[gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Anthony G. Basile]

Hi everyone,

The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
agenda items.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2923 bytes --]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
> agenda items.

In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):

1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still
hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with
reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this
separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it
approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
repository.

2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
(preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can
kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer,
leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes
sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and
different behavior will only increase confusion.

3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to
do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I
think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of
my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
versions implicitly.

4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip
localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first
step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming
the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something
else, plus a news item.

5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's
going to end up going to the Council anyway.

I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you
know.


[1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
[2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683
[3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
[4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
[5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
[6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
[7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
[8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff
[9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82
[10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3379 bytes --]

Hello,

Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would
like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I would
like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, and I
wish you re-election.


On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
> > agenda items.  
> 
> In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):
> 
> 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still
> hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with
> reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this
> separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it
> approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
> approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
> repository.
> 
> 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
> the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
> patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
> (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can
> kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
> undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer,
> leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes
> sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and
> different behavior will only increase confusion.
> 
> 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to
> do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I
> think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of
> my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
> versions implicitly.
> 
> 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip
> localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first
> step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming
> the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something
> else, plus a news item.
> 
> 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's
> going to end up going to the Council anyway.
> 
> I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you
> know.
> 
> 
> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
> [2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683
> [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
> [4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
> [5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
> [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
> [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
> [8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff
> [9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82
> [10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576
> 



-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Raymond Jennings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3783 bytes --]

I think the demise or replacement of the sunrise project should be put on
the agenda possibly.  This is not anything official, just a hopefully
helpful suggestion.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would
> like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I would
> like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, and I
> wish you re-election.
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
> > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
> > > agenda items.
> >
> > In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):
> >
> > 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still
> > hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with
> > reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this
> > separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it
> > approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
> > approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
> > repository.
> >
> > 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
> > the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
> > patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
> > (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can
> > kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
> > undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer,
> > leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes
> > sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and
> > different behavior will only increase confusion.
> >
> > 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to
> > do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I
> > think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of
> > my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
> > versions implicitly.
> >
> > 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip
> > localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first
> > step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming
> > the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something
> > else, plus a news item.
> >
> > 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's
> > going to end up going to the Council anyway.
> >
> > I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you
> > know.
> >
> >
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
> > [2]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683
> > [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
> > [4]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
> > [5]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
> > [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
> > [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
> > [8]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff
> > [9]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82
> > [10]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5821 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3819 bytes --]

On 06/10/2016 02:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would
> like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I would
> like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, and I
> wish you re-election.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
>> "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
>>> agenda items.  
>>
>> In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):
>>
>> 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still
>> hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with
>> reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this
>> separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it
>> approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
>> approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
>> repository.
>>
>> 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
>> the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
>> patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
>> (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can
>> kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
>> undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer,
>> leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes
>> sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and
>> different behavior will only increase confusion.
>>
>> 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to
>> do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I
>> think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of
>> my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
>> versions implicitly.
>>
>> 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip
>> localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first
>> step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming
>> the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something
>> else, plus a news item.
>>
>> 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's
>> going to end up going to the Council anyway.
>>
>> I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you
>> know.
>>
>>
>> [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
>> [2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683
>> [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
>> [4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
>> [5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
>> [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
>> [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
>> [8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff
>> [9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82
>> [10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576
>>
> 
> 
> 
I can understand wanting to avoid a conflict of interest, but I really
don't see the trouble in suggesting your ideas hit the agenda. The
council can always choose "we don't want to decide on this yet". At
least, that's what I understand.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 11-06-2016 a las 03:35 -0700, Daniel Campbell escribió:
> On 06/10/2016 02:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would
> > like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I
> > would
> > like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time,
> > and I
> > wish you re-election.
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
> > > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi everyone,
> > > > 
> > > > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call
> > > > for any
> > > > agenda items.  
> > > In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):
> > > 
> > > 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It
> > > still
> > > hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready
> > > with
> > > reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss
> > > this
> > > separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think
> > > having it
> > > approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
> > > approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
> > > repository.
> > > 
> > > 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
> > > the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
> > > patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
> > > (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way
> > > we can
> > > kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
> > > undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and
> > > newer,
> > > leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really
> > > makes
> > > sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already,
> > > and
> > > different behavior will only increase confusion.
> > > 
> > > 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally
> > > wanted to
> > > do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far,
> > > I
> > > think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key
> > > point of
> > > my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
> > > versions implicitly.
> > > 
> > > 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly
> > > strip
> > > localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the
> > > first
> > > step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is
> > > renaming
> > > the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally
> > > something
> > > else, plus a news item.
> > > 
> > > 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect
> > > it's
> > > going to end up going to the Council anyway.
> > > 
> > > I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let
> > > you
> > > know.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
> > > [2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf
> > > 60d4d4aef97df6e683
> > > [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
> > > [4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a1
> > > 34d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
> > > [5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6
> > > bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
> > > [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
> > > [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
> > > [8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e53
> > > 4fd9bc1146703c66ff
> > > [9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30
> > > abb9f9d21d205b7b82
> > > [10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad37024811
> > > 8c474a0d819fa7f3576
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> I can understand wanting to avoid a conflict of interest, but I
> really
> don't see the trouble in suggesting your ideas hit the agenda. The
> council can always choose "we don't want to decide on this yet". At
> least, that's what I understand.
> 

Yeah, I also fail to see what is wrong with suggesting the items for
the agenda... is not that the purpose of this call? Or maybe I am
missing some replies to the thread :|

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I also fail to see what is wrong with suggesting the items for
> the agenda... is not that the purpose of this call? Or maybe I am
> missing some replies to the thread :|
>

I'm not entirely sure I've caught everything going on based on reactions/etc.

But, to answer your question generally (I'm not specifically referring
to the topics mgorny raised):

Anybody can ask the council to discuss anything at the meetings.  Note
that the purpose of the council isn't to micromanage everything in
Gentoo, and in general we like to try to build consensus and seek
input before we just hand down decisions.  This allows everybody to
have their say and it is foolish to disregard the expertise of those
who don't happen to be on the council.  I think having a forum to
formally air opinions but leave with decisions and not endless debate
is one of the main value-adds of the council.

So, if somebody suggests a topic that isn't entirely ripe for a
decision most likely the council is probably going to try to trigger
some list discussion to get it there if that is reasonable, and if not
it will probably just air some opinions and try to offer some advice
on what still needs to be done.  There is never harm in asking the
council to get involved, but if a council agenda item is the first
time a topic comes up, don't be surprised if you don't leave with
something resembling a final decision.

This is of course how this council has generally operated and future
councils are free to operate differently, though I'd generally say
that this sort of approach has worked really well for the last few
years IMO.  In the end it is really the individuals behind initiatives
who have the power to make them happen.  The council functions best
when it is opening up the way for individuals to scratch their itch
and not just handing down "unfunded mandates."

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2681 bytes --]

On 06/11/2016 06:18 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I also fail to see what is wrong with suggesting the items for
>> the agenda... is not that the purpose of this call? Or maybe I am
>> missing some replies to the thread :|
>>
> 
> I'm not entirely sure I've caught everything going on based on reactions/etc.
> 
> But, to answer your question generally (I'm not specifically referring
> to the topics mgorny raised):
> 
> Anybody can ask the council to discuss anything at the meetings.  Note
> that the purpose of the council isn't to micromanage everything in
> Gentoo, and in general we like to try to build consensus and seek
> input before we just hand down decisions.  This allows everybody to
> have their say and it is foolish to disregard the expertise of those
> who don't happen to be on the council.  I think having a forum to
> formally air opinions but leave with decisions and not endless debate
> is one of the main value-adds of the council.
> 
> So, if somebody suggests a topic that isn't entirely ripe for a
> decision most likely the council is probably going to try to trigger
> some list discussion to get it there if that is reasonable, and if not
> it will probably just air some opinions and try to offer some advice
> on what still needs to be done.  There is never harm in asking the
> council to get involved, but if a council agenda item is the first
> time a topic comes up, don't be surprised if you don't leave with
> something resembling a final decision.
> 
> This is of course how this council has generally operated and future
> councils are free to operate differently, though I'd generally say
> that this sort of approach has worked really well for the last few
> years IMO.  In the end it is really the individuals behind initiatives
> who have the power to make them happen.  The council functions best
> when it is opening up the way for individuals to scratch their itch
> and not just handing down "unfunded mandates."
> 
That's pretty much the way I understood it. As you said, the council
seems to have been run that way for the past few years.

I like that approach, because it gives everyone some pause and gives
other perspectives a chance to percolate. Based on what I've read in
past council discussions, the council is likely to have 'the full
picture' in mind and can often point out weaknesses in proposals, which
can only help them in the long run.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]