14:00:12 #startmeeting RDO meeting - 2023-06-21 14:00:12 Meeting started Wed Jun 21 14:00:12 2023 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jcapitao[m]. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:00:12 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:00:12 The meeting name has been set to 'rdo_meeting___2023_06_21' 14:00:34 #topic roll call 14:00:42 o/ 14:01:03 o/ 14:02:55 #chair karolinku[m] amoralej 14:02:55 Current chairs: amoralej jcapitao[m] karolinku[m] 14:05:54 spotz_ may join later as she's got a conflict 14:06:02 let's start with first topic 14:06:11 #topic CloudSIG testing repo are GPG signed 14:06:33 #info CloudSIG packages from testing repo are GPG signed 14:06:40 #link https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1174 14:07:02 #link https://pagure.io/centos-infra/issue/1174 14:07:11 #link https://lists.rdoproject.org/archives/list/dev@lists.rdoproject.org/thread/ZBOSCEMQ55OKBY7K4Q233MWO73APF5DF/ 14:07:22 #link https://review.rdoproject.org/r/q/topic:test-signed-packages-from-testing 14:07:52 I tested them with the reviews ^ 14:08:53 the question now is do we want to enable gpgcheck by default for testing repo ? 14:09:16 you mean in rdo-release and centos-release-openstack- packages? 14:09:47 in centos-release-openstack-* packages sorry 14:10:24 I'm in favor to let as-is 14:10:56 i think enabling it is good 14:12:14 we had issues with signed packages in testing repo some days ago but i think it's fixed 14:12:32 so given that we have the option, we should enable it imo 14:12:41 o/ 14:14:04 ok makes sense 14:14:20 karolinku: do you have an opinion ? 14:15:04 +1 for enabling 14:16:11 ok let's enable it then 14:17:01 #agreed to enable gpgcheck on testing repo for centos-release-openstack-* packages 14:17:17 #chair spotz_ 14:17:17 Current chairs: amoralej jcapitao[m] karolinku[m] spotz_ 14:17:46 welcome back spotz_ :) 14:17:56 Thanks:) 14:18:34 #action jcapitao to enable gpgcheck on testing repo for centos-release-openstack-* packages 14:19:27 I think that's it for this topic, any questions ? 14:20:18 nop from my side 14:20:48 nope 14:21:04 no 14:22:02 let's move to the next topic 14:22:13 #topic Status on specs modernization (pyproject-rpm-macros) 14:23:09 i added that 14:23:55 so, to summarize, new jobs are ready to be reviewed and merged, right? 14:24:41 https://review.rdoproject.org/r/c/rdo-jobs/+/48899 and https://review.rdoproject.org/r/c/rdo-jobs/+/48910 14:24:57 jcapitao[m], i'd like to test the compare-files job with a spec changes that shows failure 14:25:41 I also proposed https://review.rdoproject.org/r/c/rdo-jobs/+/48934 14:25:58 maybe removing some file in one of the DNM reviews 14:26:28 so rpmlint complains with SPDX ? 14:26:52 actually we have one failure in https://logserver.rdoproject.org/13/48913/9/check/DLRN-rpmbuild-centos9-compare-files/1c5298c/job-output.txt 14:27:04 it's currently running https://review.rdoproject.org/r/c/openstack/oslo-log-distgit/+/48913 14:27:29 yeah rpmlint in our buildroot doesn't recognize SPDX license 14:28:24 probably because of old version or something, ok 14:28:46 yep 14:29:18 good, wrt the compare-files, thanks, that's what i was looking for 14:29:18 I used latest versions of upgrade_spec scripts to edit https://review.rdoproject.org/r/c/openstack/oslo-log-distgit/+/48913 14:29:24 works like a charm 14:29:28 great 14:29:40 i've left some comments about -tests 14:30:09 so, the good part is that, all requirements in test-requirements are automatically added in a extra option "test" 14:30:16 no need to tweak setup.cfg 14:30:27 ah! 14:30:29 really ? 14:30:44 yep, i checked it 14:30:46 with pbr ? 14:30:54 yes, and i think also setuptools 14:31:08 that's great news! 14:31:13 you can test it with "pip install oslo.log[test]" 14:31:37 or checking the requires.txt file in the dist-info directory after doing setup.py build 14:32:05 I'll check how it's done 14:32:41 and what about my proposal of obsoleting -test subpackage in +test subpkg ? 14:33:09 I managed to put the test files in +test + the requirements 14:33:29 yeah 14:33:37 that'd be the way 14:33:44 obsolete + provides 14:33:47 or only provides 14:34:05 rpm -qlp https://logserver.rdoproject.org/13/48913/9/check/DLRN-rpmbuild-centos9/1a20ea5/buildset/centos9/current/python3-oslo-log+tests-5.2.0-0.20230621134232.eaf6089.el9.noarch.rpm 14:34:05 tbh, i still have doubts about the complexity 14:34:23 rpm -qp --obsoletes https://logserver.rdoproject.org/13/48913/9/check/DLRN-rpmbuild-centos9/1a20ea5/buildset/centos9/current/python3-oslo-log+tests-5.2.0-0.20230621134232.eaf6089.el9.noarch.rpm 14:34:42 rpm -qp --requires https://logserver.rdoproject.org/13/48913/9/check/DLRN-rpmbuild-centos9/1a20ea5/buildset/centos9/current/python3-oslo-log+tests-5.2.0-0.20230621134232.eaf6089.el9.noarch.rpm 14:35:12 you think that can be automated? 14:35:32 i was thinking if we may do that in a second step 14:35:39 in upgrade_spec script you mean ? 14:35:41 yes 14:36:06 yes it is, I already have an idea 14:36:24 so, it'd be moving from -tests to +test + provides/obsoletes 14:36:37 when you say "complexity", it'a about the switch or the SPEC file being more complex ? 14:36:50 both 14:36:50 yes, exactly 14:37:32 IMO the only complexity I see is the addition of upgrade path operation 14:37:47 1. i'm afraid we'll have different approaches to -tests packages declaration in different specs 14:37:54 on the other hand, the test requirements will be handled automatically 14:37:58 that will make it harder to automate 14:38:37 yes, but... at the same time missing requirements in a -test subpackage is currently a not-blocking thing 14:38:57 mostly because we don use/test them 14:39:07 making them automatic can lead to ftbfs 14:39:13 you made a point 14:39:53 i.e. upstream adds a new package which is not in deps or something 14:40:15 we may get a ftbfs and need to override 14:40:22 then we'll have to add a sed command to remove it 14:40:30 tbh, probably we will hit the issue also with automatic BRs 14:40:59 yes, but means ftbfs + manual task 14:41:08 so the question is do we want to maintain -test subpkg up-to-date 14:41:39 or keep the status quo ? 14:42:46 exactly :) 14:43:31 actually, we may make the question broader and consider if we should get rid of the -tests subpackages entirely 14:44:03 that's why i was thinking in doing this in a 2nd step 14:44:07 I think you're right that's something we should do after the switch to pyproject macros 14:44:16 yeah 14:44:50 it may be good to ask the community in rdo MLs 14:45:03 at least if anyone is using them 14:45:16 we are pretty blind in that 14:45:26 yeah good idea 14:45:30 I think asking is good idea 14:45:55 let's ask to the community 14:46:33 amoralej: do you want to write the mail ? 14:46:58 so, you think that we should move this to a new activity "reconsider -tests subpackage" separated from "pyproject-rpm-macros implementation" ? 14:47:09 I can write it though 14:47:39 yes it'd be better IMHO 14:47:39 ok, but if we decide to separate it, then let's lower priority vs pyproject stuff 14:48:07 yeah ofc 14:49:50 #info we'll reconsider -tests subpackage after the pyproject-rpm-macros implementation 14:51:26 spotz_: do you have time to give feedback of Summit ? 14:51:35 as we have 10 min left 14:51:35 Yep! 14:51:56 great, go ahead 14:51:57 #topic OpenInfra Summit recap 14:52:16 #topic Summit update 14:52:23 #undo 14:52:23 Removing item from minutes: #topic Summit update 14:53:16 There were 750 people in attendance in Vancouver. At least 100 people had to pull out the last week due to Visa issues. The number could be higher from people who didn't contact the Foundation 14:53:52 We had 58 people attend the RDO Ice Cream Social at Soft Peaks and 22 people who attended the RDO Contributors dinner at Steamworks 14:55:03 Forum and talk sessions were well attended with some good discussions. PTG not many projects signed up for slots due to not having a majority in attendance but it looked like some good discussions were taking place. 14:55:51 All ducks found homes, I did grab some for the 3 of you though not sure how I'll get them to you 14:56:02 that's huge numbers 14:57:56 I read some PTG summaries in openstack-discuss ML 14:58:09 Yeh I was happy with our turnout to the RDO stuff 14:58:15 looks like there were good discussions yeah 15:00:04 that was a good participation in community activities! 15:00:07 cool! 15:00:13 great spotz_ thank you for the hard work 👍️ 15:01:05 My pleasure:) 15:01:26 what's the next big event? 15:02:57 The FOundation isn't sure. The Regional events have been very popular so they will definitely do more of those, they might do something around FOSDEM. I'm hoping we'll still have one global event so we don't fragment even if we know it'll be smaller 15:04:45 good 15:05:42 sorry, we're out of time 15:05:53 sure, let's go on 15:05:57 last think 15:06:01 #topic next chair 15:06:27 who's willing to chair next week ? 15:06:35 i can take it 15:07:00 #action amoralej will chair next week 15:07:05 thanks amoralej 15:07:18 I'm going to close the meeting 15:07:32 thank you all for joining 15:07:39 #endmeeting