[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12

[Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org>]

On 07/29/2014 07:18 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In 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 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 next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2014-08-05.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> 
> Ulrich
> 

I am disappointed that the Portage team declined to bring the issue of
disabling dynamic dependencies to the Council's attention themselves.
Thus, I must request the Council to consider the Portage team's recent
decision[1] in this matter.

If we are to change our default dependency model, we need to do it
properly - we need wider consensus, more open discussion of what's
happening, and a proper plan of how to handle the pitfalls of the new
model. Otherwise, we're just trading one set of problems for another.

Specifically, I request the Council block the removal of dynamic
dependencies until the following issues are resolved:

1. Although there has been considerable discussion[2] regarding dynamic
dependencies in general, there has been no specific discussion regarding
their actual removal.

2. The Portage team had made no announcement of their decision, nor do
they apparently intend to until 30 days prior to a new Portage release.
This is not adequate time for such a substantial change.

3. Few of the Portage team members were present[3] for the meeting, and
no vote was held to reach the decision.

4. While there is a good description of the theoretical issues affecting
both dependency models[4], multiple requests for specific examples of
in-tree breakage have been ignored. This makes it difficult to assess
the actual breakage that removing dynamic dependencies is supposed to
address.

5. The removal plan doesn't consider the impact from increased number of
rebuilds due to revbumps containing only dependency changes. Without
replacement functionality, widespread virtual or slot changes can cause
hundreds of packages to be rebuilt.

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.portage.devel/4351
[2]: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92030
[3]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Meetings#Past_Meetings
[4]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Dynamic_dependencies