| 1 |
Heya, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I'm getting a headache and can't promise to make it for today's meeting. |
| 4 |
If i can't make it, my votes are listed below. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Denis Dupeyron wrote: |
| 7 |
> 2. GLEP 58 (5 minutes) |
| 8 |
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 58 [1] and vote. |
| 9 |
> Proposed plan, see [2]: |
| 10 |
> 1. Council approves GLEP58. |
| 11 |
> 2. Portage support is added, we add MetaManifests everywhere needed |
| 12 |
> (top-level, categories, metadata, eclass etc) in the tree. |
| 13 |
> 3. Old Portage versions still work at this point, because they ignore |
| 14 |
> the other Manifest files. |
| 15 |
> 4. Wait 6-12 months for Portage upgrade cycle. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Vote: Yes |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Then when and if desired we can proceed to dropping the per-package |
| 20 |
> Manifests but that will have to be the subject of an additional GLEP |
| 21 |
> at a later time (and we do have quite some time to come up with that |
| 22 |
> due to the above timeline): |
| 23 |
> 5. Change the content of the MetaManifests to be per solar's proposal. |
| 24 |
> 6. Drop per-package Manifests from the tree. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Not sure if we already should vote on this part (this is not the scope |
| 27 |
of GLEP58). The general idea looks good to me, but I'd prefer to wait |
| 28 |
with this decision until it's necessary. Basically that's what you meant |
| 29 |
with "Then when and if desired" I guess. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> 3. GLEP 59 (5 minutes) |
| 32 |
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 59 [3] and vote. |
| 33 |
> Note that due to Robin having had some issues with his flight to |
| 34 |
> FOSDEM the changes in [4] may not be in there yet, but vote as if they |
| 35 |
> were committed. |
| 36 |
> Proposed plan (see [2]): |
| 37 |
> - Can add new hashes right now. |
| 38 |
> - Some of the old hashes we can remove right now. |
| 39 |
> - Have to keep just one old hash for old Portage to still work. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Vote: Yes |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> 4. GLEP 60 (5 minutes) |
| 44 |
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 60 [5] and vote. |
| 45 |
> Proposed plan (see [2]): |
| 46 |
> - Can add new types right now. |
| 47 |
> - Cannot remove ANY types for a full upgrade cycle. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Vote: Yes |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> 5. GLEP 61 (5 minutes) |
| 52 |
> Make sure you have read the latest version of GLEP 61 [6] and vote. |
| 53 |
> Proposed plan (see [2]): |
| 54 |
> - (unconfirmed) Cannot add the compressed files in per-package locations until |
| 55 |
> the upgrade cycle is done, as old Portage will complain about their existence. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
In general I'm in favor of this GLEP, but seeing Robin's answer in |
| 58 |
<robbat2-20100208T050927-931425494Z@××××××××××××××.net> I'm not sure if |
| 59 |
we already need to vote on this GLEP or if it would make sense to wait |
| 60 |
until we have MetaManifests generated on our rsync master and have some |
| 61 |
real world measurements. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
If people do feel like voting on this tonight my vote is: Yes |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
- Tobias |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
-- |
| 68 |
Praxisbuch Nagios |
| 69 |
http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/pbnagiosger/ |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum |
Archives