?
00:43 < thl> | mmcgrath, send it to the list
00:43 < mmcgrath> | k
00:43 < thl> | mmcgrath, that a whole lot easier imho
00:43 * | mmcgrath was trying to keep the flames down :-)
00:43 < mmcgrath> | list works though.
00:43 < quaid> | ... and do it even if you hate the idea
00:44 < thl> | k, so move on?
00:44 < dgilmore> | yup
00:44 < stahnma> | yes
00:44 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EPEL Meeting --
Relations to 3rd party distro
00:44 * | thl send his opinion to the list
00:44 <-- | GeroldKa has quit (Remote closed the connection)
00:45 < nirik> | would it be possible to invite players from the
other repos to this meeting? or another irc meeting?
00:45 < mmcgrath> | Do we have relations with any 3rd party repos
besides thimm's?
00:45 < nirik> | I would like to hear how we might be able to
cooperate more...
00:45 < stahnma> | z00dax has been in #epel quite a bit
00:45 * | mmcgrath atrpms user.
00:45 < stahnma> | and offering insight and having questions about
items
00:46 < nirik> | yeah, perhaps a invite to dag/dries/rf folks
might be good?
00:46 < mmcgrath> | Some 3rd party repos probably won't want to sign
the CLA and stuff. Thats unfortunate but shouldn't really hurt us from
working with them.
00:46 < thl> | nirik, dag was on the list
00:46 < stahnma> | should we have a special meeting to work with
their discussions/conerncs/improvements etc?
00:46 < thimm> | Dag brought up the repotag issue
00:47 < nirik> | yeah, I would like for there to be
communication... I don't know what they would like if they don't tell us...
00:47 < thl> | nirik, agreed, but we can't write anything
fomalized down afaics
00:47 < thl> | at least nothing with repo names in it
00:47 < quaid> | no CLA is required for epel-devel-list though
00:47 < thl> | quaid, +1
00:47 < nirik> | right. But we should open some communication and
find out their concerns and comments.
00:47 < mmcgrath> | thl: we can always create a 3rd party repo page
though.
00:48 < thl> | mmcgrath, there is someting about it in the faw
already
00:48 < thimm> | nirik: Dag told us, then there were infinite-size
threads on his requests and finally his requets was voted down
00:48 < mmcgrath> | <nod>
00:48 < quaid> | I think the point is, we are finally ready to
formally engage Fedora with all the third-party repos, and this is the
place to do it
00:48 < mmcgrath> | thimm: he had requests? or just the repo-tag?
00:48 < quaid> | so anyone who doesn't want to come here is not
really interested in cooperating directly, which is OK
00:48 < thl> | quaid, +1
00:48 < thimm> | s/requests/request/
00:49 < nirik> | yeah, repotag is all I saw... perhaps he has
other things we could look at working with him on?
00:49 < thimm> | AFAIK Dag's been "sent" back home.
00:49 < nirik> | ?
00:49 < stahnma> | part of cooperation is not all request items will
be honored. They will be considered though, and hopefully have some
thought-provoking ideas around the situation
00:49 < mmcgrath> | thimm: thats unfortunate.
00:50 < thl> | dag he reqested some things nobody stepped on to
work on
00:50 < mmcgrath> | We can't just do everything 3rd party repos tell
us, any more then 3rd party repos will do whatever we ask them.
00:50 < thimm> | But was predictable
00:50 < thimm> | correct
00:50 < thl> | e.g. some kind of "build different branches from
one spec file"
00:50 < nirik> | he also chimed in on the macros, and some work
has been done on that...
00:50 --- | BobJensen-Away is now known as BobJensen
00:51 < thl> | nirik, rpmforge servers a whole differente user
base imho anyway
00:51 < thl> | it has more new stuff
00:51 < thl> | and replaces "core" pacakges
00:51 < thl> | I think there are users for it
00:51 < rdieter> | afaict, rpmforge and centos/Extras folks consider
that they were in this space first, so we(epel) should be going to them
for help, answers, cooperation.
00:51 < nirik> | sure, but if we have communication we can try and
not conflict, etc.
00:51 < thl> | and for our solution "no replaces, only important
updates"
00:51 < quaid> | ah, Eitch was the other admin
00:51 < rdieter> | imo, mostly ego, perception.
00:51 * | quaid wrong channel, sorry
00:52 < thimm> | thl: Are you sure rpmforge replaces "core"?
00:52 < rdieter> | thimm: yes.
00:52 --> | wpc4 (William Curley) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:52 < rdieter> | thimm: dag does anyway.
00:53 < nirik> | I talked with z00dax the other day about centos
extras... I would really prefer if we don't conflict there, but we will
see...
00:53 < mmcgrath> | nirik: with centosplus you mean or centos.karan.org?
00:53 < thimm> | Doesn't epel and cnetos extras already conflict?
00:53 < thl> | thimm, well, there are for example subversion
packages at http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/packages/subversion/
00:53 < thl> | thimm, build for el5, which has subversion already
00:53 < nirik> | mmcgrath: there is a centos "extras" repo... has
things like Xfce in it, etc...
00:53 < mmcgrath> | ahh, yes.
00:54 < thimm> | From Dag's page:
00:54 < thimm> | A3. Why should I use RPMforge repositories ?
00:54 < thimm> | There are many good repositories that you can
use. Here are someadvantages to our repositories: We don't replace
base libraries or important core packages for repositories that are not
EOL.
00:54 < nirik> | http://wiki.centos.org/Repositories
00:54 < mmcgrath> | So what I'm hearing is "Yes, we want to work with
3rd party repos but their concerns are taken one at a time and right now
we have no idea what they want" ?
00:54 < quaid> | rdieter: I can agree with that, and I don't think
EPEL is bringing ego into things, but the situation is that Fedora work
needs to be open/visible where all Fedorans can see it, and that means
not on some third-party list site somewhere
00:54 < nirik> | right. I think we want to just tell them "hey, we
would like to hear your concerns/ideas and ask if you would like to join
us"
00:55 < stahnma> | we also need to take the goals of each repo and
be sure we understand them
00:55 < rdieter> | quaid: +1
00:55 < mmcgrath> | is there anything we want from 3rd party repos?
00:55 < stahnma> | that will help us be better and make sure we
don't conflict as much as safely possible
00:55 < nirik> | BTW, in centos5 yum is in the extras repo I think
(replacing core)
00:55 < quaid> |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/CommunicationPlan#head-be699493fb37a6e...
00:56 * | thl has to leave soon
00:56 < quaid> | we could improve on the communication plan for
third-party repos
00:56 * | stahnma tried to work on a few drafts last night,
but wasn't sure where to start
00:56 < quaid> | input from you all in that is heartily welcomed!
00:56 < quaid> | yeah, I'm not familiar enough with the people
00:56 < quaid> | what i wrote there is what I feel :)
00:56 < stahnma> | thimm I think you are a valuable resource when
talking about and on behalf of 3rd party repos
00:56 < thimm> | centos had a legal battle with RH a couple of
years ago
00:56 < mmcgrath> | If 3rd party repos are going to replace our
packages, is there an easy way to ensure that there won't be a conflict?
00:57 < thl> | mmcgrath, no
00:57 < nirik> | I think the next step is to mail the maintainers
of those repos and invite them to our meetings/mailing lists
00:57 < thimm> | stahnma: I'm not empowered to talk about any 3rd
party
00:57 < mmcgrath> | even with coordination?
00:57 < thl> | nirik, they were invited in the past iirc
00:57 < thimm> | Anything I say is my personal viewpoint
00:57 < nirik> | thl: ah, ok. I didn't know that...
00:57 < rdieter> | nirik: been there, done that, you're welcome to
keep trying tho.
00:58 < thl> | rdieter, agreed
00:58 < thl> | we really should move on imho
00:58 < stahnma> | thimm: fair enough. I think you can be more help
than you realize though :)
00:58 < nirik> | well, I can try and get more input from z00dax.
He seems interested in talking sometimes at least. ;)
00:58 < thl> | try to be nice to everyone (including 3rd party)
00:58 < dgilmore> | thimm: you are your own
00:58 < nirik> | moving on++
00:58 < thimm> | dgilmore: ???
00:58 < dgilmore> | thimm: i think its a great thing that you are
working with the fedora community as you are :)
00:59 < dgilmore> | thimm: your own 3rd party repo
00:59 --> | giallu (Gianluca Sforna) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:59 < thimm> | Ah, OK, even that is not 100% my repo anymore,
but I have the lion's parts
00:59 < mmcgrath> | thl: whats next on the list?
00:59 < mmcgrath> | we're coming up on an hour.
01:00 * | nirik happily uses mythtv from atrpms every day. ;)
01:00 < thimm> | nirik: the the RHEL5 build :)
01:00 < thl> | mmcgrath, I#d say we are finished for today
01:00 < thl> | the other two issues should be brought top the
list first
01:00 < dgilmore> | ---------- Meeting
01:00 < dgilmore> | Closed --------------------
}}}
17 years, 1 month
Please rebuild your packages in EPEL5
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Hi all!
we now (since yesterday) have RHEL5 final on the builders thanks to the
great work of Dennis Gilmore. Dgilmore, many thanks for your work.
As you might have read from the past EPEL SIG meetings logs the EPEL
Steering Committee agreed that it's likely the best to rebuild all the
packages from EPEL5 against the final RHEL, as there were lots of
changes between the beta1 (against the current packageset was build) and
the final.
The current plan is to ask everyone to rebuild the arch specific
packages by next weeks EPEL Sig meeting -- e.g. next Wednesday, 20070425
at 17:00 UTC. It's up to the packager to decide if noarch packages need
a rebuild.
In next weeks meeting we'll decide what to do with those arch specific
packages which were not rebuild up to then. It is under discussion that
somebody will use a script to just add a ".1" to release, commit, tag
and build them -- so you have been warned ;-)
If there really is a good reason why your package doesn't need a rebuild
send me a note my mail please.
Thanks for your help.
CU
thl
P.S.: If you doesn't want to do the rebuild yourself just send me a list
of package names and use a script to update release and build your packages.
17 years, 1 month
Plan for tomorrows EPEL meeting
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Hi,
I thought it might be a good idea to announce the major topics for
tomorrows EPEL meeting beforehand.
/topic EPEL Meeting -- RHEL5 on the builders -- dgilmore/mmcgrath
/topic EPEL Meeting -- mass rebuild for RHEL5 -- thl
/topic EPEL Meeting -- Elect chairmen and discuss responsibilities
/topic EPEL Meeting -- Relations to 3rd party distro (¹)
The next two still need to be discussed on the list, so we'll likely
skip this)
/topic EPEL Meeting -- Final repolayout -- thl
/topic EPEL Meeting -- Communication plan for enterprise
customers/ISVs/IHVs -- stahnma, quaid
The usual rules apply: if you want to get something discussed send a
note and we'll try to visit in the meeting.
CU
thl
P.S.: The schedule in the wiki needs some more love, I'll try to do that
over the next week
(¹) -- this was discussed on the mailing list; we maybe should visit it
in the meeting;
17 years, 1 month