[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Alec Warner]

On 01 Jun 2008 05:30:01, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
>  the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
>  (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
>  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
>  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
>  Gentoo dev list to see.

I would like the council to vote on whether --as-needed will be added
to gentoo by default or not.

>
>  Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
>  must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
>  before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
>  before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
>  notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.
>
>  For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
>  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>
> --
>  gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mart Raudsepp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1599 bytes --]

On P, 2008-06-01 at 05:30 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

I am still waiting on seeing any results or follow-ups on this:

        Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?
        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and 
        has no relationship to whether bugs are open.

        We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see 
        whether there's anything we can help improve.

        Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating 
        staffing-needs entry.

I still don't see any staffing needs entry or other methods to solve
this beyond declaring them as dev profiles which doesn't help with the
bugs, and I can't know if any effort has been underway for understanding
the workflow. Without an update, it gives the impression nothing has
been done, which I don't want to believe. I'd appreciate an update - not
necessarily as part of the council agenda, but perhaps just per mail,
with any discussions if any is necessary during the meeting.


-- 
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Developer
Mail: leio@gentoo.org
Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Raúl Porcel]

Requesting ~arch keywords: Is a maintainer able to request ~arch 
keywords, if the package is not a dependency of some other package which 
is keyworded, and the maintainer doesn't have that arch?

IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an user 
of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of said arch 
doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200
Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Requesting ~arch keywords: Is a maintainer able to request ~arch 
> keywords, if the package is not a dependency of some other package
> which is keyworded, and the maintainer doesn't have that arch?

Yes.  Last time I looked anyone could request a keyword.

> IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an
> user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of
> said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.

How is making things available to your users a waste of resources?
Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage
keywording another package then just say so and deny the request.

What does this have to do with council?

-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                               by design, by neglect
mips, treecleaner,                        for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Richard Freeman]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200
> Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an
>> user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of
>> said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.
> 
> How is making things available to your users a waste of resources?
> Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage
> keywording another package then just say so and deny the request.
> 

++

I'd like to comment that in theory a package maintainer should have a 
decent idea of what archs a particular package should work on.  I can't 
imagine that the vmware maintainers are going to be sending keyword 
requests to the sparc team...
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Alec Warner]

On 6/1/08, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200
> > Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an
> > > user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of
> > > said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.
> > >
> >
> > How is making things available to your users a waste of resources?
> > Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage
> > keywording another package then just say so and deny the request.
> >
> >
>
>  ++
>
>  I'd like to comment that in theory a package maintainer should have a
> decent idea of what archs a particular package should work on.  I can't
> imagine that the vmware maintainers are going to be sending keyword requests
> to the sparc team...

Contrary to your theory I think in the past this has proven to be
false; however I am not sure how often this was the case (eg. were
just a few maintainers overzeallous or did we have widespread
problems.)

>
>  --
>  gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Raúl Porcel]

Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200
> Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Requesting ~arch keywords: Is a maintainer able to request ~arch 
>> keywords, if the package is not a dependency of some other package
>> which is keyworded, and the maintainer doesn't have that arch?
> 
> Yes.  Last time I looked anyone could request a keyword.
> 
>> IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an
>> user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of
>> said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.
> 
> How is making things available to your users a waste of resources?
> Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage
> keywording another package then just say so and deny the request.
> 
> What does this have to do with council?
> 

And whats the point of having some package keyworded if nobody is going 
to use it?
I don't care anyway, i just want an official clarification, personally i 
tend to keyword stuff if i think its going to be useful.

Thing is, whats the difference in a maintainer asking for a package to 
be keyworded and keywording all the packages in the tree?
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Santiago M. Mola]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8, Size: 1474 bytes --]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:41:28 +0200
>> Raúl Porcel <armin76@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an
>>> user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of
>>> said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources.
>>
>> How is making things available to your users a waste of resources?
>> Anyways, if you're so far behind that you don't think you can manage
>> keywording another package then just say so and deny the request.
>>
>> What does this have to do with council?
>>
>
> And whats the point of having some package keyworded if nobody is going to
> use it?
> I don't care anyway, i just want an official clarification, personally i
> tend to keyword stuff if i think its going to be useful.
>
> Thing is, whats the difference in a maintainer asking for a package to be
> keyworded and keywording all the packages in the tree?

You're not going to be asked to keyword the whole tree, that's the
difference ;-)

I think we have not enough feedback from users about this. Either
Bugzilla is not the right tool, or we don't encourage users enough to
ask for keywords when they need them. Currently, some people assume
that "if a user from $arch needed this package, he'd have requested
keywords", but that's wrong.

Regards,
-- 
Santiago M. Mola
Jabber ID: cooldwind@gmail.com
éí¢‡^¾X¬¶È\x1ežÚ(¢¸&j)bž	b²

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Luca Barbato]

Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> I think we have not enough feedback from users about this. Either
> Bugzilla is not the right tool, or we don't encourage users enough to
> ask for keywords when they need them. Currently, some people assume
> that "if a user from $arch needed this package, he'd have requested
> keywords", but that's wrong.

Good point and probably a good start to find a decent solution about 
getting the stuff needed by user keyworded but not overwork arch teams.

Probably having 2-4 lines about this in the next newsletter could foster 
awareness.

Having a smarter repoman and bugzilla integration to handle 
stabilization and keyword bugs automagically would be great but I think 
would require time (since such bugs could spare the dev some trips 
around bugzie)

lu

-- 

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

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

Hi,

Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>:
> Probably having 2-4 lines about this in the next newsletter could
> foster awareness.

 All for it.  Will you write it?
 
> Having a smarter repoman and bugzilla integration to handle 
> stabilization and keyword bugs automagically would be great but I
> think would require time (since such bugs could spare the dev some
> trips around bugzie)

 I'd like to point to app-portage/gatt again which can automate a lot of
your everyday arch work.  At least two amd64 arch testers, ranger and
myself use it regularly.  <URL:http://gatt.sourceforge.net/> for
details (it is the manual, the examples section has some work-flow
snippets).

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

2009-06-01 07:30:01 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
> 
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

Please vote on:
* Temporary unlocking of list of features of EAPI="3"
* Allowing bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds
* Temporary disallowing of adding bash-4.0 features to ebuilds in
  gentoo-x86 repository until ${TIME:-1 month} has passed since
  stabilization of =app-shells/bash-4.0* on all architectures.

Details of this proposition were already discussed on:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fac31baaca8de3fb39ba6209fced9362.xml

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mounir Lamouri]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
> must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
> before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
> before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
> notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.
>
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
>   
Hi,

I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the
next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before
the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not
interesting so much people out there.

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml

Mounir

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Richard Freeman]

Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the
> next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before
> the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not
> interesting so much people out there.
> 

Why not make a definitive proposal so that the council doesn't just have 
to figure one out on the fly - that will probably lead to faster closure 
(and give people something to throw darts at if they hate it).  Here is 
a suggestion:

Default is ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA".

My intent isn't to divert the discussion into this thread (everybody who 
cares is reading the other one I'm sure).  However, the basic point is 
to propose one thing and then let everybody throw stones at it, so that 
they know what will happen if they don't complain.  If you word it 
appropriately nobody will be offended that you're proposing a solution.

Then the council can just look at the list and see no big flamewars and 
just approve it, rather than debating what it should actually be.

Also - I wouldn't consider it a negative thing that your proposal hasn't 
gotten as many replies as glep55.  You have proposed a small and 
(mostly) well-defined change to gentoo and if nobody complains then we 
should run with it!

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mounir Lamouri]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
Following Richard recommandation [1] I propose to vote for default
ACCEPT_LICENSE value sets to:
ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -@EULA"
with @EULA a license group including every licenses considered as EULA
which means needing approval by user. This is including most commercial
licenses. At least, every packages using check_license() from
eutils.eclass should have their license add in @EULA group license.

Why this default value ?
My initial post [2] mentioned 3 values. I choose the one I described the
worst because of issues reported. Indeed, Richard [3] reported he didn't
want to have a too restrictive value. This one is the less restrictive
we can have.
In addition, Ciaran McCreesh reported an issue with badly licensed
ebuilds like most X packages [4]. This issue was a blocker for a too
restrictive default value. With the proposed value, bad licensed
packages will not be blocked. At least, by default.

Setting this default value as soon as possible is the best compromise.
It will put this feature in portage and let people use it. Packages
needing user approval will be blocked and then fix bug 152593 [5]. In
addition, users setting ACCEPT_LICENSE to a more restrictive value will
help to catch bad licensed ebuilds by filing bugs. Finally, it is
removing a reason for interactiveness (via check_license()) into ebuilds.

This could be a first step for a new default value in the future (when
all licenses will be fixed).

So, may the council vote on this default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE ?

[1] can't find something in gmame nor in archives.g.o, you should add
the year after the "reminder for $month" ;)
[2]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml
[3]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f391139d825eb793cf0694add4f39d93.xml
[4]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml
[5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152593

Thanks,
Mounir

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 109 bytes --]

Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes
and Kloeri)?

Thanks,

Seemant

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Doty]

Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes
> and Kloeri)?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Seemant
uberlord replaced flameeyes the month after he left.

--taco
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:18 -0700, Mike Doty wrote:

> uberlord replaced flameeyes the month after he left.

duh @ me, sorry about that.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 257 bytes --]

On Saturday 02 June 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes
> and Kloeri)?

yes, we're planning on replacing kloeri in line with the decisions made last 
time (when Flameeyes left)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every *re*submission to the council for review must
first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before
being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the
meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at
least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 981 bytes --]

On Thursday 01 June 2006 13:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> Keep in mind that every *re*submission to the council for review must
> first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before
> being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the
> meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at
> least 14 days before the meeting itself.

I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on the list 
some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
> I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.

Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev
(<20060522172314.GB7577@dst.grantgoodyear.org>) that was either
overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people
considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which.  In any event, I just
want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative approach.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #1.2: glep-0049.rst --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2274 bytes --]

GLEP: xx
Title: Supporting alternative package managers
Version: $Revision: 1.3 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/11/13 17:16:50 $
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 22-May-2006

Abstract
========

To support alternatives to the official package manager (portage, at the
time of this writing), some sane ground rules need to be set.
Specifically, no alternative ebuild-based package manager may be added
to the tree unless it successfully works with all ebuilds supported by
the official package manager.  Moreover, no ebuilds may be added to the
tree unless they are supported (without change) by the official package 
manager.


Specification
=============

* No alternative ebuild-based package manager may be added
  to the tree unless it successfully works with all ebuilds supported by
  the official package manager.  If an alternative package manager is
  runtime incompatible with the official package manager, then it
  must be masked and provide appropriate warnings.
* No ebuilds may be added to the tree unless they are supported
  (without change) by the official package manager.

Rationale
=========

The first rule sets a reasonable bar for adding an alternative package
manager to the tree.  Note that if an ebuild currently in the tree
doesn't work with the official package manager, it isn't expected to
work with an alternative package manager either.  The second rule
ensures that an alternative package manager cannot become a de-facto
requirement by supporting packages that the official package manager
cannot handle.

In order to keep this proposal as simple and focused as possible, it has
nothing to say about the process by which an alternative package manager
might one day become the official package manager.  It is assumed that
sanity will reign, and no package manager will become official without
being able to build installation media, providing a transition path from
or to the existing official package manager, etcetera.

Backwards Compatibility
=======================

Pretty much the whole point, and it's explicit here.


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Marius Mauch]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:00:13 -0500
Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
> > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager
> > requirements.
> 
> Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev
> (<20060522172314.GB7577@dst.grantgoodyear.org>) that was either
> overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people
> considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which.  In any event, I just
> want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative
> approach.

Well, it's definitely better than the overengineered one by Paul.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 920 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
> > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.
> 
> Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev
> (<20060522172314.GB7577@dst.grantgoodyear.org>) that was either
> overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people
> considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which.  In any event, I just
> want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative approach.

Realize you'ure after keeping it open, but there is more to the tree 
then just ebuilds- 
1) what sparked it all: profiles
2) metadata/glsa,
3) version ordering between ebuilds (is 1.06 greater then 1.051?  
Answer might surprise you ;)

Etc- potential food for thought...
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Thomas Cort]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1038 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:10:04 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT]
> > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49
> > Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP
> Realize you'ure after keeping it open, but there is more to the tree 

I would like the council to nail down the details of what package
manager specific data can and cannot be put in gentoo-x86 as well as
what the requirements and process of replacing or providing an
alternative to portage will be. Getting the specifics down in writing
will avoid a lot of headaches down the road as non-portage package
managers mature. There are a lot of sides to this discussion, almost
all of the possible view points were expressed on gentoo-dev@g.o. All
of it is available in the mailing list archives for review, so I'm also
asking that the subscribers to gentoo-dev@.g.o please refrain from
starting another flamewar.

-tcort

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Stephen Bennett]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.

Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before
a GLEP is submitted to the council?
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1816 bytes --]

On Friday 02 June 2006 00:16, Stephen Bennett wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200
>
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on
> > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements.
>
> Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before
> a GLEP is submitted to the council?

Besides the fact that the GLEP is long (overengineered?) there is one main 
point of disagreement. That point is the requirement of primary package 
manager hosting. As shown by various council members, they also have their 
disagreements.

It should not be that all points have to be resolved before the council can 
take a look at a GLEP. Part of the job of the council is to make decisions, 
not just to rubberstamp things. I believe that currently all things 
concerning the GLEP have been discussed, so now it is time to get feedback 
from the council. I did not request a decision now. I requested the council 
to discuss the GLEP.

On another point, the overengineering. Writing a package manager requires a 
big investment in time. The GLEP is detailed in various points to allow 
package manager writers to know what they can expect in the future. This 
gives them a hard target to work with. I agree with grant that the council 
will let sanity prevail. I do however think that the decisions by the council 
at such a time could lead to disappointments on the part of people who have 
written a replacement package manager that is not accepted. In general the 
document is intended as a guideline for package manager writers that 
describes their place within gentoo.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1478 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.

As I requested in an earlier email, I would like it to be discussed how
we want to handle alternative package managers.  The GLEPs both touch on
the issue, but if neither of those proposals are liked, then we are
still left not knowing what to do.

Here is my original email:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/38231

As I said in my email, I want there to be a discussion (and hopefully a
decision) as to whether or not adding these packages to *our* tree is
best for us and our users.  In my opinion, it seems to make the most
sense for alternative package managers to be hosted on their own
infrastructure so they are free to introduce new features and write
ebuilds to take advantage of those features.

If it is required for me to be present at the meeting to discuss this (I
don't believe I have to be), then could whoever does the scheduling get
in touch with me, because it will be difficult for me to be here during
the day since I just started a new job.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1521 bytes --]

On Friday 02 June 2006 00:33, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> > vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> > Gentoo dev list to see.
>
> As I requested in an earlier email, I would like it to be discussed how
> we want to handle alternative package managers.  The GLEPs both touch on
> the issue, but if neither of those proposals are liked, then we are
> still left not knowing what to do.
>
> Here is my original email:
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/38231
>
> As I said in my email, I want there to be a discussion (and hopefully a
> decision) as to whether or not adding these packages to *our* tree is
> best for us and our users.  In my opinion, it seems to make the most
> sense for alternative package managers to be hosted on their own
> infrastructure so they are free to introduce new features and write
> ebuilds to take advantage of those features.
>
> If it is required for me to be present at the meeting to discuss this (I
> don't believe I have to be), then could whoever does the scheduling get
> in touch with me, because it will be difficult for me to be here during
> the day since I just started a new job.

I support this request, and in return am willing to incorporate suggestions by 
the council into my GLEP.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 200 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 519 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
> 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> irc.freenode.net) !

I've learned that the Gentoo Council meeting has been pushed to the
3rd Thursday of June - meaning 2006-06-15. At which time will the
meeting be held? 1900 UTC or 2000 UTC?

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 499 bytes --]

On Monday 12 June 2006 09:28, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
> > 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @
> > irc.freenode.net) !
>
> I've learned that the Gentoo Council meeting has been pushed to the
> 3rd Thursday of June - meaning 2006-06-15. At which time will the
> meeting be held? 1900 UTC or 2000 UTC?

1900 UTC (1400 EST)
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]