1 |
Summary of Gentoo council meeting 13 November 2012 |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
Roll Call |
5 |
========= |
6 |
betelgeuse |
7 |
Chainsaw |
8 |
rich0 (proxy for dberkholz) |
9 |
graaff (proxy for ulm) |
10 |
grobian |
11 |
scarabeus |
12 |
WilliamH |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
Handling separate /usr support |
16 |
============================== |
17 |
WilliamH requested approval for two methods to support separate /usr |
18 |
systems[2]. The discussion is closely related to recent opinons on udev, such |
19 |
as e.g. [1], because the main reason to force a system without separate /usr |
20 |
during boot is to allow newer versions of udev to be used. |
21 |
The originally announced item of discussing the removal of gen_usr_ldscript |
22 |
has been retracted[4]. |
23 |
- approve/disapprove plan (forcing everyone to take action, and |
24 |
implement one of the two "supported" solutions) |
25 |
|
26 |
WilliamH requests a council vote to allow migrating everyone after bugs |
27 |
[5,6,7] are resolved. He proposes a news item to announce this that allows to |
28 |
assume after a given period of time that everyone who is using split /usr is |
29 |
using a method to mount /usr before boot. The focus is purely on this topic. |
30 |
|
31 |
rich0 prefers to move on until suport for separate /usr becomes a |
32 |
barrier, and handle things from there. This allows for alternative |
33 |
solutions to be developed and put forward. He favours waiting somewhat |
34 |
to see developments of the udev fork. |
35 |
|
36 |
Chainsaw is a strong proponent for waiting a month and see how the new |
37 |
udev fork develops itself. If within a month no solution is provided by |
38 |
the udev fork, things need to be moved forward in WilliamH's proposed |
39 |
way. |
40 |
|
41 |
scarabeus approves the plan. |
42 |
|
43 |
betelgeuse likes to ensure users won't be caught off guard, but has no |
44 |
preference for any direction taken in particular. |
45 |
|
46 |
graaff's main concern is how the problem is tied to udev, or not. A fork of |
47 |
udev may not change the situation regarding separate /usr, hence delaying a |
48 |
decision now is not sensical. Opt-in system for people to ensure they can |
49 |
boot is pre-requisite. If this cannot be ensured, we have to wait. |
50 |
|
51 |
grobian disapproves the plan, since there will be systems that cannot easily |
52 |
be changed to ensure /usr being mounted at boot, and it is no good to expel |
53 |
users of (security) updates just because of that. With the use of a special |
54 |
profile (masks/unmasks, variables and/or use-flags), users that want to move |
55 |
on, can opt-in to getting packages that require non separate /usr. |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
Policy on "<" versioned dependencies |
60 |
==================================== |
61 |
chithahn requested the council to clear up confusion around "<" versioned |
62 |
dependencies[3]. This issue seems to combine: |
63 |
1) notorious behaviour from the usual suspects |
64 |
2) QA policies whether or not they are properly documented/advertised |
65 |
3) the technical problem of "<" dependencies causing downgrades |
66 |
|
67 |
The council sees no rule that makes it illegal to use < dependencies, but |
68 |
strongly discourages their use. It must be noted that for some |
69 |
packages, a downgrade is very undesirable. This has triggered package |
70 |
removals in the past. However, the council requests the teams responsible for |
71 |
that removal to act reasonably and in good cooperation with the maintainers of |
72 |
the packages in question. |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
Open bugs with council involvement |
76 |
================================== |
77 |
Bug 383467 "Council webpage lacks results for 2010 and 2011 elections" |
78 |
- ulm has done the work here, waiting for a confirmation that we can really |
79 |
close the bug |
80 |
Bug 438338 "Please update devmanual with EAPI5 info" |
81 |
- no progress and/or actions planned for this |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
Open Floor |
85 |
========== |
86 |
No issues were brought up to the council. |
87 |
|
88 |
|
89 |
Next meeting date |
90 |
================= |
91 |
11 December 2012, 20:00 UTC |
92 |
|
93 |
|
94 |
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 |
95 |
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2208 |
96 |
[3] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2213 |
97 |
[4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2235 |
98 |
[5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/411627 |
99 |
[6] https://bugs.gentoo.org/435756 |
100 |
[7] https://bugs.gentoo.org/441004 |
101 |
|
102 |
|
103 |
-- |
104 |
Fabian Groffen |
105 |
Gentoo on a different level |