Difference between revisions of "100817 DMSU Weekly Assigner Meeting"

From EGIWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '- 13:59 - gronager: Its 14 gronager: at least in Kastrup, DK gronager: so lets start the meeting gronager: I managed to send around an agenda jens: A short one! gronager: so... …')
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
- 13:59 -
 
- 13:59 -
 +
 
gronager: Its 14
 
gronager: Its 14
 +
 
gronager: at least in Kastrup, DK
 
gronager: at least in Kastrup, DK
 +
 
gronager: so lets start the meeting
 
gronager: so lets start the meeting
 +
 
gronager: I managed to send around an agenda
 
gronager: I managed to send around an agenda
 +
 
jens: A short one!  
 
jens: A short one!  
 +
 
gronager: so... lets start with _the_ ticket  
 
gronager: so... lets start with _the_ ticket  
 +
 
gronager: Ales - do you have anything to add on this ?
 
gronager: Ales - do you have anything to add on this ?
 +
 
ljocha: it's difficult for me, wearing my double hat
 
ljocha: it's difficult for me, wearing my double hat
 +
 
gronager: could you elaborate (on the hat)
 
gronager: could you elaborate (on the hat)
 +
 
gronager: (hats even)
 
gronager: (hats even)
 +
 
ljocha: the user requests a fix for a deprecated baseline, the fix _is_ already in the new one, and I know that EMI will not be very pleased to fix this in the old basline
 
ljocha: the user requests a fix for a deprecated baseline, the fix _is_ already in the new one, and I know that EMI will not be very pleased to fix this in the old basline
 +
 
gronager: so, what you say is that he requests support for sometihng unsupported
 
gronager: so, what you say is that he requests support for sometihng unsupported
 +
 
ljocha: on the other hand, I suspect the problem is with the "metapackage" (the RPM which contains nothing but dependencies) only. therefore we can make an easy workaround, just regenerate this empty RPM
 
ljocha: on the other hand, I suspect the problem is with the "metapackage" (the RPM which contains nothing but dependencies) only. therefore we can make an easy workaround, just regenerate this empty RPM
 +
 
ljocha: on unsupported -- this is sort of grey area
 
ljocha: on unsupported -- this is sort of grey area
 +
 
ljocha: the relationships with EMI are not strictly specified, I'm not sure what's the current level of support of glite 3.1
 
ljocha: the relationships with EMI are not strictly specified, I'm not sure what's the current level of support of glite 3.1
 +
 +
  
 
- 14:05 -
 
- 14:05 -
 +
 
gronager: Question is if the deciding EGI organ for currently deployed stuff would like us to promote support for 3.1
 
gronager: Question is if the deciding EGI organ for currently deployed stuff would like us to promote support for 3.1
 +
 
ljocha: I've already emailed Zdenek Sustr, who is resposible for LB in EMI, what is his view, but he is on vacation.
 
ljocha: I've already emailed Zdenek Sustr, who is resposible for LB in EMI, what is his view, but he is on vacation.
 +
 
gronager: or to encourage him to upgrade
 
gronager: or to encourage him to upgrade
 +
 
jens: At least it's hard to call 3.1 deprecated when not all services are released in 3.2. Or perhaps they are now? I saw that FTS showed up not long ago.
 
jens: At least it's hard to call 3.1 deprecated when not all services are released in 3.2. Or perhaps they are now? I saw that FTS showed up not long ago.
 +
 
ljocha: I thing they are not
 
ljocha: I thing they are not
 +
 
gronager: OK, then I think we should provide him the fix, and note that it is not very nice to have these big chunks of releses (3.1, 3.2) of everything
 
gronager: OK, then I think we should provide him the fix, and note that it is not very nice to have these big chunks of releses (3.1, 3.2) of everything
 +
 
gronager: So, something to note to the TCB: the middleware providers should release components, not tied to 3.1 / 3.2 etc - and ensure that components works with the currently deployed components...
 
gronager: So, something to note to the TCB: the middleware providers should release components, not tied to 3.1 / 3.2 etc - and ensure that components works with the currently deployed components...
 +
 
gronager: otherwise we should switch to a monolith one rpm for everything and just install glite3.1 or 3.2
 
gronager: otherwise we should switch to a monolith one rpm for everything and just install glite3.1 or 3.2
 +
 
ljocha: this is not quite so. there are two major releases of glite, 3.1 and 3.2. components in each are independent but there are problems combining 3.1 and 3.2 ones, obviously
 
ljocha: this is not quite so. there are two major releases of glite, 3.1 and 3.2. components in each are independent but there are problems combining 3.1 and 3.2 ones, obviously
 +
 
gronager: (and I mean a real rpm - not a pointer to a lot of stuff... - ugly it would indeed be...)
 
gronager: (and I mean a real rpm - not a pointer to a lot of stuff... - ugly it would indeed be...)
 +
 
ljocha: the metapackage is LB, not entire glite ...
 
ljocha: the metapackage is LB, not entire glite ...
 +
 
gronager: (I know...)
 
gronager: (I know...)
 +
 +
  
 
- 14:10 -
 
- 14:10 -
 +
 
ljocha: there used to be (until glite 3.1) rather bad practice to put the dependencies into the metapackage, not into the real RPMs which require them
 
ljocha: there used to be (until glite 3.1) rather bad practice to put the dependencies into the metapackage, not into the real RPMs which require them
 +
 
gronager: however, if we want to support a situation of two releases floating around, we need to support combinations as well
 
gronager: however, if we want to support a situation of two releases floating around, we need to support combinations as well
 +
 
ljocha: this is cleaned up in 3.2
 
ljocha: this is cleaned up in 3.2
 +
 
gronager: ok
 
gronager: ok
 +
 
jens: Combining 3.1 and 3.2 packages sound bad though. Noone wants to support that. You can't roll in CentOS4 packages on a CentOS 5 machine without getting pain.
 
jens: Combining 3.1 and 3.2 packages sound bad though. Noone wants to support that. You can't roll in CentOS4 packages on a CentOS 5 machine without getting pain.
 +
 
gronager: I still, think we should provide him a fix, and deal with the policy around that at another level
 
gronager: I still, think we should provide him a fix, and deal with the policy around that at another level
 +
 
ljocha: sure.  
 
ljocha: sure.  
 +
 
ljocha: I will try to repack glite-LB RPM (the metapackage) without the problematic voms-api-noglobus requirement.
 
ljocha: I will try to repack glite-LB RPM (the metapackage) without the problematic voms-api-noglobus requirement.
 +
 
ljocha: If it works, we can push it to EMI.
 
ljocha: If it works, we can push it to EMI.
 +
 
gronager: OK - great, and I will take a note on the policy of how to support these things...
 
gronager: OK - great, and I will take a note on the policy of how to support these things...
 +
 
ljocha: Btw, have we got a web site where to release such fixes?
 
ljocha: Btw, have we got a web site where to release such fixes?
 +
 
gronager: I think you should notify mario
 
gronager: I think you should notify mario
 +
 
ljocha:  OK
 
ljocha:  OK
 +
 
gronager: Next agenda point...
 
gronager: Next agenda point...
 +
 
gronager: Awareness
 
gronager: Awareness
 +
 
gronager: So far the number of ticksets recieived has been quite low
 
gronager: So far the number of ticksets recieived has been quite low
 +
 +
  
 
- 14:15 -
 
- 14:15 -
 +
 
gronager: I think it is more a result of unawareness and other practices than due to high quality-no-bugged middleware
 
gronager: I think it is more a result of unawareness and other practices than due to high quality-no-bugged middleware
 +
 
gronager: I will contact Tiziana and Ron to ensure we get an improved awareness and to ask what the actual procedures are
 
gronager: I will contact Tiziana and Ron to ensure we get an improved awareness and to ask what the actual procedures are
 +
 
gronager: I guess a phonecon would be good
 
gronager: I guess a phonecon would be good
 +
 
gronager: will send out an invitation - great if some of you could join
 
gronager: will send out an invitation - great if some of you could join
 +
 
Rebecca Breu: i'll be away the next week and the week after
 
Rebecca Breu: i'll be away the next week and the week after
 +
 
gronager: OK...
 
gronager: OK...
 +
 
ljocha: This is the top-down part of the activity. I'd also suggest push on rearrangement of the GGUS support units to reflect the current (theoretical) support structure
 
ljocha: This is the top-down part of the activity. I'd also suggest push on rearrangement of the GGUS support units to reflect the current (theoretical) support structure
 +
 
ljocha: I'm available for the phoneconf this and next week, in general.
 
ljocha: I'm available for the phoneconf this and next week, in general.
 +
 
gronager: Yes, I agree - and we should discuss that with Torsten - inviting him for the phonecon as well
 
gronager: Yes, I agree - and we should discuss that with Torsten - inviting him for the phonecon as well
 +
 
gronager: Fine - I don't have anything else on the agenda - aob, anyone?
 
gronager: Fine - I don't have anything else on the agenda - aob, anyone?
 +
 
ljocha: congratulations to your son  
 
ljocha: congratulations to your son  
 +
 
gronager: Thanks!
 
gronager: Thanks!
 +
 
ljocha: the first one?
 
ljocha: the first one?
 +
 
gronager: Nope number 3 - all boys
 
gronager: Nope number 3 - all boys
 +
 +
  
 
- 14:21 -
 
- 14:21 -
 +
 
gronager: OK - so long for now - talk to you at the phonecon!
 
gronager: OK - so long for now - talk to you at the phonecon!

Revision as of 14:26, 17 August 2010

- 13:59 -

gronager: Its 14

gronager: at least in Kastrup, DK

gronager: so lets start the meeting

gronager: I managed to send around an agenda

jens: A short one!

gronager: so... lets start with _the_ ticket

gronager: Ales - do you have anything to add on this ?

ljocha: it's difficult for me, wearing my double hat

gronager: could you elaborate (on the hat)

gronager: (hats even)

ljocha: the user requests a fix for a deprecated baseline, the fix _is_ already in the new one, and I know that EMI will not be very pleased to fix this in the old basline

gronager: so, what you say is that he requests support for sometihng unsupported

ljocha: on the other hand, I suspect the problem is with the "metapackage" (the RPM which contains nothing but dependencies) only. therefore we can make an easy workaround, just regenerate this empty RPM

ljocha: on unsupported -- this is sort of grey area

ljocha: the relationships with EMI are not strictly specified, I'm not sure what's the current level of support of glite 3.1


- 14:05 -

gronager: Question is if the deciding EGI organ for currently deployed stuff would like us to promote support for 3.1

ljocha: I've already emailed Zdenek Sustr, who is resposible for LB in EMI, what is his view, but he is on vacation.

gronager: or to encourage him to upgrade

jens: At least it's hard to call 3.1 deprecated when not all services are released in 3.2. Or perhaps they are now? I saw that FTS showed up not long ago.

ljocha: I thing they are not

gronager: OK, then I think we should provide him the fix, and note that it is not very nice to have these big chunks of releses (3.1, 3.2) of everything

gronager: So, something to note to the TCB: the middleware providers should release components, not tied to 3.1 / 3.2 etc - and ensure that components works with the currently deployed components...

gronager: otherwise we should switch to a monolith one rpm for everything and just install glite3.1 or 3.2

ljocha: this is not quite so. there are two major releases of glite, 3.1 and 3.2. components in each are independent but there are problems combining 3.1 and 3.2 ones, obviously

gronager: (and I mean a real rpm - not a pointer to a lot of stuff... - ugly it would indeed be...)

ljocha: the metapackage is LB, not entire glite ...

gronager: (I know...)


- 14:10 -

ljocha: there used to be (until glite 3.1) rather bad practice to put the dependencies into the metapackage, not into the real RPMs which require them

gronager: however, if we want to support a situation of two releases floating around, we need to support combinations as well

ljocha: this is cleaned up in 3.2

gronager: ok

jens: Combining 3.1 and 3.2 packages sound bad though. Noone wants to support that. You can't roll in CentOS4 packages on a CentOS 5 machine without getting pain.

gronager: I still, think we should provide him a fix, and deal with the policy around that at another level

ljocha: sure.

ljocha: I will try to repack glite-LB RPM (the metapackage) without the problematic voms-api-noglobus requirement.

ljocha: If it works, we can push it to EMI.

gronager: OK - great, and I will take a note on the policy of how to support these things...

ljocha: Btw, have we got a web site where to release such fixes?

gronager: I think you should notify mario

ljocha: OK

gronager: Next agenda point...

gronager: Awareness

gronager: So far the number of ticksets recieived has been quite low


- 14:15 -

gronager: I think it is more a result of unawareness and other practices than due to high quality-no-bugged middleware

gronager: I will contact Tiziana and Ron to ensure we get an improved awareness and to ask what the actual procedures are

gronager: I guess a phonecon would be good

gronager: will send out an invitation - great if some of you could join

Rebecca Breu: i'll be away the next week and the week after

gronager: OK...

ljocha: This is the top-down part of the activity. I'd also suggest push on rearrangement of the GGUS support units to reflect the current (theoretical) support structure

ljocha: I'm available for the phoneconf this and next week, in general.

gronager: Yes, I agree - and we should discuss that with Torsten - inviting him for the phonecon as well

gronager: Fine - I don't have anything else on the agenda - aob, anyone?

ljocha: congratulations to your son

gronager: Thanks!

ljocha: the first one?

gronager: Nope number 3 - all boys


- 14:21 -

gronager: OK - so long for now - talk to you at the phonecon!