13:00:57 <dirk> #startmeeting rpm_packaging 13:00:58 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug 11 13:00:57 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is dirk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:59 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:01:01 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'rpm_packaging' 13:01:08 <dirk> toabctl, dirk, aplanas, IgorYozhikov, jruzicka, number80: ping 13:01:23 <toabctl> I'm in another meeting currently. sorry 13:01:32 <number80> o/ 13:01:56 <dirk> #chair number80 IgorYozhikov 13:01:57 <openstack> Current chairs: IgorYozhikov dirk number80 13:02:01 <dirk> #topic roll call 13:02:34 <number80> #chair jpena 13:02:35 <openstack> Current chairs: IgorYozhikov dirk jpena number80 13:03:58 <dirk> anyone from mirantis there? 13:04:03 <dirk> IgorYozhikov: ? 13:04:10 <IgorYozhikov> o/ 13:04:14 <dirk> ah, hey :) 13:04:18 <IgorYozhikov> hi :) 13:06:35 <dirk> any topics to add to 13:06:40 <dirk> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging 13:06:45 <dirk> otherwise we start with the agenda 13:07:50 <dirk> #topic https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349069/ 13:07:54 <dirk> I'll just put this one first 13:07:57 <dirk> as it is a short one 13:08:24 <dirk> this is about the outcome of the cross project goal setting discussion (ref mailing list discussion) 13:08:29 <dirk> I've been invited to review the proposal 13:08:40 <dirk> everyone else here please feel invited to review it as well 13:09:26 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, it is huge change. As I remember right we've been discussing it in Tokyo 13:09:36 <number80> ack 13:10:18 <number80> zigo++ 13:10:25 <zigo> number80: o/ 13:10:31 <number80> I haven't seen his last comment on that discussion :) 13:10:54 <number80> (about project not supporting latest python) 13:11:57 <zigo> number80: FYI, we're up to speed. I'm currently preparing the Gerrit repo to start packaging upstream. All of our environment is working! :) 13:11:58 <dirk> IgorYozhikov: sure 13:12:24 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, thanx for updates 13:12:37 <dirk> zigo: is it documented somewhere? 13:12:43 <dirk> zigo: we'd like to copy that for rpm packaging I guess 13:12:46 <zigo> dirk: Not before I have all repo uploaded. 13:12:52 <IgorYozhikov> so it looks like we need to be prepared 4 py3 13:13:07 <zigo> dirk: I don't think there's much to copy, the sbuild thing is very Debian centric. 13:13:24 <IgorYozhikov> and might be it will require to introduce py3 support in j2 templates 13:13:56 <zigo> The reprepro thing too. 13:14:00 <IgorYozhikov> with something like py3-2pkg() 13:14:07 <zigo> pabelanger was super helpful. 13:14:14 <zigo> Big up to him! 13:15:28 <number80> IgorYozhikov: globally python3 support will require advanced spec file parsing 13:15:44 <IgorYozhikov> number80, I understand this 13:16:07 <dirk> zigo: well, the concepts could be copied 13:16:08 <dirk> anyway 13:16:17 <dirk> we're side tracking 13:16:24 <dirk> lets add that as a topic under the open discussion later 13:16:48 <dirk> number80: yep, but we agree we need to do that, right? so we need to define blue prints / features for being able to handle python 3.5 spec file packages going forward 13:16:50 <number80> #info everyone review cross project goals setting proposal 13:17:34 <number80> dirk: yes, it's not difficult but if renderspec has no knowledge of subpackage blocks, it'll be difficult 13:17:46 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, agree, and where are we going to publish BP? 13:17:49 <IgorYozhikov> to LP? 13:17:57 * number80 is fine with that 13:18:10 <IgorYozhikov> https://launchpad.net/rpm-packaging 13:19:34 <dirk> number80: there are a couple of variants 13:19:43 <dirk> IgorYozhikov: no idea, I ghink we could also create a -specs git repo 13:19:47 <dirk> I would actually prefer that 13:19:59 <number80> variants? 13:20:20 <number80> like per each python3 stack supported or implementation strategies? 13:20:49 <dirk> different implementation strategies on how to enable pthon3/2 side building 13:21:10 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, yes it could be -specs repo, just want to say that LP already have everything for that :) 13:21:12 <dirk> we could have two j2 templates, one for python2 / 3 (as the most stupid implementation) 13:21:48 <number80> right, this can be implemented as policies but still requires spec file proper parsing 13:22:06 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, do you mean py2-foo.spec.j2 & py3-foo.spec.j2 ? 13:22:37 <number80> there 13:22:42 <IgorYozhikov> and run rendering with py2 and py3 renderspecs ? 13:22:51 <number80> 's not much difference to have different specs 13:23:28 <dirk> should we create an etherpad about this? 13:23:37 <number80> +1 good start 13:23:44 <IgorYozhikov> yep 13:23:51 <dirk> I currently have no clue about complexities regarding common py2/py3 packaging so I'd need someone with more experience to start on that 13:24:16 <number80> I'll give it a shot 13:24:24 <IgorYozhikov> I believe that we and fedora already building py3 rpms 13:24:28 <dirk> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging-python3-renderspec 13:24:51 <dirk> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging-python3-renderspec 13:24:51 <IgorYozhikov> I meant mirantis 13:28:30 <dirk> number80: would you start writing some thoughts there? 13:28:34 <dirk> can we move on topics? 13:28:37 <IgorYozhikov> moving next || brainstorming etherpad? 13:31:17 <dirk> number80: are you okay with taking the action item to start with the etherpad? 13:32:21 * dirk needs to move on as he has a hard stop 13:32:42 <dirk> #action dirk ping people for https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging-python3-renderspec 13:33:56 <IgorYozhikov> dirk, I can write some thoughts about py3 13:34:20 <IgorYozhikov> and ping number80 4 review || advices 13:34:54 <number80> tes 13:35:10 <number80> #action number80 starts the the python3 packaging etherpad 13:35:24 <dirk> ok, thanks 13:35:32 <dirk> IgorYozhikov: you're welcome to help :) 13:35:43 <IgorYozhikov> sure 13:35:45 <dirk> #topic Deps ordering (IgorYozhikov) 13:36:10 <IgorYozhikov> yes, this was postponed from last meeting due absence of people 13:36:58 <IgorYozhikov> was discussed which type ordering is better to be used 13:37:17 <IgorYozhikov> alphabetical || as in requiremetns file 13:38:10 <IgorYozhikov> since this topic was raised, want to clarify and write in wiki 13:38:42 <dirk> you mean in the spec file? 13:38:47 <dirk> sorry, the spec.j2 template? 13:38:49 <IgorYozhikov> yes 13:38:53 <dirk> well, thats what the lint / spec-cleaner verfies 13:39:02 <dirk> it requires alphabetical on the package names 13:39:05 <IgorYozhikov> topic: - ordering of (Build)Requires from last meeting 13:39:22 <dirk> so you currently can not create a spec file with dfiferent ordering.. 13:39:28 <dirk> are you asking to change that? whats the advantage? 13:39:53 <IgorYozhikov> no, I do not asking about changing it 13:40:12 <IgorYozhikov> just clarifying 13:41:01 <IgorYozhikov> it is sometime confusing because pypi name could be differ from resulting package name 13:41:20 <dirk> yes 13:41:23 <IgorYozhikov> and linter job will be marked as failed 13:41:23 <dirk> it is a bit confusing right now 13:41:28 <dirk> I hope it will not become a problem :/ 13:41:51 <dirk> basically we're verifying on the suse naming schema, which is python-$pypi name, so it is effectively ordering on $pypi name 13:42:08 <dirk> any concerns about that? 13:42:49 <IgorYozhikov> not now, i learned how to read linter logs :) so I'll handle it 13:43:36 <IgorYozhikov> let's move next 13:44:26 <dirk> can we move to open floor? 13:44:31 <dirk> #topic open floor 13:44:49 <jpena> I'd like to have some background on https://review.openstack.org/343343 13:44:57 <jpena> (openstacksdk rename to python-openstacksdk) 13:45:27 * dirk too 13:45:42 <jpena> what is the naming convention? pypi or openstack project name? 13:46:10 <IgorYozhikov> I believe pypi 13:46:18 <number80> the thing is, it should be the same but some projects change name in pypi 13:46:52 <number80> here we have to deal with a rename 13:47:14 <jpena> keystoneauth1 is in a similar situation, btw 13:47:58 <dirk> yeah 13:48:09 <dirk> imho we should follow pypi nameing schema 13:49:19 <number80> well, why not 13:49:25 <jpena> I can adapt DLRN to that, so we can live with pypi naming schema 13:49:26 <IgorYozhikov> jpenas commit found bug in our CI and it is already fixed. 13:50:30 <IgorYozhikov> I'm about 'rename of openstacksdk' 13:51:15 <IgorYozhikov> so, rename is not necessary and could be abandoned, right? 13:51:27 <jpena> based on the discussion, yes 13:51:52 <jpena> number80? ^^ 13:52:18 <dirk> wfm 13:54:08 <dirk> anything else 13:54:14 <dirk> can we do the reviews later? 13:54:16 * dirk has to run 13:55:20 <jpena> ok for me 13:56:27 <IgorYozhikov> ok 13:56:44 <dirk> thanks 13:56:46 <dirk> #endmeeting