| 1 |
Fabian Groffen schrieb: |
| 2 |
> All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Apologies for the short notice in advance. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In a little more than one week, the council will meet again. This is |
| 7 |
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the |
| 8 |
> agenda to vote on. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not hestitate |
| 11 |
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 12 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of |
| 15 |
> December 2011. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions |
| 22 |
be reverted? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14 |
| 25 |
hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the |
| 26 |
discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus |
| 27 |
about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like |
| 28 |
to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic |
| 29 |
in which case the consensus result should be implemented. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform |
| 34 |
users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in |
| 35 |
mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty |
| 36 |
easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour. |
Archives