From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KHvjt-0001DN-FP for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:11:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 735ECE03F9; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FBBE03E2; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:11:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-71-193-142-160.hsd1.or.comcast.net [71.193.142.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F6F6662E7; Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:11:18 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-dev-announce@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 10 July 2008 Message-ID: <20080713071118.GC1891@comet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 463c75f0-471f-40e5-8410-4c248db5f52a X-Archives-Hash: 018c7861fb1829364acbf21e13fac4ed --sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai" Content-Disposition: inline --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Here is the summary from Thursday's council meeting. The complete log=20 will show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly. --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="20080710-summary.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quick summary =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D GLEP 54: There were numerous questions that apparently were not brought=20 up on the mailing list in advance or were not addressed. GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be,=20 but that's unclear until it's been revised. GLEP 56: Approved. Cardoe will get repoman changes made, followed by a=20 server-side script to generate use.local.desc from=20 metadata.xml. The meeting wrapped up in under 1 hour again. We still need to work=20 harder to push more discussion and questions to the mailing list,=20 though. Topics =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D GLEP 54 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "A few questions to=20 our nominees" 4+ hours before the meeting. Last month:=20 dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e= 67d59cf85ea.xml lu_zero: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_05614741b3942bfdfb21fd8= ebb7955e0.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list=20 no later than July 17. dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for scm dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine dberkholz: In general I oppose adding things to EAPI 0 < lu_zero@> dberkholz problem: if you have -scm installed < lu_zero@> and then switch to a pm not knowing it < lu_zero@> you have a nice recipe for inconsistency < Halcy0n@> I would really like to see a list of features that we would= =20 end up having after implementing this GLEP. The GLEP= =20 mentions possible enhancements, but I'd like to see wha= t we=20 would have planned if we go forward with this change. < Halcy0n@> Well, it only mentions one enhancement, I'd like to see=20 what else we could do to judge if it is worth it. Halcy0n@> Betelgeuse: yes, I know there are some things we could do, but I'd like to see a more extensive list of possibilit= ies,=20 what are other possible ways of doing this (like a meta= data=20 tag for the ebuild), and why those other methods aren't= =20 sufficient. < dberkholz@> i think the point here is that the glep should address what= =20 made its implementation superior to other possible ones= ,=20 which it also describes < dberkholz@> ok, i've noted the issues raised here < dberkholz@> once they're address, the glep can be revised and we'll=20 consider it again Summary: Specific questions and requests are above. GLEP 55 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "GLEP 55" 4+ hours=20 before the meeting. Last month: dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e= 67d59cf85ea.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list=20 once we're ready. But I don't see the use of accepting it before we a)=20 Portage has something that would make use of it b) some= =20 other pkg manager is made official < Halcy0n@> So, can we vote on postponing a GLEP of this nature until=20 another glep requires such changes? Summary: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be,=20 but that's unclear until it's been revised. GLEP 56 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "[GLEP56] USE flag=20 descriptions in metadata" 4+ hours before the meeting. (Cardoe: Did the=20 requested updates ever get made?) Last month: dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_54ee20d2b1d8122370afd= d4b3d7aafc9.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list=20 no later than July 17, if requested changes are made. Requested changes were made:=20 http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-00= 56.txt?r1=3D1.1&r2=3D1.2 < Cardoe > Well the first step of making that portion happen is going=20 to be to add a check to repoman that if use.local.desc = is=20 not present in the repo, do new QA check. < Cardoe > Once that's in place that developers can use, then the=20 infra script will happen. < Cardoe > I've already discussed it with the Portage folks and the=20 infra folks. Summary: Approved. Roll call =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D (here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?) betelgeuse here dberkholz here dertobi123 here flameeyes here halcy0n here jokey here lu_zero here --t0UkRYy7tHLRMCai-- --sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkh5qpYACgkQXVaO67S1rttv9wCggT4dViyc9r5nhPFnBKjV5zsD 6MQAoJ8gzOBQCHJtzEUon7PNcZ2vYsOk =jnHd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sXc4Kmr5FA7axrvy-- -- gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list