[gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[gentoo-dev] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 377 bytes --]

Good afternoon,

In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet again. 
Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a vote.

Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agenda items. Even if you have raised 
the issue on a mailing list before, please repeat it now to avoid it being missed.

Regards,
Tony V.

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2278 bytes --]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:42:27 +0000
"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@gentoo.org> wrote:

> In less than two weeks, on Tuesday January the 8th, the council will meet again. 
> Now is the time to prepare & raise items that you feel should be put to a vote.
> 
> Please reply to this e-mail with any suggested agenda items. Even if you have raised 
> the issue on a mailing list before, please repeat it now to avoid it being missed.

I'd like the Council to raise the topic of using stable USE masks
in gx86 tree.

The issue is that Python packages have USE-conditional (PYTHON_TARGETS)
dependencies upon new, unstable Python versions. Therefore,
if a particular package is to be stabilized, the relevant USE flags have
to be masked (or removed) in order to fulfill the dependencies
on a stable system.

Currently we're resolving this through using two revisions
for a package, one with the relevant flags removed (going stable)
and a newer one with all flags enabled. However, this is very
inconvenient for us.

EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files
require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it
we would have to actually break the update path for older portage
versions completely.

I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly
resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be
addressed but no real ideas.

I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short:

a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
use.stable.mask files in those profiles.

b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable
users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally
and unmasking in those profiles.

c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles
EAPI.

I have also opened bug 447090 [2] in order to try to get some feedback
on b) but nobody bothered to answer.

[1]:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/81877
[2]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=447090

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
> 
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
> 
> b) adding new profiles (with current EAPIs) and requesting our unstable
> users to migrate to them. Masking the relevant USE flags globally
> and unmasking in those profiles.
> 
> c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of profiles
> EAPI.
> 

As the original proponent of the .stable.mask files, I'd recommend solution 
c). This is what I intended to achieve in the beginning; I accepted to place 
this into a new profile EAPI after I saw no chance of it going into PMS 
otherwise. 

According to PMS, profile directories may contain files not recognized by the 
package manager. A package manager that does not understand the stable.mask 
files will thus -if PMS-compliant- just ignore them.

Solutions a) and b) have the big disadvantage that you will never ever be able 
to use the stable.mask files in the main profile directory or the base profile 
(since there the main profile EAPI setting will apply also in the future). 
Other disadvantages have also been discussed.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 315 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:37 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of
> profiles EAPI.

So what EAPI would be used to parse use.stable.mask?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Zac Medico]

On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files
> require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it
> we would have to actually break the update path for older portage
> versions completely.

So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to
"break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with
deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor
involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set <target>`.

> I have tried to raise the topic on the mailing list [1] but it mostly
> resulted in some people agreeing that it is an issue that should be
> addressed but no real ideas.
> 
> I have come up with three possible solutions myself. Long story short:
> 
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.

This was my plan all along, and seems perfectly reasonable to me.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:56:47 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:37:37 +0100
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > c) 'fixing' the use.stable.mask feature and wording it in such a way
> > that it would apply to EAPI 5 (or 6) packages independently of
> > profiles EAPI.
> 
> So what EAPI would be used to parse use.stable.mask?

I'd say profiles EAPI, to be consistent. Not that it makes any
difference in gx86.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:41:08 -0800
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 12/27/2012 05:37 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > EAPI 5 provides use.stable.mask files to solve this but those files
> > require profiles to be EAPI 5. Therefore, in order to be able to use it
> > we would have to actually break the update path for older portage
> > versions completely.
> 
> So, adding new profiles and deprecating the old ones is considered to
> "break the update path for older versions"? I don't a problem with
> deprecating profiles and forcing users to switch. The only manual labor
> involved could be `emerge -1 portage && eselect profile set <target>`.

No, breaking the update path was about going EAPI=5 in the base
profiles. But at some point I think we'd deprecate and remove the old
profiles anyway.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
> 

OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through. After all we have some 
sort of basic versioning present in the profiles (the 10.0 part that makes no 
sense otherwise).
[Note: this does not cover prefix profiles, BSD and other oddities. Need 
special treatment.]

1) Define a new set of profiles by copying the current ones, and replacing the 
10.0 parent by a 13.0 parent. Only differences between 10.0 and 13.0:
* the EAPI, now 5, 
* e.g. an additional parent profiles/base5 (for global stable mask files)

2) Deprecate the 10.0 profiles NOW by removing them from profiles.desc and 
putting the new 13.0 profiles there. This has absolutely no effect on running 
installations.

3) Make a news item about removal of 10.0 profiles in a year / ${TIMESCALE}.

4) One ${TIMESCALE} later, remove 10.0 profiles. This is the ugly part, and 
users need to be warned and prepared properly - here everyone needs an EAPI5 
capable portage.

5) Since now all existing profiles require EAPI 5, move that requirement to 
the profile root directory.

Comments?

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Zac Medico]

On 12/27/2012 03:40 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
>>
>> a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
>> users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
>> use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
>>
> 
> OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through. After all we have some 
> sort of basic versioning present in the profiles (the 10.0 part that makes no 
> sense otherwise).
> [Note: this does not cover prefix profiles, BSD and other oddities. Need 
> special treatment.]
> 
> 1) Define a new set of profiles by copying the current ones, and replacing the 
> 10.0 parent by a 13.0 parent. Only differences between 10.0 and 13.0:
> * the EAPI, now 5, 
> * e.g. an additional parent profiles/base5 (for global stable mask files)
> 
> 2) Deprecate the 10.0 profiles NOW by removing them from profiles.desc and 
> putting the new 13.0 profiles there. This has absolutely no effect on running 
> installations.

It's not strictly necessary to remove them from profiles.desc, since
repoman ignores them if they have a 'deprecated' file, and emerge warns
any users who have a deprecated profile selected.

> 3) Make a news item about removal of 10.0 profiles in a year / ${TIMESCALE}.
> 
> 4) One ${TIMESCALE} later, remove 10.0 profiles. This is the ugly part, and 
> users need to be warned and prepared properly - here everyone needs an EAPI5 
> capable portage.
> 
> 5) Since now all existing profiles require EAPI 5, move that requirement to 
> the profile root directory.
> 
> Comments?
> 

Sounds good to me.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1369 bytes --]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 00:40:24 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, 27. Dezember 2012, 14:37:37 schrieb Michał Górny:
> >
> > a) adding new profiles which will require EAPI=5 and requiring all
> > users to migrate to them after upgrading portage. Using new
> > use.stable.mask files in those profiles.
> > 
> 
> OK here's one way how we could pull option a) through. After all we have some 
> sort of basic versioning present in the profiles (the 10.0 part that makes no 
> sense otherwise).
> [Note: this does not cover prefix profiles, BSD and other oddities. Need 
> special treatment.]
> 
> 1) Define a new set of profiles by copying the current ones, and replacing the 
> 10.0 parent by a 13.0 parent. Only differences between 10.0 and 13.0:
> * the EAPI, now 5, 
> * e.g. an additional parent profiles/base5 (for global stable mask files)

I'm attaching a quickly-made inheritance graph for a current amd64
desktop profile. Could you please point out where exactly the new
profiles would be?

I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile,
and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can
see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile,
and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #1.2: amd-desktop.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 9755 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.3: amd-desktop.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 68465 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1240 bytes --]

Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 11:19:23 schrieb Michał Górny:
> 
> I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile,
> and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can
> see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile,
> and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly?

[see also attached modified graphs]

The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional directory 
base5, which contains eapi=5, the stable mask files and nothing else.

After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile 
directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted. 

During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0 
profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional 
useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against non-
deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path.

[Given the position in the depgraph, maybe a different name instead of base5 
would make sense. I just wanted to stick to the description from the last e-
mail.]

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #1.2: amd-desktop.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 82857 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #1.3: amd-desktop.svg --]
[-- Type: image/svg+xml, Size: 19044 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 19:06:02 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 11:19:23 schrieb Michał Górny:
> > 
> > I don't think we can really avoid having the current 'base' profile,
> > and I don't think that we should even try doing that. As far as I can
> > see, the idea would be to mask the flags completely in base profile,
> > and unmask in *stable.mask files. Do I get it correctly?
> 
> [see also attached modified graphs]
> 
> The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional directory 
> base5, which contains eapi=5, the stable mask files and nothing else.
> 
> After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile 
> directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted. 
> 
> During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0 
> profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional 
> useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against non-
> deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path.

Well, I guess it's acceptable. I think it's fine assuming that stable
users don't enable flags relevant to packages not being stable.

> [Given the position in the depgraph, maybe a different name instead of base5 
> would make sense. I just wanted to stick to the description from the last e-
> mail.]

I agree.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 20:03:49 schrieben Sie:
> > The idea would be *for the transition period*: have an additional
> > directory
> > base5, which contains eapi=5, the stable mask files and nothing else.
> > 
> > After the transition period, these files are merged into the main profile
> > directory, the base5 directory is removed from inheritance and deleted.
> > 
> > During the transition period, an old installation using deprecated 10.0
> > profile will "not see the stable mask files", which means the additional
> > useflag restrictions are just not enforced. Repoman will check against
> > non-
> > deprecated profiles, which means it uses the 13.0 path.
> 
> Well, I guess it's acceptable. I think it's fine assuming that stable
> users don't enable flags relevant to packages not being stable.

OK then unless someone brings up valid points against this, let's suggest for 
the upcoming meeting that Council decides 

* whether to implement solution a) as discussed in preceeding e-mails
* and if yes, how long the waiting time between deprecation of 10.0 and 
removal of 10.0 shall be.

[Alternative name for the eapi-5 directory: eapi5-base instead of base5 ?]

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Bad GPG key

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Why is your signature suddenly bad? It verifies in your 19:06 (GMT+1)
submission to gentoo-dev, but not in the most recent one -- 20:24 (GMT+1).

- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlDd8xUACgkQRtClrXBQc7VnPgD/dW6G8dEnSL5n8S+z/3k4PlTl
k3XmuGy+ACbwR7mxdg4A/32aKt/8qFeRlaQls4gTrIZ6yXNSbzoFFrdx0z1HAjtO
=WP4X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bad GPG key

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 28/12/12 20:29, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> Why is your signature suddenly bad? It verifies in your 19:06
> (GMT+1) submission to gentoo-dev, but not in the most recent one --
> 20:24 (GMT+1).
> 
> 
Sorry. this was for Andreas, and should be to him directly not the
list... so feel free to answer me directly.
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@plaimi.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlDd83IACgkQRtClrXBQc7WojAD/esfB4mvw2xFiEJrPnaMNs6Fk
pCX8iEVW23wTo50lgLIBAJyAPzlKLb8b+He3jeot0v8iJSP0+T7iLz+J3ve/J2Cv
=qfkp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Bad GPG key

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]


Known kmail bug imho. :(
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=306005

Am Freitag, 28. Dezember 2012, 20:29:25 schrieb Alexander Berntsen:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Why is your signature suddenly bad? It verifies in your 19:06 (GMT+1)
> submission to gentoo-dev, but not in the most recent one -- 20:24 (GMT+1).
> 
> - --
> Alexander
> alexander@plaimi.net
> http://plaimi.net/~alexander
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iF4EAREIAAYFAlDd8xUACgkQRtClrXBQc7VnPgD/dW6G8dEnSL5n8S+z/3k4PlTl
> k3XmuGy+ACbwR7mxdg4A/32aKt/8qFeRlaQls4gTrIZ6yXNSbzoFFrdx0z1HAjtO
> =WP4X
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Ben Kohler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>wrote:

> 2) Deprecate the 10.0 profiles NOW by removing them from profiles.desc and
> putting the new 13.0 profiles there. This has absolutely no effect on
> running
> installations.
>
> 3) Make a news item about removal of 10.0 profiles in a year /
> ${TIMESCALE}.
>
> 4) One ${TIMESCALE} later, remove 10.0 profiles. This is the ugly part, and
> users need to be warned and prepared properly - here everyone needs an
> EAPI5
> capable portage.
>

This seems like a great time to deprecate & remove the unmaintained server
profile target, as has been previously discussed.  Is this doable or is
that another issue to be tackled another day?

-Ben Kohler

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1147 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2013-01-08

[Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 529 bytes --]

On Fri, 2012-12-28 at 21:05 -0600, Ben Kohler wrote:
> This seems like a great time to deprecate & remove the unmaintained
> server profile target, as has been previously discussed.  Is this
> doable or is that another issue to be tackled another day?

I would not attach it to this bill just before the vote, no. It reminds
me too much of how things are done in more corrupt environments. By all
means raise it, but separately.
And make sure that the discussion on it on -dev has died down please.

Regards,
Tony V.

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

[gentoo-dev] Preliminary agenda -- Council meeting 2013-02-12

[Tony "Chainsaw" Vroon]

Good evening,

Please note the preliminary agenda for the February 12 council meeting, to
be held at 20:00 UTC. If you are appointing a proxy to attend in your
stead, please make this known at least two hours before the meeting
starts.

1) Roll call.
2) Open bug(s) with council involvement.
For bug #383467 to be closed, the master ballots for 2011 & 2012 will
need to be uploaded & linked.
3) Any other business from council members.
4) Open floor; input from the wider community.
5) Close of meeting; draft summary to be sent.

Regards,
Tony V.