[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 476 bytes --]

In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.

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

The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.

Please reply to the gentoo-project list.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1191 bytes --]

W dniu pią, 13.07.2018 o godzinie 10∶37 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> 

I'd like to request the Council to vote on two GLEP matters:

1. GLEP 63 updates discussed recently [1,2],

2. GLEP 77 aka Gentoo General Resolution [3,4].

As noted on the bug, GLEP 77 may (or may not) require full dev vote;
if that is the case, I would like the Council to initiate this vote.

[1]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/661058
[2]: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/cfab3001269face0c01d7fefde3bb810
[3]: https://bugs.gentoo.org/659894
[4]: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/dffe725b064bf240834d5fe4ae78a83d

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:37:46 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> 
> Ulrich


I would like the council to put an end to the current "moving default
location of portage tree" bikeshed thread by making the decision of our
new defaults.

This includes:
	- main "gentoo" ebuild tree
	- distfiles
	- packages
	- snapshot name

With that decision we can begin changing the defaults in applications,
catalyst, portage, etc and update our documentation to reflect those
new defaults.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1583 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:

> I would like the council to put an end to the current "moving
> default location of portage tree" bikeshed thread by making the
> decision of our new defaults.

I think we should have proposal ready for vote at the council meeting,
because I don't expect that discussion of individual paths during the
meeting would lead to anything.

> This includes:
> 	- main "gentoo" ebuild tree
> 	- distfiles
> 	- packages

Trying to summarise the discussion in -dev, and in #-portage: Everyone
seems to agree that all of these should be somewhere under /var, and
possible candidates are /var/lib, /var/cache, and /var/db. Note that
/var/db is not specified by the FHS, but it exists in all the BSDs.
Also, I am disregarding suggestions like /var/gentoo or /var/portage
for now.

For both /var/lib and /var/cache the FHS requires a <package>
subdirectory. Unless we want this to be "portage", we could use
"package-manager" (since virtual/package-manager is a package),
or pretend that "pm" is an alias for it. This would lead us to the
following paths, respectively:

   /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
   /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
   /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages

Alternatively, we could place either the gentoo tree, or all three of
the above under /var/db (which doesn't follow the FHS, so no subdir
requirement):

   /var/db/repos/gentoo
   /var/db/distfiles
   /var/db/packages

> 	- snapshot name

Simply gentoo-20180712.tar.xz instead of portage-20180712.tar.xz?
Or is that not specific enough?

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1531 bytes --]

On 07/13/2018 07:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> 

..

> For both /var/lib and /var/cache the FHS requires a <package>
> subdirectory. Unless we want this to be "portage", we could use
> "package-manager" (since virtual/package-manager is a package),
> or pretend that "pm" is an alias for it. This would lead us to the
> following paths, respectively:
> 
>    /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages

I don't really like the cache variant here as that data should be able
to be reconstructed by the application, which a distfile etc necessarily
isn't (e.g for fetch restricted packages it might get lost), but
/var/lib/package-manager/{repos,distfiles,packages} works well for me

> 
> Alternatively, we could place either the gentoo tree, or all three of
> the above under /var/db (which doesn't follow the FHS, so no subdir
> requirement):
> 
>    /var/db/repos/gentoo
>    /var/db/distfiles
>    /var/db/packages
> 
>> 	- snapshot name
> 
> Simply gentoo-20180712.tar.xz instead of portage-20180712.tar.xz?
> Or is that not specific enough?

Can it cause confusion to thinking it is an installer etc? Gentoo is
more than just the ebuild repository, so maybe something like
gentoo-ebuild{s,-repository} ?

-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 860 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:

>> /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
>> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
>> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages

> I don't really like the cache variant here as that data should be
> able to be reconstructed by the application, which a distfile etc
> necessarily isn't (e.g for fetch restricted packages it might get
> lost),

If users keep precious distfiles in a separate dir (which can be
specified with PORTAGE_RO_DISTDIRS) then the distdir is pretty much a
cache.

> but /var/lib/package-manager/{repos,distfiles,packages} works well
> for me

That would work too, except that the top level of the gentoo repo
would be at /var/lib/package-manager/repos/gentoo, which is awkward to
type (especially if you compare it to /usr/portage) and has already
_five_ path components.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Raymond Jennings]

I for one would like to ask why disfiles is being kept inside the
"portage tree" in the first place.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:12 AM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
> >> /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
> >> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
> >> /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages
>
> > I don't really like the cache variant here as that data should be
> > able to be reconstructed by the application, which a distfile etc
> > necessarily isn't (e.g for fetch restricted packages it might get
> > lost),
>
> If users keep precious distfiles in a separate dir (which can be
> specified with PORTAGE_RO_DISTDIRS) then the distdir is pretty much a
> cache.
>
> > but /var/lib/package-manager/{repos,distfiles,packages} works well
> > for me
>
> That would work too, except that the top level of the gentoo repo
> would be at /var/lib/package-manager/repos/gentoo, which is awkward to
> type (especially if you compare it to /usr/portage) and has already
> _five_ path components.
>
> Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 288 bytes --]

On 13/07/18 19:19, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> I for one would like to ask why disfiles is being kept inside the
> "portage tree" in the first place.
I'm not sure a bike-shed on the wherefores of historical decisions
really adds anything to the present discussion, Raymond .. j/s :)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On 13/07/18 18:59, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 07/13/2018 07:50 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> Simply gentoo-20180712.tar.xz instead of portage-20180712.tar.xz?
>> Or is that not specific enough?
> Can it cause confusion to thinking it is an installer etc? Gentoo is
> more than just the ebuild repository, so maybe something like
> gentoo-ebuild{s,-repository} ?
>
I think that's fair. An additional 'repository' after 'repos' is a bit
redundant though.

Perhaps 'gentoo-tree-20180712' but probably not 'gentoo-sources'
(confusion with kernel source package) .. or even
'gentoo-snapshot-20180712' but perhaps that's redundant in the source
download path (but probably not destination .. !) ...


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 1:50 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> For both /var/lib and /var/cache the FHS requires a <package>
> subdirectory. Unless we want this to be "portage", we could use
> "package-manager" (since virtual/package-manager is a package),
> or pretend that "pm" is an alias for it. This would lead us to the
> following paths, respectively:
>
>    /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages
>
> Alternatively, we could place either the gentoo tree, or all three of
> the above under /var/db (which doesn't follow the FHS, so no subdir
> requirement):
>
>    /var/db/repos/gentoo
>    /var/db/distfiles
>    /var/db/packages
>

I'd suggest refactoring this a bit.  We have a couple of directories.
We need to establish the base, and then the directory name under that.

We have:
distfiles
packages
main repo
overlays

These can go under:
/var/db
/var/cache
/var/lib

You have just about every sane permutation of these as options, so I
suggest considering the two separately.

I think the pros/cons of the second question have already been hashed
out.  I tend to agree with the /var/lib arguments for all but
distfiles (FHS directly gives the example of browser cache in
/var/cache, and that is very much what distfiles is).

For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent
directory, and then a tree underneath:
.../gentoo/repos/gentoo    (this is PMS)
.../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS)
.../gentoo/packages   (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if not)
.../gentoo/distfiles      (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so
generic that it probably should be considered shared)
.../portage/edb     (I think this is portage-specific)
.../portage/pkg      (I think this is also portage-specific)

Stuff that is specific to portage and not specified in PMS would go in
.../portage.  Stuff that is PMS-specified would go in .../gentoo.

Note that not all these directories need be under the same base.  We
could have /var/lib/gentoo/repos, and /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles.
So, the base needs to be decided for each.

Finally, my list of final recommendations given this framework:

/var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo        (I'm fine with cache here as well)
/var/cache/gentoo/packages        (These are package builds and are
completely reproducible.)
/var/cache/gentoo/distfiles           (This is literally a network cache/mirror)
/var/cache/portage/edb                      (This is portage-specific,
but it can be regenerated)
/var/lib/portage/pkg                       (This is the must-preserve
metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.)
/var/lib/portage/world                   (Current state - at least
something is already in the right place...)

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2644 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:

> I'd suggest refactoring this a bit.  We have a couple of directories.
> We need to establish the base, and then the directory name under that.

> We have:
> distfiles
> packages
> main repo
> overlays

> These can go under:
> /var/db
> /var/cache
> /var/lib

> You have just about every sane permutation of these as options, so I
> suggest considering the two separately.

> I think the pros/cons of the second question have already been hashed
> out.  I tend to agree with the /var/lib arguments for all but
> distfiles (FHS directly gives the example of browser cache in
> /var/cache, and that is very much what distfiles is).

Agreed, so far.

> For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent
> directory, and then a tree underneath:
> .../gentoo/repos/gentoo    (this is PMS)
> .../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS)
> .../gentoo/packages   (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if not)
> .../gentoo/distfiles      (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so
> generic that it probably should be considered shared)

Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore
not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a
package, namely app-misc/gentoo.)

> .../portage/edb     (I think this is portage-specific)
> .../portage/pkg      (I think this is also portage-specific)

> Stuff that is specific to portage and not specified in PMS would go in
> .../portage.  Stuff that is PMS-specified would go in .../gentoo.

> Note that not all these directories need be under the same base.  We
> could have /var/lib/gentoo/repos, and /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles.
> So, the base needs to be decided for each.

> Finally, my list of final recommendations given this framework:

> /var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo        (I'm fine with cache here as well)

Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any
proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the
double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness.

> /var/cache/gentoo/packages        (These are package builds and are
> completely reproducible.)
> /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles           (This is literally a network cache/mirror)
> /var/cache/portage/edb                      (This is portage-specific,
> but it can be regenerated)
> /var/lib/portage/pkg                       (This is the must-preserve
> metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.)

Why not keep this at /var/db/pkg? That's the path mentioned in PMS.

> /var/lib/portage/world                   (Current state - at least
> something is already in the right place...)

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4042 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest refactoring this a bit.  We have a couple of directories.
> > We need to establish the base, and then the directory name under that.
>
> > We have:
> > distfiles
> > packages
> > main repo
> > overlays
>
> > These can go under:
> > /var/db
> > /var/cache
> > /var/lib
>
> > You have just about every sane permutation of these as options, so I
> > suggest considering the two separately.
>
> > I think the pros/cons of the second question have already been hashed
> > out.  I tend to agree with the /var/lib arguments for all but
> > distfiles (FHS directly gives the example of browser cache in
> > /var/cache, and that is very much what distfiles is).
>
> Agreed, so far.
>
> > For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent
> > directory, and then a tree underneath:
> > .../gentoo/repos/gentoo    (this is PMS)
> > .../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS)
> > .../gentoo/packages   (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if
> not)
> > .../gentoo/distfiles      (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so
> > generic that it probably should be considered shared)
>
> Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore
> not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a
> package, namely app-misc/gentoo.)
>
> > .../portage/edb     (I think this is portage-specific)
> > .../portage/pkg      (I think this is also portage-specific)
>
> > Stuff that is specific to portage and not specified in PMS would go in
> > .../portage.  Stuff that is PMS-specified would go in .../gentoo.
>
> > Note that not all these directories need be under the same base.  We
> > could have /var/lib/gentoo/repos, and /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles.
> > So, the base needs to be decided for each.
>
> > Finally, my list of final recommendations given this framework:
>
> > /var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo        (I'm fine with cache here as well)
>
> Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any
> proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the
> double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness.
>
> > /var/cache/gentoo/packages        (These are package builds and are
> > completely reproducible.)
> > /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles           (This is literally a network
> cache/mirror)
> > /var/cache/portage/edb                      (This is portage-specific,
> > but it can be regenerated)
> > /var/lib/portage/pkg                       (This is the must-preserve
> > metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.)
>
> Why not keep this at /var/db/pkg? That's the path mentioned in PMS.
>

+1 to this.

We know through experience that moving PORTDIR and DISTDIR are safe
operations because a number of existing users point them at different
locations
and successfully use Gentoo. I want to avoid two things:

 - Being FHS compatible at any cost[0]. This is IMHO, not an explicit goal.
We are FHS compatible when its convenient to be, and we are incompatible
when its expensive to fix or change.
 - Tying easy changes with hard changes. Let not the perfect be the enemy
of the good! We can still move distdir and portdir (low cost, easy!) and
decide to make other changes later. I want to avoid the case where we
decide that "moving /var/db/pkg is hard, so in conclusion we will do
nothing." That is not a useful conclusion and there is no reason why these
changes must be made together[1].

[0] If this were literally the only non-FHS compatible thing we had left,
then I'd find that argument more compelling that we should change it to be
100% compatible. I remain unconvinced that this is the case today, and
unconvinced that being FHS compatible gains us anything useful. I'd love to
hear more about this though.
[1] Incremental change is the only real change. -- a proverb.

-A


>
> > /var/lib/portage/world                   (Current state - at least
> > something is already in the right place...)
>
> Ulrich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5460 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> > For the directory under each I suggest a gentoo/portage parent
> > directory, and then a tree underneath:
> > .../gentoo/repos/gentoo    (this is PMS)
> > .../gentoo/repos/myoverlay (this is PMS)
> > .../gentoo/packages   (I'm not sure if this is PMS - move to portage if not)
> > .../gentoo/distfiles      (I don't think this is PMS, but it is so
> > generic that it probably should be considered shared)
>
> Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore
> not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a
> package, namely app-misc/gentoo.)

From FHS:
/var/lib/<name> is the location that must be used for all distribution
packaging support. Different distributions may use different names, of
course.

p34: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.pdf

>
> > /var/lib/gentoo/repos/gentoo        (I'm fine with cache here as well)
>
> Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any
> proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the
> double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness.

Well, /var/lib/<something> is 3 right there.  If 5 is no good then you
only have one left.  We could just make it /var/lib/repos which seems
non-compliant.  Or we can make it /var/lib/gentoo/myoverlay which is
great until we have an overlay called distfiles or whatever.

And if it is just the double gentoo I guess there is /var/lib/gentoo/repos/main

Unless we want to put overlays somewhere entirely different, in which
case we could just use /var/lib/gentoo/repo I guess.  But, I think it
makes more sense to view the gentoo repo as just the main repo out of
many.

> > /var/cache/gentoo/packages        (These are package builds and are
> > completely reproducible.)
> > /var/cache/gentoo/distfiles           (This is literally a network cache/mirror)
> > /var/cache/portage/edb                      (This is portage-specific,
> > but it can be regenerated)
> > /var/lib/portage/pkg                       (This is the must-preserve
> > metadata state of the system, in portage's internal format.)
>
> Why not keep this at /var/db/pkg? That's the path mentioned in PMS.

Why not put all of this stuff in /var/db?  Or in /var/gentoo?  Or in /gentoo?

It isn't FHS.  FHS actually specifically says that stuff in /var/db
should go to /var/lib/misc or a pkg-specific directory (p35 footnote 5
- above link).  Yeah, I get that BSD sticks it in /var/db.  But BSD
also sticks the repo in /usr/ports.

But, if you want to leave /var/db/pkg alone at least moving the rest
is a step in the right direction.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1491 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:20 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Why the "gentoo" path component? That's not a package, and therefore
>> not compliant with the FHS. (Or even worse, it actually _is_ a
>> package, namely app-misc/gentoo.)

> From FHS:
> /var/lib/<name> is the location that must be used for all distribution
> packaging support. Different distributions may use different names, of
> course.

> p34: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs-3.0.pdf

It doesn't say that <name> must be the name of the distro, and I don't
remember having seen either of /var/lib/{debian,redhat,suse}. We can
use "repos" or whatever we like there.

>> Here we're at 5 path components again. I will likely vote against any
>> proposal that would put the tree such deep in the hierarchy. And the
>> double "gentoo" adds some extra ugliness.

> Well, /var/lib/<something> is 3 right there.  If 5 is no good then you
> only have one left.  We could just make it /var/lib/repos which seems
> non-compliant.

FHS 3.0 says: "An application (or a group of inter-related
applications) must use a subdirectory of /var/lib for its data".
Certainly /var/lib/repos is a subdirectory of /var/lib? So why would
it be non-compliant? And if it was, do we care about non-compliance at
the third directory level? The important part is that we move it out
of /usr, and IMHO we should care to get the /var/{lib,cache,db} part
somewhat right.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

W dniu pią, 13.07.2018 o godzinie 19∶50 +0200, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> > > > > > On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> > I would like the council to put an end to the current "moving
> > default location of portage tree" bikeshed thread by making the
> > decision of our new defaults.
> 
> I think we should have proposal ready for vote at the council meeting,
> because I don't expect that discussion of individual paths during the
> meeting would lead to anything.
> 
> > This includes:
> > 	- main "gentoo" ebuild tree
> > 	- distfiles
> > 	- packages
> 
> Trying to summarise the discussion in -dev, and in #-portage: [...]

Given that we have a dedicated thread for this, do we really need to
turn the Council agenda thread into another bikeshed over this?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2935 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:50:00 +0200
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Brian Dolbec wrote:  
> 
> > I would like the council to put an end to the current "moving
> > default location of portage tree" bikeshed thread by making the
> > decision of our new defaults.  
> 
> I think we should have proposal ready for vote at the council meeting,
> because I don't expect that discussion of individual paths during the
> meeting would lead to anything.
> 
> > This includes:
> > 	- main "gentoo" ebuild tree
> > 	- distfiles
> > 	- packages  
> 
> Trying to summarise the discussion in -dev, and in #-portage: Everyone
> seems to agree that all of these should be somewhere under /var, and
> possible candidates are /var/lib, /var/cache, and /var/db. Note that
> /var/db is not specified by the FHS, but it exists in all the BSDs.
> Also, I am disregarding suggestions like /var/gentoo or /var/portage
> for now.
> 
> For both /var/lib and /var/cache the FHS requires a <package>
> subdirectory. Unless we want this to be "portage", we could use
> "package-manager" (since virtual/package-manager is a package),
> or pretend that "pm" is an alias for it. This would lead us to the
> following paths, respectively:
> 
>    /var/lib/{package-manager,pm}/gentoo
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/distfiles
>    /var/cache/{package-manager,pm}/packages
>

I think it is a mistake to group distfiles and packages directly
beside the repositories.  

One of the big reasons I feel this way, is so that configuration can be
made more plugin friendly.  With all repositories under one subdir. It
could be possible for a package manager to scan the subdir for
repositories.  Details of repo configuration data may be included in the
repository.  This could eliminate the need for a
/etc/portage/repos.conf. Or at the very least, eliminate the need to
specify location if it is in the default base path. (just food for
thought)

 If under the same /var/lib/pm, then the
repositories should be in it's own "repos" subdir still for the above
mentioned reasons, just like the example  below for /var/db/.   If that
puts more weight on the /var/db prefix due to FHS..., then that is
fine, it just happens to be my configuration already ;)


> Alternatively, we could place either the gentoo tree, or all three of
> the above under /var/db (which doesn't follow the FHS, so no subdir
> requirement):
> 
>    /var/db/repos/gentoo
>    /var/db/distfiles
>    /var/db/packages
> 
> > 	- snapshot name  
> 
> Simply gentoo-20180712.tar.xz instead of portage-20180712.tar.xz?
> Or is that not specific enough?
> 
> Ulrich

snapshot name is good and follows the repo naming convention. :)


Which ever of the above locations that becomes the default, I would
change layman to the new default repos location as well.


-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

On 13.07.2018 10:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
members should behave as role models for this community.

I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
our Code of Conduct.
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct


Thanks,
Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 06:21:52PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
> members should behave as role models for this community.
> 
> I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
> our Code of Conduct.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

I'm not sure this is an agenda item since there is really nothing
for us to do for it in a meeting; however, I will share my thoughts.

Of course, I agree to follow the Code of Conduct.

However,because of the following passage in the code of conduct, we all
automatically agree to follow it.

| By joining and/or participating in the Gentoo community, you are stating
| that you accept and agree to adhere to the rules listed below, even if
| you do not explicitly state so.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

On 14.07.2018 19:33, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 06:21:52PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
>> members should behave as role models for this community.
>>
>> I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
>> our Code of Conduct.
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
> 
> I'm not sure this is an agenda item since there is really nothing
> for us to do for it in a meeting; however, I will share my thoughts.
> 
> Of course, I agree to follow the Code of Conduct.
> 
> However,because of the following passage in the code of conduct, we all
> automatically agree to follow it.
> 
> | By joining and/or participating in the Gentoo community, you are stating
> | that you accept and agree to adhere to the rules listed below, even if
> | you do not explicitly state so.
> 
> William
> 

In my opinion there is still a difference between implicit and explicit
agreement to a CoC, as explicit agreeement makes knowledge about the CoC
undeniable.

For full transparency: In a future council meeting, I'm planning to
suggest expanding this explicit agreement on further groups and
projects, that are eventually controlled by the Council and whose
members are supposed to act as role models (e.g., comrel, recruiters and
QA).

Thanks,
Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1416 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:47:02PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> On 14.07.2018 19:33, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 06:21:52PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> >> As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
> >> members should behave as role models for this community.
> >>
> >> I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
> >> our Code of Conduct.
> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
> > 
> > I'm not sure this is an agenda item since there is really nothing
> > for us to do for it in a meeting; however, I will share my thoughts.
> > 
> > Of course, I agree to follow the Code of Conduct.
> > 
> > However,because of the following passage in the code of conduct, we all
> > automatically agree to follow it.
> > 
> > | By joining and/or participating in the Gentoo community, you are stating
> > | that you accept and agree to adhere to the rules listed below, even if
> > | you do not explicitly state so.
> > 
> > William
> > 
> 
> In my opinion there is still a difference between implicit and explicit
> agreement to a CoC, as explicit agreeement makes knowledge about the CoC
> undeniable.

It doesn't really matter whether you know what is in the CoC or not, you can
still be sanctioned for not following it. In other words, ignorance of
the CoC is not a defense.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 928 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Manuel Rüger wrote:

> On 14.07.2018 19:33, William Hubbs wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is an agenda item since there is really nothing
>> for us to do for it in a meeting; [...]

> In my opinion there is still a difference between implicit and
> explicit agreement to a CoC, as explicit agreeement makes knowledge
> about the CoC undeniable.

I agree with William here.

If this is addressed at the council, then the council has explicitly
approved the CoC in its 2007-03-15 meeting [1]. Usually we don't
reiterate past decisions for the sole purpose of confirming them.
I also think there is no doubt that the CoC is in force.

However, if your request is addressed at council members as
individuals, then it is not an agenda item. (Of course, council
members can still make a statement as requested.)

Ulrich

[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20070315.txt

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]

On 14.07.2018 20:38, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> 
>> On 14.07.2018 19:33, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> I'm not sure this is an agenda item since there is really nothing
>>> for us to do for it in a meeting; [...]
> 
>> In my opinion there is still a difference between implicit and
>> explicit agreement to a CoC, as explicit agreeement makes knowledge
>> about the CoC undeniable.
> 
> I agree with William here.
> 
> If this is addressed at the council, then the council has explicitly
> approved the CoC in its 2007-03-15 meeting [1]. Usually we don't
> reiterate past decisions for the sole purpose of confirming them.
> I also think there is no doubt that the CoC is in force.
> 
> However, if your request is addressed at council members as
> individuals, then it is not an agenda item. (Of course, council
> members can still make a statement as requested.)
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> [1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20070315.txt
> 

Okay understood. Would that be a better fit for the council meeting then?

Have the council vote the following items:

a) Make explicit agreement with CoC mandatory for being part (i.e. also
existing members) of Comrel, Infra, Recruiters and QA.

b) In concordance with a) make explicit agreement an (unenforced) part
of the first Council meeting.

Agreements will be tracked in a bug per project by the individual
project members. For a) project leads have to ensure that this happens.

Thanks,
Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 743 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 08:49:20PM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> Okay understood. Would that be a better fit for the council meeting then?
> 
> Have the council vote the following items:
> 
> a) Make explicit agreement with CoC mandatory for being part (i.e. also
> existing members) of Comrel, Infra, Recruiters and QA.
> 
> b) In concordance with a) make explicit agreement an (unenforced) part
> of the first Council meeting.
> 
> Agreements will be tracked in a bug per project by the individual
> project members. For a) project leads have to ensure that this happens.

I still don't understand the point of explicit agreement with CoC since
by being part of the community we accept it anyway as I said above.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Kristian Fiskerstrand]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

On 07/14/2018 10:37 PM, William Hubbs wrote:

> I still don't understand the point of explicit agreement with CoC since
> by being part of the community we accept it anyway as I said above.

+1


-- 
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1294 bytes --]

W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶21 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger
napisał:
> On 13.07.2018 10:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> > meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> > should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> > 
> > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> > to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> > suggested one (since the last meeting).
> > 
> > The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> > 
> > Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> > 
> > Ulrich
> > 
> 
> As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
> members should behave as role models for this community.
> 
> I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
> our Code of Conduct.
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct

The request for the new Council members to reiterate their
acknowledgement of Code of Conduct -- which they obviously implicitly
agreed to -- sounds like a serious implicit accusation.  Isn't making
such an accusation a violation of Code of Conduct itself though?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1506 bytes --]

On 18-07-14 21:10:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶21 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger
> napisał:
> > On 13.07.2018 10:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> > > meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> > > should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> > > 
> > > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> > > to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> > > suggested one (since the last meeting).
> > > 
> > > The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> > > 
> > > Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> > > 
> > > Ulrich
> > > 
> > 
> > As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
> > members should behave as role models for this community.
> > 
> > I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
> > our Code of Conduct.
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
> 
> The request for the new Council members to reiterate their
> acknowledgement of Code of Conduct -- which they obviously implicitly
> agreed to -- sounds like a serious implicit accusation.  Isn't making
> such an accusation a violation of Code of Conduct itself though?
> 

I don't think of it as an accusation, more of a 'swearing in' as they
are moving into a new office.

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1870 bytes --]

W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 14∶29 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
napisał:
> On 18-07-14 21:10:11, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶21 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger
> > napisał:
> > > On 13.07.2018 10:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
> > > > meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
> > > > should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
> > > > 
> > > > Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
> > > > to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> > > > suggested one (since the last meeting).
> > > > 
> > > > The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
> > > > 
> > > > Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> > > > 
> > > > Ulrich
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
> > > members should behave as role models for this community.
> > > 
> > > I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
> > > our Code of Conduct.
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
> > 
> > The request for the new Council members to reiterate their
> > acknowledgement of Code of Conduct -- which they obviously implicitly
> > agreed to -- sounds like a serious implicit accusation.  Isn't making
> > such an accusation a violation of Code of Conduct itself though?
> > 
> 
> I don't think of it as an accusation, more of a 'swearing in' as they
> are moving into a new office.
> 

Having more context to this than you do, I think it's an elaborate
scheme of petty vengeance.  Thus, it's doubly offensive since Council is
being used here as a tool to developer's private vendetta.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-07-29

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2013 bytes --]

On 14.07.2018 22:50, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 14∶29 -0500, użytkownik Matthew Thode
> napisał:
>> On 18-07-14 21:10:11, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> W dniu sob, 14.07.2018 o godzinie 18∶21 +0200, użytkownik Manuel Rüger
>>> napisał:
>>>> On 13.07.2018 10:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>> In two weeks from now, the newly elected council will have its first
>>>>> meeting. This is the time to raise and prepare items that the council
>>>>> should put on the agenda to discuss or vote on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate
>>>>> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
>>>>> suggested one (since the last meeting).
>>>>>
>>>>> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2018-07-22.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ulrich
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As the council represents the Gentoo Developer community, the council
>>>> members should behave as role models for this community.
>>>>
>>>> I would like each council member to explicitly state their agreement to
>>>> our Code of Conduct.
>>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
>>>
>>> The request for the new Council members to reiterate their
>>> acknowledgement of Code of Conduct -- which they obviously implicitly
>>> agreed to -- sounds like a serious implicit accusation.  Isn't making
>>> such an accusation a violation of Code of Conduct itself though?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think of it as an accusation, more of a 'swearing in' as they
>> are moving into a new office.
>>
> 
> Having more context to this than you do, I think it's an elaborate
> scheme of petty vengeance.  Thus, it's doubly offensive since Council is
> being used here as a tool to developer's private vendetta.
> 

Michał, I kindly and strongly advise to re-read the CoC and stop
purveying misinformation. Let us return to a culture of mutual respect.

Thanks,
Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 636 bytes --]