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

[gentoo-project] 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 --]

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 --]

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

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1445 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 --]

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

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1950 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:21:13 +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.
> > 
> > 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.

But the PMS-compliant package managers would not apply them as well. So
we either have to do that in a new EAPI which could be a bit confusing
in wording, or retroactively change EAPI 5 which will require fixes to
package managers and could cause random issues with stable systems
which haven't updated the pm yet.

> 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.

Yes, especially b) would mostly mean that the *stable.mask files are
useful mostly for overlays.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

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

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 --]

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 --]

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

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 --]

[gentoo-project] 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.