From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D13813877A for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFEDAE08F3; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06318E084F for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B62943401AA for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.279 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQ3pZdBMrt8d for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA89C3401A5 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 14:40:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XCrX0-0000jX-2L for gentoo-project@gentoo.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:40:34 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.216.121]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:40:34 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 16:40:34 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2014-08-12 Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:40:18 +1000 Message-ID: References: <21463.26330.847055.224071@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-216-121.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 In-Reply-To: <21463.26330.847055.224071@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> X-Archives-Salt: ebfadebf-1ed1-41f7-844f-c0e4226ea79c X-Archives-Hash: 6db80f9a66d80a3c4ec0480690ce77e4 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