On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-12/fedora-meeting.20...
From the log: 21:19:15 <stickster> so that engineers inside Red Hat understand they need to be working with EPEL as an upstream 21:19:27 <derks> that's great 21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so"
This seems not to have worked for "python-setuptools", because when it was added to RHEL, an older version that the on in EPEL was used. Also the RHEL package does not provide "python-setuptools-devel". A related ignored bug report is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460631
For this package, it EPEL land it does not look better, as the CVS does not contain a dead.package: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-setuptools/EL-5/
Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale content:
Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from 2008, week 17
Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes.
Regards Till
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
21:19:27 <derks> that's great 21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so"
I could never get in touch with the openmotif maintainer to do something consistent between fedora/RHEL/EPEL for motif based software (like consistent virtual provides). After some attemps I gave up, but it was when I was more active in Fedora/EPEL so some time ago, maybe things have changed since then.
Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale content:
Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from 2008, week 17
Apart from Reports are there specific parts that are out of date? I tried to review the whole EPEL wiki in the end of 2008, I don't think that there were much changes afterwards, except from switching to bodhi and koji, and I just checked that this has been rightly taken into account.
In fact the 'moving' parts of the EPEL wiki have always been late (like report meetings, schedule and things like that) but the remaining should be ok now. The FAQ is marked to be needing love, but, honestly I can't see serious issues.
Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes.
It is not clear that the problem here is with the documented guidelines. Have these guidelines changed? Or are the CVS admins having claims they shouldn't have? I'd lean to the second, though I may have missed a guideline change.
-- Pat
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
21:19:27 <derks> that's great 21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so"
I could never get in touch with the openmotif maintainer to do something consistent between fedora/RHEL/EPEL for motif based software (like consistent virtual provides). After some attemps I gave up, but it was when I was more active in Fedora/EPEL so some time ago, maybe things have changed since then.
Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale content:
Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from 2008, week 17
Apart from Reports are there specific parts that are out of date? I tried to review the whole EPEL wiki in the end of 2008, I don't think that there were much changes afterwards, except from switching to bodhi and koji, and I just checked that this has been rightly taken into account.
In fact the 'moving' parts of the EPEL wiki have always been late (like report meetings, schedule and things like that) but the remaining should be ok now. The FAQ is marked to be needing love, but, honestly I can't see serious issues.
Without having Reports or links to Meeting summaries from Meetbot, it is very hard to know what has changed. I noticed that there seems to be no information about what happened to python-setuptools in EPEL or what would happen the next time a package is imported in RHEL, that existed in EPEL. Or for which other packages this already happened.
Also there was this discussion on the list and meetings about what exactly the package set in RHEL is, that EPEL does not conflict with, but there seems to be no real answer to this in the wiki, too.
E.g. the FAQ only says to browse the SRPMS, but it's only some of the SRPMS: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_can_I_know_which_packages_are_pa...
The policy says this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies | EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL Base (Including | Advanced Platform).
This might be the actual policy, but it still does not says which packages this includes and when I asked on this mailing list, even someone more experienced than me did not really know.
Btw. this FAQ entry also contains some broken wiki syntax: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#What_is_the_policy_on_updates_for_pa...
Then as you already mentioned, the Schedule probably only contains outdated content: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule
Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes.
It is not clear that the problem here is with the documented guidelines. Have these guidelines changed? Or are the CVS admins having claims they shouldn't have? I'd lean to the second, though I may have missed a guideline change.
I don't know, I only experienced that both conflicted.
Regards Till
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:44:20 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
Without having Reports or links to Meeting summaries from Meetbot, it is very hard to know what has changed.
I personally don't have time to generate any reports, and the old scripts that Thorsten used are likely not going to work against koji/bodhi.
Would you be interested in generating a new weekly report?
The meeting summaries are posted to this list, as well as being on the meetbot site.
I noticed that there seems to be no information about what happened to python-setuptools in EPEL or what would happen the next time a package is imported in RHEL, that existed in EPEL. Or for which other packages this already happened.
My understanding is that RHEL would import the most recent package from EPEL and we would block it. Sadly this has not happened correctly in the past.
Also there was this discussion on the list and meetings about what exactly the package set in RHEL is, that EPEL does not conflict with, but there seems to be no real answer to this in the wiki, too.
E.g. the FAQ only says to browse the SRPMS, but it's only some of the SRPMS: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_can_I_know_which_packages_are_pa...
The policy says this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies | EPEL packages must never conflict with packages in RHEL Base (Including | Advanced Platform).
This might be the actual policy, but it still does not says which packages this includes and when I asked on this mailing list, even someone more experienced than me did not really know.
I have added clarification on this.
This is basically anything in the server or workstation for RHEL5, and anything in base RHEL4. This would be ftp.redhat.com:/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os and ftp.redhat.com:/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Client and ftp.redhat.com:/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server.
Btw. this FAQ entry also contains some broken wiki syntax: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#What_is_the_policy_on_updates_for_pa...
It's a wiki. Can you not fix such things when you see them? ;) I just removed that broken include and pointed to the real doc.
Then as you already mentioned, the Schedule probably only contains outdated content: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule
Cleaned up.
I don't know, I only experienced that both conflicted.
Added some more wording.
Any help cleaning up wiki pages is very welcome.
kevin
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:37:08PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:44:20 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
Without having Reports or links to Meeting summaries from Meetbot, it is very hard to know what has changed.
I personally don't have time to generate any reports, and the old scripts that Thorsten used are likely not going to work against koji/bodhi.
Would you be interested in generating a new weekly report?
I am not really interested in the package statistics, so no.
The meeting summaries are posted to this list, as well as being on the meetbot site.
But I am interested in an easy access to the Meetbot logs. Is this the meetbot site you are talking about: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ ?
AFAICS there is no easy way to get all EPEL meetbot summaries from there. Or in other words, the only way seems to be to go through all summaries from all groups.
I noticed that there seems to be no information about what happened to python-setuptools in EPEL or what would happen the next time a package is imported in RHEL, that existed in EPEL. Or for which other packages this already happened.
My understanding is that RHEL would import the most recent package from EPEL and we would block it. Sadly this has not happened correctly in the past.
Ok, this would not cause any issues afaics.
Btw. this FAQ entry also contains some broken wiki syntax: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#What_is_the_policy_on_updates_for_pa...
It's a wiki. Can you not fix such things when you see them? ;) I just removed that broken include and pointed to the real doc.
I would have fixed it, if was something I do already know how to fix it. I did not assume that it should be just removed.
Then as you already mentioned, the Schedule probably only contains outdated content: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule
Cleaned up.
I just looked at it and found two issues: I guess this is not used anymore? Or is it somehow managed using meetbot? | feel free to add your nick to the list of nicks in the "meeting ping"
Also the topic changes are done using "/topic" instead of "#topic". I never used meetbot, so maybe it matters, maybe it does not: | /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Status Reports | Revive them?
There is also a link to this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc I guess it can be moved to the archive namespace and requested for deletion? Or even all pages in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPELTasksOpen except for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove unless this is documented somewhere else.
I don't know, I only experienced that both conflicted.
Added some more wording.
Any help cleaning up wiki pages is very welcome.
If I know that something is wrong and I know what is right instead, I happily fix this in the wiki. But if I do not know the details, I typically do not edit it to avoid making it worse. IMHO it would be nice to have some easy way to create patches for the wiki, send them to somebody that has the knowledge, so that he can just verify the changes and apply them. Then the work can still be shared, but this is more dreaming then reality.
Regards Till
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:32:26 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
I am not really interested in the package statistics, so no.
ok
The meeting summaries are posted to this list, as well as being on the meetbot site.
But I am interested in an easy access to the Meetbot logs. Is this the meetbot site you are talking about: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/ ?
Yes.
AFAICS there is no easy way to get all EPEL meetbot summaries from there. Or in other words, the only way seems to be to go through all summaries from all groups.
Well, the meeting is prefixed with 'epel' so it should be good to pick it out. I agree there should be a better way to search or download all the meeting's from a particular group.
There is ongoing work to setup a search engine for all fedora resources.
I just looked at it and found two issues: I guess this is not used anymore? Or is it somehow managed using meetbot? | feel free to add your nick to the list of nicks in the "meeting ping"
Yeah, it's not used anymore. I guess we could just remove that.
Also the topic changes are done using "/topic" instead of "#topic". I never used meetbot, so maybe it matters, maybe it does not: | /topic EPEL SIG Meeting | Status Reports | Revive them?
Yeah, should be #topic for meetbot.
There is also a link to this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc I guess it can be moved to the archive namespace and requested for deletion? Or even all pages in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:EPELTasksOpen except for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove unless this is documented somewhere else.
yes. I think they can be deleted/archives.
If I know that something is wrong and I know what is right instead, I happily fix this in the wiki. But if I do not know the details, I typically do not edit it to avoid making it worse. IMHO it would be nice to have some easy way to create patches for the wiki, send them to somebody that has the knowledge, so that he can just verify the changes and apply them. Then the work can still be shared, but this is more dreaming then reality.
Yeah, that would be nice for sure.
If you have questions, feel free to ping me on irc and I will be happy to answer as time permits and then you can update the wiki. ;)
kevin
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Apart from Reports are there specific parts that are out of date? I tried to review the whole EPEL wiki in the end of 2008, I don't think that there were much changes afterwards, except from switching to bodhi and koji, and I just checked that this has been rightly taken into account.
I forgot something: I believe the epel component in the rel-eng trac and the use cases are also not mentioned in the wiki.
Regards Till
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:15:44 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:11:13PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
Apart from Reports are there specific parts that are out of date? I tried to review the whole EPEL wiki in the end of 2008, I don't think that there were much changes afterwards, except from switching to bodhi and koji, and I just checked that this has been rightly taken into account.
I forgot something: I believe the epel component in the rel-eng trac and the use cases are also not mentioned in the wiki.
Added a note about this to the faq.
kevin
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:19:20PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained,
One thing that was not completly done, as far as I can tell is the renaming of pages, though they were proposed:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2008-October/msg00124.html
and I answered
https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2008-November/msg00008.html
I think basically everything was ready, but some pages don't seem to have been renamed.
-- Pat
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:23:32 +0100 Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
I think basically everything was ready, but some pages don't seem to have been renamed.
Who was going to do this? You or Karsten?
Can you go ahead and do it? or I can ask Karsten to do so.
kevin
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:38:33PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:23:32 +0100 Patrice Dumas pertusus@free.fr wrote:
I think basically everything was ready, but some pages don't seem to have been renamed.
Who was going to do this? You or Karsten?
It was Karsten, I think, since, unless I am wrong it was part of a change more global, and, although I am guessing, maybe they fixed the links automatically when renaming pages, and used some scripting to avoid the tedious task of doing everything by hand in the wiki.
-- Pat
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:49:08PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-02-12/fedora-meeting.20...
From the log: 21:19:15 <stickster> so that engineers inside Red Hat understand they need to be working with EPEL as an upstream 21:19:27 <derks> that's great 21:19:52 <stickster> The unanimous response I got from the folks I talked to was, "Yup, we're doing that now, and will keep doing so"
This seems not to have worked for "python-setuptools", because when it was added to RHEL, an older version that the on in EPEL was used. Also the RHEL package does not provide "python-setuptools-devel". A related ignored bug report is: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460631
For this package, it EPEL land it does not look better, as the CVS does not contain a dead.package: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python-setuptools/EL-5/
Perhaps we can get stickster to communicate that back to RHEL folks. Or give us some more direct way of doing so. I will ask him to comment on this thread.
Also there seems to be no trace about the whole situation. Also it seems that more or less any documentation regarding EPEL is not maintained, e.g. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL contains a log of stale content:
Latest report on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Reports is from 2008, week 17
I can clean that up. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. We no longer do regular reports.
Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
I can add clarification there. Basically he was just asking: "have you talked to the Fedora maintainer about maintaining this in EPEL".
The answer could just have been "yes, I have".
kevin
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 02:29:48PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:19:20 +0100 Till Maas opensource@till.name wrote:
Also the "Getting a Fedora package in EPEL"[0] procedure is not in sync with what CVS admins require, as they might require a confirmation that a maintainer has been asked: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c15 But this is not what the procedure describes.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_a_Fedora_package_in_EPEL
I can add clarification there. Basically he was just asking: "have you talked to the Fedora maintainer about maintaining this in EPEL".
The answer could just have been "yes, I have".
Are you sure? Because I believe I told him in IRC that the gitolite maintainer asked the perl-Text-Markdown maintainer via e-mail, because the gitolite maintainer wrote this in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548324#c20, which I referred to in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c11
Also on IRC the CVS admin said something that the perl-Text-Markdown maintainer required that he acked all EL branch requests, before they would be performed. Hey also used this in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243716#c12
Nevertheless, if there was only some miscommunication and it still will be enough to just ask the maintainer and mention this on a branch request to get the branch for EPEL done, then everything is fine.
Regards Till
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org