[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Agenda for Gentoo Council meeting on 2014-02-25

[Mart Raudsepp]

On N, 2014-02-20 at 22:00 -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> gtk USE flags
> =============
>
> (20 minutes)
>
> chithanh has asked whether QA can make decisions about USE flag
> naming
> and usage. I interpret that to mean whether QA has authority over
> tree
> policy.
>
> Vote: Confirm whether QA has authority over tree policy, including
> USE
> flag naming and usage.
>
> References:
> - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90291
> - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3321
> - https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:48
>
>
> ulm requested that the council examine QA's decision.
>
> Vote: Do we affirm QA's decision?
>
> If not:
>
> Vote: What should the USE flag usage be?
>
> - 'gtk' only (maintainer chooses optimal version)
> - 'gtk2', 'gtk3' etc but without 'gtk'
>         - subpoint: 'gtk' == 'gtk2' for ease of porting
> - 'gtk' is a USE_EXPAND like python versions
> - 'gtk' is mandatory for *any* version, gtk2/gtk3 pick which
>
>
> References:
> - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3319
> - http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90291
> - (2005) http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=111212920310822&w=2

As the Gnome team lead, which maintains gtk+, I hereby request that any
decision point concerning the gtk USE flag be removed from the agenda of
shortly upcoming next council meeting.
This implies the suggestion to suspend QA decision on this matter for
the time being (irregardless of tree policy authority of QA team - such
authority could be fine, given due process), and allow a proper process
to take place before maintainers are asked to completely swap around
their approach, only to perhaps end up with something completely
different a month later.

We, at the Gnome team, are dissatisfied with the way QA team discussed
this point without consulting the Gnome team. Calling me into a meeting,
just because I happened to be around for a few words, unprepared, is not
consulting, and proclaiming a policy that is against current Gnome
policy with no explanation nor logs of relevant discussion and technical
demonstration just demonstrates a complete lack of formal thinking.
This all started with a friendly approaching on changing our internal
policy to be tree-wide, and all of a sudden a couple weeks later we have
the complete opposite of the status quo of 10 years being declared
policy.

We acknowledge that our policy may not have been perfect but we need
time to analyze claims brought up by/to the QA team to construct a
proper proposal for a better policy that would satisfy everyone;
hopefully in co-operation with a QA team.

My suggestion is that someone from the Council or the QA team takes
leadership in this issue and revitalizes technical discussions that
happened in the mailing lists again via actually summarizing the points
mentioned and concretely forming a good thesis of one or another
approach is better than the other.

Additionally it appears that we all in Gentoo need to think through and
understand what exactly USE flags are, for what they are used and so on.
The same oddly appears to slightly be the case for SLOTs and when to use
which (SLOT or USE).
Are USE flags just for expressing external dependencies from configure
switches, or are they for expressing features (e.g, USE=gui).


Respectfully,
Mart Raudsepp
Gentoo Linux Gnome team lead