12:31:13 <toabctl> #startmeeting rpm_packaging
12:31:14 <openstack> Meeting started Wed May  8 12:31:13 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is toabctl. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
12:31:15 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
12:31:17 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'rpm_packaging'
12:31:18 <toabctl> ping toabctl, dirk, apevec, jpena, jruzicka, number80, kaslcrof, ykarel, cmurphy
12:31:56 <jpena> o/
12:32:24 <toabctl> as usual, please add your agenda points to https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/openstack-rpm-packaging
12:33:22 <dirk> o/
12:35:30 <toabctl> #topic rpo-packaging and rpm-packaging?
12:35:39 <toabctl> that's my topic
12:35:50 <toabctl> jpena, are there any plan to use rpm-packaging for RDO?
12:36:17 <toabctl> iirc we discussed that in the past but I think there was no progress or any plan to use rpm-packaging. did that change?
12:36:26 <jpena> toabctl: currently not. I've raised the topic a few times in the community, and there seems to be no interest to converge
12:36:49 <jpena> there's interest in the tool side (renderspec and others), but not for now in the specs
12:36:53 <toabctl> jpena, hm. anything we could do about that? what's the blocker?
12:38:45 <jpena> I've never got a definitive answer on that. It usually comes down to the effort required to migrate, plus "it works now"
12:38:53 <toabctl> hm. ok
12:39:13 <toabctl> anything else on that topic?
12:39:33 <jpena> nothing from my side
12:39:46 <toabctl> #topic starlingx and rpm-packaging
12:39:51 <toabctl> is that yours, dirk?
12:39:56 <dirk> yes
12:39:59 <dirk> so far as a heads up
12:40:21 <dirk> there was a bit of discussion with sgw from starlingx team at the PTG in denver
12:40:42 <dirk> they're in principle interested in re-using some of the rpm-packaging tooling for achieving easier/more portable builds of their packaging
12:40:51 <dirk> especially if it solves their need for ubuntu s upport
12:41:10 <dirk> I kinda don't see a way to achieve that other than extending + fixing pymod2pkg for the ubuntu distro
12:41:29 <dirk> I started a bit cleaning up their spec files and then we ran out of time
12:41:45 <dirk> (there are open reviews). sgw and I want to do a more in-depth poc over the next few days
12:41:48 <dirk> any questions?
12:42:23 <jpena> there was some ubuntu support in pymod2pkg
12:42:25 <dirk> slightly related to that I believe there was some discussion with colleen at the summit about cross-packaging with/for debian
12:42:33 <jpena> I guess it needs some maintenance
12:42:39 <dirk> I don't know the exact details of that as I wasn't there
12:43:21 <toabctl> how would pymod2pkg support for ubuntu help? we would need debian/rules and friends files.
12:43:22 <dirk> jpena: right, I think its there, but we just need to use it in a real context to find the bugs
12:43:29 <jpena> dirk: sure
12:44:02 <toabctl> and debian & ubuntu usually use the same package names. so there is imo no need for pymod2pkg support for ubuntu
12:44:05 <toabctl> or am I missing something?
12:44:40 <dirk> that is true, a lot of the needs for renderspec isn't there (also use the same license tags)
12:45:22 <toabctl> to have cross distro support - we would need a meta format that can render to rpm specs (in suse/fedora flavor) and debian/* files.
12:45:41 <dirk> I believe this goes back to the ideas of having an externally defined yaml for managing the dependencies and "expanding" them into a debian specific format as well as spec files
12:45:51 <toabctl> yes
12:46:03 <dirk> yep, and there is some competing technology for that already in the market
12:48:26 <dirk> I might not have time for this going forward, but if there is interest I signed up on the etherpad to connect the dots
12:49:32 <toabctl> ok
12:49:37 <toabctl> anything else on that topic?
12:50:11 <dirk> nope
12:51:16 <dirk> ah, maybe one thing: I noticed that the renderspec documentation needs a bit of work
12:51:28 <dirk> like e.g. a minimal walk through of how to create a spec.j2
12:51:35 <dirk> and how to call it from commandline
12:51:42 <dirk> I have this somewhere on todo
12:55:46 <toabctl> #topic open floor
12:55:49 <toabctl> anything else?
12:56:53 <dirk> do we want to discuss a bit the python 3.x switch?
12:57:09 <dirk> my understanding is that RHEL8 got released, so can we switch the CI to rhel8 instead of rhel7 and go with python 3.x only?
12:57:41 <dirk> I recently started looking ath SLE15 enablement whcih is python 3.6 and would like to strip out python 2.x asap
12:58:53 <toabctl> I guess the next step would be to convert the services we have to python3 only.
12:59:05 <dirk> yeah, its half-way done
12:59:17 <dirk> currently building a python 3.x openstack placement
12:59:29 <jpena> we'll need to wait until centos 8 is available (I've seen the first commits in git.centos.org), since rhel8 itself is not available without a subscription
12:59:45 <dirk> although I was wondering if we want a shorthand over py2pkg('foo', py_versions=py3)
12:59:50 <dirk> perhaps py3pkg('foo') ?
13:00:44 <toabctl> hm. then py2pkg would be missleading
13:01:14 <toabctl> but I agree that a shorthand would be nice
13:04:33 <toabctl> anything else?
13:04:36 * toabctl has to leave soon
13:05:37 <dirk> nope
13:06:27 <toabctl> ok. thanks everybody
13:06:31 <toabctl> #endmeeting