[gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 460 bytes --]

1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
   Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?

2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation

3. Preservation of file modification times
   - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
   - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
     among PM developers on how to best approach this

4. Open discussion

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 647 bytes --]

On 2009.10.09 21:13, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
>    Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?
[snip]
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 
> 
Team,

Yes, it needs to be fixed.

Custom and practice dictates that the first agenda item is always 
actions from the last meeting.

If you want to be even more formal, you adopt the minutes of the last 
meeting as a full and accurate record. With modern devices like a 
verbatim log, thats probably a step too far.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) an member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ned Ludd]

On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 21:56 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2009.10.09 21:13, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > 1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
> >    Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?
> [snip] 


> Team,
> 
> Yes, it needs to be fixed.

Fixed? 
Actually it seems the council is split on if PMS was even worth keeping
around.


-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 313 bytes --]

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:32:24 -0700
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Actually it seems the council is split on if PMS was even worth
> keeping around.

Well, it would help if the Council could come to a decision on that,
before even more time's potentially wasted working on it.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 862 bytes --]

On 2009.10.09 22:32, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 21:56 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > On 2009.10.09 21:13, Petteri Räty wrote:
> > > 1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never
> happened.
> > >    Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?
> > [snip] 
> 
> 
> > Team,
> > 
> > Yes, it needs to be fixed.
> 
> Fixed? 
> Actually it seems the council is split on if PMS was even worth
> keeping
> around.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
> Gentoo Linux
> 
Ned,

I think we are talking at cross purposes. The general problem of 
actions from the last meeting not being followed up and/or lost needs 
to be fixed.

PMS is one example of that general problem, which I was commenting on.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) an member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:

> 3. Preservation of file modification times
>    - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
>    - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
>      among PM developers on how to best approach this

Actually, my request was more explicit:

If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it
should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]:

  A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved
  B: optional update of "old" mtimes
  C: mandatory update

Could you add this to the agenda please?

Ulrich

[1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26>

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Luca Barbato]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> 3. Preservation of file modification times
>>    - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
>>    - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
>>      among PM developers on how to best approach this
> 
> Actually, my request was more explicit:
> 
> If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it
> should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]:
> 
>   A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved
>   B: optional update of "old" mtimes
>   C: mandatory update
> 
> Could you add this to the agenda please?

I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote:

> I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it.

Quoting Zac from <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c31>:
| For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes.
| If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's
| taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary
| potential source of conflict.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ned Ludd]

On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 00:20 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Luca Barbato wrote:
> 
> > I'd just ask portage devs what is their take and go with it.
> 
> Quoting Zac from <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c31>:
> | For the record, I'm in favor of unconditional preservation of mtimes.
> | If the package manager assumes a role in changing mtimes then that's
> | taking control away from the ebuild and that seems like an unnecessary
> | potential source of conflict.
> 
> Ulrich

Luca's and Zac's comments work for me.

Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force in a
change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given syntax for
VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't really want to
open that can of worms.

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1534 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:54:18 -0700
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Luca's and Zac's comments work for me.
> 
> Either PMS seems to be about documenting ebuild syntax. If we force
> in a change for mtimes then it's no different than forcing a given
> syntax for VDB/binpkg handling etc. And I have a feeling we don't
> really want to open that can of worms.

Uhm. Two things.

First: this is not about existing syntax. Different Portage versions do
different things with mtimes, so currently ebuilds can't rely upon any
particular behaviour. The proposal is about standardising behaviour for
EAPI 3, which would allow EAPI 3 ebuilds to rely upon mtimes being
handled in a particular way. The previous Council rejected this
proposal, but Ulrich wants it reconsidered. If it is reconsidered, the
question is what behaviour we want to standardise. Going with "what
Portage does" is undesirable for two reasons -- first, it leads to
files with timestamps like 1 Jan 1970 being merged to /, and second,
it's undefined behaviour for any file that's modified by the package
manager (e.g. for stripping, fixing WORKDIR mentions, compressing docs,
repairing QA violations and so on -- there are currently no restrictions
on what a package manager can tidy up).

Second, VDB and binary packages have nothing to do with PMS.

If you just want to document "what Portage does", then PMS and EAPI 3
need no changes, since "what Portage does" depends upon what Portage
version you're using.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> Different Portage versions do different things with mtimes,

From bug 181021 I conclude that Portage preserves timestamps since
version 2.1.2.10, and 2.1.2.11 went stable in August 2007. That's more
than two years ago.

> so currently ebuilds can't rely upon any particular behaviour.

Show me _one_ user who is still using an older Portage version
(together with a current tree). ;-)

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 897 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:29:14 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Different Portage versions do different things with mtimes,
> 
> From bug 181021 I conclude that Portage preserves timestamps since
> version 2.1.2.10, and 2.1.2.11 went stable in August 2007. That's more
> than two years ago.

Which is well after the EAPI process started, and is thus covered by
the whole "no changes to behaviour on old EAPIs" thing.

It's also beside the point. EAPIs are about introducing new features,
so there's no reason we should go with whatever Portage happens to do
currently just because it's what Portage happens to do. Instead, we
should be going with "what's the best thing we can do when we
introduce this new feature?", and I have yet to see an explanation as to
why installing files with a 1 Jan 1970 timestamp is "the best thing we
can do".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> 3. Preservation of file modification times
>>    - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
>>    - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
>>      among PM developers on how to best approach this
> 
> Actually, my request was more explicit:
> 
> If the council accepts mtime preservation, decide which option it
> should be, as outlined in bug 264130 comment 26 [1]:
> 
>   A: current Portage and Pkgcore behaviour, all mtimes are preserved
>   B: optional update of "old" mtimes
>   C: mandatory update
> 
> Could you add this to the agenda please?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> [1] <http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26>
> 

1. Discuss why follow up for items from last meeting never happened.
   Should we do something to ensure this doesn't happen again?

2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation

3. Preservation of file modification times
   - ulm asked us to vote on it if EAPI 3 is not close to release
   - from the agenda thread there doesn't seem to be a consensus
     among PM developers on how to best approach this
   - If accepted vote on how to implement it
     * Possible approaches: http://bugs.gentoo.org/264130#c26

4. Open discussion

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Zac Medico]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> 2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation

I plan to work on it in the near future. I was putting it off until
the after 2.1.7 release was out, but that's done now. So, you can
expect to see some progress soon. There's a tracker bug here:

  http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273620
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for October meeting next Monday 2009-10-12

[Ned Ludd]

Thanks zac.


On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 23:08 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
> > 2. Progress report of EAPI 3 implementation
> 
> I plan to work on it in the near future. I was putting it off until
> the after 2.1.7 release was out, but that's done now. So, you can
> expect to see some progress soon. There's a tracker bug here:
> 
>   http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273620