1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
|
Quick summary
=============
GLEP 54: There were numerous questions that apparently were not brought
up on the mailing list in advance or were not addressed.
GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be,
but that's unclear until it's been revised.
GLEP 56: Approved. Cardoe will get repoman changes made, followed by a
server-side script to generate use.local.desc from
metadata.xml.
The meeting wrapped up in under 1 hour again. We still need to work
harder to push more discussion and questions to the mailing list,
though.
Topics
======
GLEP 54
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "A few questions to
our nominees" 4+ hours before the meeting.
Last month:
dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea.xml
lu_zero: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_05614741b3942bfdfb21fd8ebb7955e0.xml
Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list
no later than July 17.
<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for scm
<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine
<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: In general I oppose adding things to EAPI 0
< lu_zero@> dberkholz problem: if you have -scm installed
< lu_zero@> and then switch to a pm not knowing it
< lu_zero@> you have a nice recipe for inconsistency
< Halcy0n@> I would really like to see a list of features that we would
end up having after implementing this GLEP. The GLEP
mentions possible enhancements, but I'd like to see what we
would have planned if we go forward with this change.
< Halcy0n@> Well, it only mentions one enhancement, I'd like to see
what else we could do to judge if it is worth it.
Halcy0n@> Betelgeuse: yes, I know there are some things we could do,
but I'd like to see a more extensive list of possibilities,
what are other possible ways of doing this (like a metadata
tag for the ebuild), and why those other methods aren't
sufficient.
< dberkholz@> i think the point here is that the glep should address what
made its implementation superior to other possible ones,
which it also describes
< dberkholz@> ok, i've noted the issues raised here
< dberkholz@> once they're address, the glep can be revised and we'll
consider it again
Summary: Specific questions and requests are above.
GLEP 55
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "GLEP 55" 4+ hours
before the meeting.
Last month:
dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea.xml
Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list
once we're ready.
<Betelgeuse@> But I don't see the use of accepting it before we a)
Portage has something that would make use of it b) some
other pkg manager is made official
< Halcy0n@> So, can we vote on postponing a GLEP of this nature until
another glep requires such changes?
Summary: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be,
but that's unclear until it's been revised.
GLEP 56
-------
Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "[GLEP56] USE flag
descriptions in metadata" 4+ hours before the meeting. (Cardoe: Did the
requested updates ever get made?)
Last month:
dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_54ee20d2b1d8122370afdd4b3d7aafc9.xml
Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list
no later than July 17, if requested changes are made.
Requested changes were made:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.txt?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
< Cardoe > Well the first step of making that portion happen is going
to be to add a check to repoman that if use.local.desc is
not present in the repo, do new QA check.
< Cardoe > Once that's in place that developers can use, then the
infra script will happen.
< Cardoe > I've already discussed it with the Portage folks and the
infra folks.
Summary: Approved.
Roll call
=========
(here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?)
betelgeuse here
dberkholz here
dertobi123 here
flameeyes here
halcy0n here
jokey here
lu_zero here
|