[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 596 bytes --]

All,

In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.  This is
the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
agenda to vote on.

Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of March
2012, by the chairman of the next meeting, betelgeuse.

Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> All,
> 
> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.  This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of March
> 2012, by the chairman of the next meeting, betelgeuse.
> 
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> 

Should cross-compile support (as implemented in multilib-portage) be
added to EAPI-5?

If yes: please define a timeline for EAPI-5, especially the timeframe
for feature suggestions, so there is some sort of route to get this finished

if no: please define the requirements to have it added to EAPI-5

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Matt Turner]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>> All,
>>
>> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.  This is
>> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
>> agenda to vote on.
>>
>> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
>> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
>> suggested one (since the last meeting).
>>
>> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of March
>> 2012, by the chairman of the next meeting, betelgeuse.
>>
>> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
>>
>>
>
> Should cross-compile support (as implemented in multilib-portage) be
> added to EAPI-5?
>
> If yes: please define a timeline for EAPI-5, especially the timeframe
> for feature suggestions, so there is some sort of route to get this finished
>
> if no: please define the requirements to have it added to EAPI-5

This would be super useful.

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 241 bytes --]

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:48:01 +0100
Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Should cross-compile support (as implemented in multilib-portage) be
> added to EAPI-5?

Has anyone come up with a specification yet?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Francesco Riosa]

2012/2/28 Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org>:
> All,
>
> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.  This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to vote on.
>
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
>
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of March
> 2012, by the chairman of the next meeting, betelgeuse.
>
I'm not sure it's council material but it could be;
Proposal to change the environment variables to achieve a utf-8 gentoo
by default.
It has been discussed in a thread "LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 by default" [1],
some concerns have been expressed and some solution proposed, however
there is no explicit consensus.
If you're interested I can try to sum that thread up [2] and possibly
do some research on the matter.

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2ffb7ea72e6209439600c371f6fc071d.xml
[2] be warned my summries may confuse more than a whole thread but
will try anyway

Francesco R.

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1348 bytes --]

On 29-02-2012 22:08:17 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> I'm not sure it's council material but it could be;
> Proposal to change the environment variables to achieve a utf-8 gentoo
> by default.
> It has been discussed in a thread "LANG=en_GB.UTF-8 by default" [1],
> some concerns have been expressed and some solution proposed, however
> there is no explicit consensus.
> If you're interested I can try to sum that thread up [2] and possibly
> do some research on the matter.

I think that discussion can be split into
1) if a UTF-8 profile should be set as default, and
2) what UTF-8 profile that would be

Just to give some hints/ideas here:
For 1), for many people it's a waste, and it's not POSIX (== C IIRC), so
should we really do that.  Also, how about this changing default for
existing systems.  Why not update the docs to strongly suggest to set an
UTF-8 profile instead.
Then, 2) is almost moot.  If you would default to an UTF-8 profile, I
think the only sensical option is en_US.UTF-8 (not en_GB).  However, if
you only strongly suggest in the installation docs, you can get away
from this problem, since the user has to choose his/her preference in
that case anyway.  Just a note that leaving en_US.UTF-8 always in is a
good idea would suffice, I guess.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Alexey Shvetsov]

Fabian Groffen писал 2012-02-29 00:11:
> All,
>
> In less than two weeks from now, the council will meet again.  This 
> is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on 
> the
> agenda to vote on.
>
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not 
> hestitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
>
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of 
> March
> 2012, by the chairman of the next meeting, betelgeuse.
>
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.

Hi all!

Not sure if its for council.

Define timeframe for cvs->git migration. Technical issues almount 
finished
1. Thin manifests already in portage
2. Git commit signing already there (if git-1.7.9 will be keyworded due 
to issue with svn 1.7 [git-svn functionality with SVN 1.7 if your
   SVN repo URL, branch name or tag names contains characters that need 
URL escaping])

-- 
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:45:40AM +0300, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> Not sure if its for council.
I don't think it's suitable for council, but it does need more
discussion than it's been getting on the scm list.

> Define timeframe for cvs->git migration. Technical issues almount 
> finished
> 1. Thin manifests already in portage
> 2. Git commit signing already there (if git-1.7.9 will be keyworded due 
> to issue with svn 1.7 [git-svn functionality with SVN 1.7 if your
>    SVN repo URL, branch name or tag names contains characters that need 
> URL escaping])
Do you have a fix for the Git SVN 1.7 problem then?

Other items not included in the above, that we need some agreement on.
- Initial tree state:
  Single commit, signed by me, with a graft of history available as a
  separate download (it's ~1200MB) . This ensures that all of the
  history is available AND that the usual downloads for developers are
  very small.
  Alternatively, how much history should we include in the base
  download?
- Log generation
- Potentially dropping Changelogs in Git (generate
  shortly during rsync tree generation?)
- Merge policies
  This is the hardest political topic.
  Do we force users to rebase before they push to the tree?
  Before you say yes, of course, there is a catch:
  If the user publishes their work in MORE than one place, and does push
  to remote A/master, pull from remote B/master, rebase master on
  B/master, push to remote B/master. Now what do they do about the state
  of remote A? They _HAVE_ to either have a merge of A/master, or
  destroy the history at A/master with a forced push.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Fabian Groffen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 365 bytes --]

On 01-03-2012 09:00:58 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - Potentially dropping Changelogs in Git (generate
>   shortly during rsync tree generation?)

The council has discussed that previously, and the conclusion was not to
do this.  I don't see any reason to reopen this discussion again at the
moment.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]


> I think that discussion can be split into
> 1) if a UTF-8 profile should be set as default, and
> 2) what UTF-8 profile that would be

> Just to give some hints/ideas here:
> For 1), for many people it's a waste, and 

I'd like to debate that- even if you are a plain en_USamerican, you are bound 
to receive some text files eventually using a bit more characters. Maybe even 
in the filenames...

> it's not POSIX (== C IIRC), so
> should we really do that.  

Well new standards are made to replace or enhance old ones.

> Also, how about this changing default for
> existing systems.  

That's not an issue if we just change the preset in install stages.

> Then, 2) is almost moot.  If you would default to an UTF-8 profile, I
> think the only sensical option is en_US.UTF-8 (not en_GB). 

Right.

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Fabian Groffen wrote:

> I think that discussion can be split into
> 1) if a UTF-8 profile should be set as default, and
> 2) what UTF-8 profile that would be

> Just to give some hints/ideas here:

> For 1), for many people it's a waste, and it's not POSIX (== C
> IIRC), so should we really do that.  Also, how about this changing
> default for existing systems.  Why not update the docs to strongly
> suggest to set an UTF-8 profile instead.

We shouldn't set LANG to anything else than POSIX (or C), otherwise
there will be undesired side effects affecting for example number
formatting, collating sequence, units of measurement, and paper size.

If we change the default, we should use a less intrusive approach and
change LC_CTYPE only, which is the relevant variable that controls the
character encoding functions.

> Then, 2) is almost moot.  If you would default to an UTF-8 profile,
> I think the only sensical option is en_US.UTF-8 (not en_GB).
> However, if you only strongly suggest in the installation docs, you
> can get away from this problem, since the user has to choose his/her
> preference in that case anyway.  Just a note that leaving
> en_US.UTF-8 always in is a good idea would suffice, I guess.

I agree that en_*.UTF-8 is a reasonable setting. I think for LC_CTYPE
it doesn't even matter if it's en_US or en_GB.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
>
> If we change the default, we should use a less intrusive approach
> and change LC_CTYPE only, which is the relevant variable that
> controls the character encoding functions.

LC_CTYPE will affect transliteration too. Introducing a C.UTF-8 (or
POSIX.UTF-8) locale like Debian did could be done without possibly
subjecting users to unexpected transliteration results of e.g.
Cyrillic or German umlauts.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Camille Huot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 727 bytes --]

A posix/utf8 combination that wouldn't break anything is perfect.
Furthermore if Debian already did it.
On Mar 1, 2012 12:15 PM, "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@gentoo.org>
wrote:

> Ulrich Mueller schrieb:
> >
> > If we change the default, we should use a less intrusive approach
> > and change LC_CTYPE only, which is the relevant variable that
> > controls the character encoding functions.
>
> LC_CTYPE will affect transliteration too. Introducing a C.UTF-8 (or
> POSIX.UTF-8) locale like Debian did could be done without possibly
> subjecting users to unexpected transliteration results of e.g.
> Cyrillic or German umlauts.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1012 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> wrote:
> For 1), for many people it's a waste, and it's not POSIX (== C IIRC), so
> should we really do that.  Also, how about this changing default for
> existing systems.  Why not update the docs to strongly suggest to set an
> UTF-8 profile instead.

If we do go with the update-the-docs approach, perhaps we should
consider still including a locale file in env.d, explicitly set the
default there, and then have the UTF-8 entries (perhaps a few common
ones) commented out in that file?  Then changing to utf-8 is just a
matter of swapping the comment marks.

That at least standardizes the approach taken for new installs and is
more instructive.  We already do something similar with locale.gen.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Roy Bamford]

On 2012.03.01 10:29, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
[snip]
> 
> I agree that en_*.UTF-8 is a reasonable setting. I think for LC_CTYPE
> it doesn't even matter if it's en_US or en_GB.
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> 

Team,

As an Englishman, it hurts to say it but for consistencys sake it needs 
to be en_US.

Everything else I can think of uses American as a default. Xorg, 
console keymaps, even ls --colour fails.

-- 
Regards,

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Francesco Riosa]

2012/3/1 Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>:
> On 2012.03.01 10:29, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I agree that en_*.UTF-8 is a reasonable setting. I think for LC_CTYPE
>> it doesn't even matter if it's en_US or en_GB.
>>
>> Ulrich
>>
>>
>
> Team,
>
> As an Englishman, it hurts to say it but for consistencys sake it needs
> to be en_US.
>
> Everything else I can think of uses American as a default. Xorg,
> console keymaps, even ls --colour fails.

It hurt to say I do always underestimate pills of humor I (try to)
insert in emails.
At the time of the first post I didn't knew of a C.utf-8 possibility
(or that would have been my choice) but otherwise the most logical is
en_US.

Another thing I do really don't know yet is how this reflect on
file-system paths.
File system is safe because it's encoding agnostic, it eats all but \0
and "/" right?
But how do applications react to a change in the LC_* variables?

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Alexey Shvetsov]

Francesco Riosa писал 2012-03-02 00:49:
> 2012/3/1 Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@gentoo.org>:
>> On 2012.03.01 10:29, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> I agree that en_*.UTF-8 is a reasonable setting. I think for 
>>> LC_CTYPE
>>> it doesn't even matter if it's en_US or en_GB.
>>>
>>> Ulrich
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Team,
>>
>> As an Englishman, it hurts to say it but for consistencys sake it 
>> needs
>> to be en_US.
>>
>> Everything else I can think of uses American as a default. Xorg,
>> console keymaps, even ls --colour fails.
>
> It hurt to say I do always underestimate pills of humor I (try to)
> insert in emails.
> At the time of the first post I didn't knew of a C.utf-8 possibility
> (or that would have been my choice) but otherwise the most logical is
> en_US.
>
> Another thing I do really don't know yet is how this reflect on
> file-system paths.
> File system is safe because it's encoding agnostic, it eats all but 
> \0
> and "/" right?
> But how do applications react to a change in the LC_* variables?

They all will work =D

I use as system locale ru_RU.UTF-8 or en_US.UTF-8 by default and all 
works fine here

-- 
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:48:01 +0100
> Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Should cross-compile support (as implemented in multilib-portage) be
>> added to EAPI-5?
> 
> Has anyone come up with a specification yet?
> 

I dont know, what you require as a specification, but i already wrote
something about cross-compile support some time ago:

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1d97fc4c50a6373efe97fcc7f18c5f41.xml

So i suggest we take that as a base to discuss, if you see any issues
with it.

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 890 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:01:40 +0100
Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh schrieb:
> > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:48:01 +0100
> > Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> Should cross-compile support (as implemented in multilib-portage)
> >> be added to EAPI-5?
> > 
> > Has anyone come up with a specification yet?
> > 
> 
> I dont know, what you require as a specification, but i already wrote
> something about cross-compile support some time ago:
> 
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_1d97fc4c50a6373efe97fcc7f18c5f41.xml
> 
> So i suggest we take that as a base to discuss, if you see any issues
> with it.

Really, I'd like a diff against PMS, or at least enough that someone
could implement it independently without inspecting the Portage code.
It's very hard to discuss something without detailed specifics.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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