1 |
tanderson 09/09/27 00:45:45 |
2 |
|
3 |
Added: 20090914.txt |
4 |
Log: |
5 |
Add log from September 14 meeting, summary to be committed when approved. |
6 |
|
7 |
Revision Changes Path |
8 |
1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090914.txt |
9 |
|
10 |
file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090914.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup |
11 |
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090914.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain |
12 |
|
13 |
Index: 20090914.txt |
14 |
=================================================================== |
15 |
18:00 <@lu_zero> =) |
16 |
18:00 * dertobi123 yawns |
17 |
18:01 * lu_zero yawns as well |
18 |
18:01 <@dertobi123> luca! |
19 |
18:01 <@lu_zero> quite an annoying monday ^^; |
20 |
18:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 I'm ALIVE! |
21 |
18:02 <@lu_zero> (sort of) |
22 |
18:02 <@dertobi123> great :) |
23 |
18:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by solar |
24 |
18:02 <@dertobi123> so, rollcall? |
25 |
18:02 <@ulm> here |
26 |
18:02 <@lu_zero> \o/ |
27 |
18:03 <@solar> solar here. but might have to leave. see above note |
28 |
18:03 <@dertobi123> k |
29 |
18:04 <@dertobi123> leio, Betelgeuse, Calchan ... wake up! |
30 |
18:04 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has joined #gentoo-council |
31 |
18:05 <@ulm> sigh |
32 |
18:05 <@leio> sorry, I've been sick |
33 |
18:07 <@dertobi123> ok, agenda item 1.1: who's logging? |
34 |
18:08 <@leio> I'm always logging, fixed my clock now as well. |
35 |
18:08 <@dertobi123> ok |
36 |
18:08 <@dertobi123> for 1.2 we have Betelgeuse and Calchan missing |
37 |
18:09 <@leio> has the agenda been publicized? |
38 |
18:09 <@ulm> leio: see topic |
39 |
18:09 * dertobi123 sighs |
40 |
18:09 * leio looks at topic |
41 |
18:09 <@dertobi123> look at the topic, gentoo-council@g.o, dev-announce@g.o and council@g.o please |
42 |
18:10 <@leio> ok, I see, I just didn't see it in my client, because I apparently haven't opened mail client to filter it for the past days due to being ill, sorry |
43 |
18:11 <@dertobi123> so, who wants to chair this meeting? |
44 |
18:12 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 you would? |
45 |
18:13 <@dertobi123> if noone else does ... yeah |
46 |
18:13 <@dertobi123> any updates on 2.1 "everything on 10 years gentoo"? |
47 |
18:13 <@dertobi123> if you need voice please /msg |
48 |
18:14 -!- miknix [n=miknix@gentoo/developer/miknix] has quit [Client Quit] |
49 |
18:15 <@solar> it's been going fine. the 20th is our cutoff day and 4th is the bday |
50 |
18:16 <@dertobi123> solar: you're going to take a new snapshot on 20th or putting in security updates until then? |
51 |
18:17 <@Betelgeuse> i am online in a couple minutes |
52 |
18:18 <@Betelgeuse> phone now |
53 |
18:21 <@dertobi123> well, lets move on |
54 |
18:21 <@dertobi123> 3.1 |
55 |
18:21 <@dertobi123> ciaranm answered this topic is obsolete |
56 |
18:21 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v tsunam_] by dertobi123 |
57 |
18:21 <@Betelgeuse> need to setup better reminders |
58 |
18:21 <@dertobi123> tsunam_: can you confirm? |
59 |
18:22 <@dertobi123> (or ulm?) |
60 |
18:22 <@dertobi123> or Fauli? |
61 |
18:22 <@solar> tsunam/jmbsvicetto: ping ^ |
62 |
18:22 <@solar> my understanding is userrel is not saying it's obsolete |
63 |
18:22 <@ulm> i haven't heard anything from them |
64 |
18:25 * dertobi123 sighs |
65 |
18:25 <@ulm> see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c18 |
66 |
18:25 <@ulm> but I don't know if such a meeting took place |
67 |
18:25 <@dertobi123> so we do skip this one? any objections? |
68 |
18:26 <@dertobi123> if there's still something to discuss or decide we can do so via mail |
69 |
18:26 <@ulm> dertobi123: fauli has something to say |
70 |
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-v Fauli] by dertobi123 |
71 |
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Fauli] by dertobi123 |
72 |
18:26 <@dertobi123> args |
73 |
18:26 <@lu_zero> ^^ |
74 |
18:26 <@dertobi123> yeah |
75 |
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v trelane] by solar |
76 |
18:26 <+Fauli> :) |
77 |
18:26 <@solar> trelane is asking to speak |
78 |
18:26 <@lu_zero> well that |
79 |
18:26 <@lu_zero> Fauli first |
80 |
18:27 <+Fauli> The only thing I wanted to add, that I neither have heard anything or any progress. |
81 |
18:27 <@dertobi123> ok, thanks Fauli |
82 |
18:27 <+tsunam_> I'm here sorry for my delay |
83 |
18:28 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: to answer the query. No this is not resolved, ciaran would just like to have it considered resolved |
84 |
18:28 <@dertobi123> so, is there any progress? |
85 |
18:29 <+tsunam_> that's pending the discussion on this matter |
86 |
18:29 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: however I'm not hopeful that there will be progress quite frankly. But that gets into my personal experiences with the management of the PMS project and I'll avoid bringing that into the matter as it serves no purpsoes in the discussion |
87 |
18:30 <+tsunam_> would help if I could type correctly however ~_~ |
88 |
18:30 <@ulm> tsunam_: that will be addressed in 3.2 |
89 |
18:30 <@lu_zero> =\ |
90 |
18:30 <@lu_zero> trelane you wanted to add something |
91 |
18:30 <+tsunam_> to address this issue however, there is currently one method of change for anything currently |
92 |
18:31 <+tsunam_> that's an EAPI |
93 |
18:31 <+tsunam_> by the name its and Ebuild API |
94 |
18:31 <+tsunam_> there's things that have been added to be under the PMS standard that are not directly ebuilds |
95 |
18:32 <+trelane> (I'm deferring to tsunam_ to finish) |
96 |
18:32 <@Betelgeuse> pms = package manager spec |
97 |
18:32 <+tsunam_> following a guideline is appropriate for getting the approval however an EAPI has a far more rigorous(sp?) process for approval as it should |
98 |
18:32 <@Betelgeuse> not ebuild api |
99 |
18:33 <@ulm> the crucial question is if package.mask directories were established Portage behaviour before EAPI 0 |
100 |
18:33 <@ulm> if yes then PMS should just be updated |
101 |
18:33 <@Betelgeuse> no |
102 |
18:33 <@ulm> if no then it should go into EAPI 4 |
103 |
18:34 <@dertobi123> ulm: ack |
104 |
18:34 <@Betelgeuse> it's a vdry recent feature |
105 |
18:34 <+tsunam_> ulm: that's the issue I see is that EAPI is for ebuilds |
106 |
18:34 <+Fauli> tsunam_: But PMS specifies the surroundings, too. |
107 |
18:34 <+tsunam_> its shoehorning something into a system that its not really well served by |
108 |
18:34 <+Fauli> And profiles is a surrounding. |
109 |
18:34 <+tsunam_> Fauli: it does, and I'm not suggesting that PMS shouldn't |
110 |
18:35 <+tsunam_> Fauli: what I'm suggesting is that EAPI's are quite possibly not the best location for those surrounding items |
111 |
18:35 <+Fauli> Betelgeuse: Zac told on the bug that it was available in all 2.1 versions. |
112 |
18:35 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, Zac with specificity says it is not a very recent feature http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c36 |
113 |
18:35 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Where else? |
114 |
18:35 <@Betelgeuse> 2.1 is recent |
115 |
18:35 <+tsunam_> that there might and could/should be implemented a new method of modifications to those surrounding features |
116 |
18:36 <+Fauli> tsunam_: I see it differently, but this leads to far. Let's concentrate on this topic. |
117 |
18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: branch 2.1 created 3 years ago |
118 |
18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: not so recent |
119 |
18:37 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, package.* support has been existant since the 2.1 dev cycle |
120 |
18:38 <@leio> and when was EAPI-0 defined? |
121 |
18:38 <+trelane> leio, October of last year IIRC |
122 |
18:38 <@Betelgeuse> EAPI 0 is supposed to be very ancient portage |
123 |
18:38 <+tsunam_> Fauli: that's something to discuss the where...perhaps another mechinism within PMS |
124 |
18:39 <+tsunam_> Fauli/ALL: I don't wish to remove anything from PMS |
125 |
18:39 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, was a specific version ever set? 3 years is pretty ancient in software terms |
126 |
18:39 <+tsunam_> All I'm suggesting/wishing for is that there's consideration that EAPI's are not the best area for things that are surrounding and not directly related to Ebuild API |
127 |
18:39 <@Betelgeuse> I would write a long explanation if my phone allowed |
128 |
18:40 <@Betelgeuse> my laptop refuses to connect |
129 |
18:40 <@dertobi123> ok, to sum up: there's something to discuss which could (and should!) happen on a mailinglist |
130 |
18:40 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Profiles are directly linked to ebuilds as some syntax (package atoms) will be used there. |
131 |
18:40 <+Fauli> dertobi123: Propose one. |
132 |
18:40 <+tsunam_> leio: believe and don't quote me that PMS came into being about 2007, so the draft would of started about then as well |
133 |
18:41 <@dertobi123> -dev or -pms mailinglist, dev to reach more people |
134 |
18:41 <@dertobi123> Fauli: ^^ |
135 |
18:41 <+Fauli> Ok. |
136 |
18:41 <+trelane> dertobi123, this has been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum on the bug referenced in tsunam_'s request and is now before the council for some sort of direction forward. |
137 |
18:41 <@ulm> tsunam_: December 2006 if I believe the git log |
138 |
18:42 <@ulm> but I don't know if that was already any usable version |
139 |
18:42 <@dertobi123> trelane: there's been lots of discussion, but no real suggestions for improvements |
140 |
18:43 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: because quite frankly any suggestion is soundly rejected |
141 |
18:43 <+tsunam_> because "there's EAPI" for that |
142 |
18:43 <@dertobi123> rejected by whom? |
143 |
18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, I for one would like clarified ciaran's notion that EAPI's do amend the profiles/ portion of the tree. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this issue. |
144 |
18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, Ciaran |
145 |
18:43 <+trelane> (hence that bug's existence) |
146 |
18:44 <@dertobi123> simply put it, it doesn't matter what ciaranm is rejecting |
147 |
18:44 <+trelane> dertobi123, then could he possibly stop rejecting it if he has no power to do so as it only muddies the issue? |
148 |
18:44 <@dertobi123> at least not for gentoo |
149 |
18:45 <+trelane> (by the way I think we're organically proceeding to 3.2 in this discussion here) |
150 |
18:45 <+tsunam_> I'd like to keep them seperate if possible |
151 |
18:45 <+tsunam_> as they are two different issues |
152 |
18:45 <@dertobi123> we're not going solve 3.1 today |
153 |
18:45 <@dertobi123> +to |
154 |
18:45 <+trelane> agreed, dertobi123 with the chair's permission I'd like to proceed to 3.2 (I think tsunam_ would as well), thus leaving 3.1 unresolved |
155 |
18:46 <@dertobi123> if there are no other objections, then lets move on to 3.2 - let's get 3.1 discussed on lists and on our agenda for our next meeting |
156 |
18:46 <@dertobi123> -other |
157 |
18:46 <+Fauli> Ok |
158 |
18:47 <@ulm> fine with me |
159 |
18:47 <@lu_zero> ok |
160 |
18:47 <@solar> ok |
161 |
18:47 <@dertobi123> ok, 3.2 |
162 |
18:47 <+trelane> I'd like to start by discussing the background of 3.2 as it affects (effects?) the previously mentioned bug |
163 |
18:47 <@dertobi123> as 3.2 was proposed by ulm i'd like to hear from him first of all |
164 |
18:48 <@ulm> trelane: we've just decided the discussion on said bug is finished for this meeting |
165 |
18:48 <@ulm> dertobi123: see my message to -council, where I proposed 3.2.{1,2,3} |
166 |
18:49 <@ulm> I'd like to hear the council members' opinion on it |
167 |
18:49 <@dertobi123> so we can vote upon that, ok? |
168 |
18:49 <@solar> I would go with 3.2.3 |
169 |
18:49 <+tsunam_> I'd at least like some kind of idea if the council believes that there would be value in having changes to the surrounding items implemented on a fairly quick basis, but I'll bring that up in whatever discussion place it takes point in |
170 |
18:49 * lu_zero would as well |
171 |
18:50 <@ulm> solar: please be more specific |
172 |
18:50 <@dertobi123> lu_zero: as well, please |
173 |
18:50 <@solar> as the existing system does not really work for the masses and seems targeted towards benefiting a very few while limiting the rest of gentoo and it's ideas |
174 |
18:51 <@dertobi123> i'd choose 3.2.1 if we do opt to keep pms/eapi and it's surroundings and not choose some *completely* different |
175 |
18:52 <@ulm> solar: but we also need some process for updating the spec |
176 |
18:52 <@lu_zero> I'm not exactly happy with both .1 and .2 proposals |
177 |
18:53 <@lu_zero> and seems that the pms related stuff usually lead to feuds |
178 |
18:53 <@dertobi123> solar: what would be your different and improved system? |
179 |
18:53 <@Betelgeuse> The spec is not a problem. Portage coding is. |
180 |
18:53 <@solar> the current system more or less has to be approved by outside forces that many ppl plain and simply don't get along with. When you have that direct conflict all the time it hurts more than helps us as a distro. |
181 |
18:53 <@solar> dertobi123: I don't know the end solution. But 3.2.1 and 2.3.2 are not without problems |
182 |
18:53 <+tsunam_> gent's can you link to the 3.2.1, 3.2.2,3.2.3 specs for those who are not aware of what the solutions you are talking about |
183 |
18:53 <@solar> s/2.3.3/3.2.2/ |
184 |
18:54 <@dertobi123> i'm pretty sure we could find something better, than 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 ... yeah |
185 |
18:54 <@solar> it's in the topic. |
186 |
18:54 <@ulm> tsunam_: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_96c702e85f79b8f5e22472ae2c961534.xml |
187 |
18:54 <@Betelgeuse> ciaramn is fine with Gentoo devs in charge |
188 |
18:55 <@lu_zero> even if the dev would be bonsaikitten ? |
189 |
18:55 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, he causes a huge problem for the larger community |
190 |
18:56 <@Betelgeuse> not every dev |
191 |
18:56 <+trelane> no, but quite a few of them. for PMS to work it must be easy for outside projects such as Gentoo, Sabayon, and yes even Paludis to interface with |
192 |
18:57 <@Betelgeuse> he asked me and dev_zero at least |
193 |
18:57 <+trelane> right now only 1/3 of those groups can interface |
194 |
18:57 <+trelane> s/Gentoo/Funtoo in the above please |
195 |
18:57 <+trelane> though adding Patrick I'd say Gentoo might be apt as well |
196 |
18:57 <@dertobi123> so, to sum up: we tend to prefer 3.2.3 ... let's collect ideas for 3.2.3 until our next meeting and/or on list |
197 |
18:58 <@dertobi123> objections? |
198 |
18:58 <@ulm> dertobi123: right, let's postpone it. also calchan is not here, he also had some ideas about this topic |
199 |
18:58 <@lu_zero> ok |
200 |
18:58 <+tsunam_> what will occur in the meantime? |
201 |
18:58 <+trelane> dertobi123, I'd like to specify a lpcation for this (preferably a bug) where commentary and a proposal can be worked on |
202 |
18:58 <@Betelgeuse> i can't see agenda easily |
203 |
18:59 <@dertobi123> trelane: file one, but discussion should happen on a list (again -dev or -pms would make sense) |
204 |
18:59 <@ulm> trelane: bugzilla is horrible for long discussions |
205 |
18:59 <@ulm> dertobi123: let's go for -pms, and we can announce it on -dev-announce once |
206 |
18:59 <@Betelgeuse> mail list please |
207 |
19:00 <@dertobi123> ulm: ok |
208 |
19:00 <+trelane> I'm fine with -pms so long as this doesn't drag out on -dev? |
209 |
19:00 <+trelane> I will agree with Ciaran regarding the trolls. |
210 |
19:00 <@dertobi123> let's get it discussed on -pms |
211 |
19:00 <+trelane> it hurts both sides of the argument. |
212 |
19:00 <+trelane> thanks :) |
213 |
19:00 <+tsunam_> I'll have to read the archives on that then as I don't subscribe to -pms |
214 |
19:00 <@dertobi123> so, i'd propose to postpone 4, doesn't make sense to handle it today as Calchan is missing |
215 |
19:01 <@Betelgeuse> fine |
216 |
19:01 <@dertobi123> 5.1 next meeting, next logical date is october 12th |
217 |
19:01 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: you stated "not all devs" are you suggesting that if the Council wanted to put a member onto a advisory board and it wasn't approved by the current management that we'd have a larger issue to deal with at that time? |
218 |
19:01 <@dertobi123> ok for everyone? |
219 |
19:01 <@Betelgeuse> if someone is missing we should call them |
220 |
19:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 ok |
221 |
19:02 <@ulm> ok |
222 |
19:03 <@Betelgeuse> fine |
223 |
19:03 <@dertobi123> okies, so 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th? |
224 |
19:03 <@solar> Being that there was missing members from the council at this meeting. How would be feel about getting back together before then? |
225 |
19:04 <@Betelgeuse> I will write a post on PMS when by a computer |
226 |
19:04 <@Betelgeuse> i can do earlier |
227 |
19:04 <@dertobi123> solar: depends. if people request items for the agenda and don't show up it's quite useless to schedule a meeting before then. if there's useful discussion regarding that eapi/pms stuff we can of course schedule a meeting inbetween our regular schedule. |
228 |
19:05 <@lu_zero> solar which time? |
229 |
19:05 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has left #gentoo-council [] |
230 |
19:05 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: I would suggest that if Ciaranm is fine with Gentoo dev's being lead on PMS that it should extend to all dev's having a catch on "no no not this dev" is not commiting to the idea that he's suggesting he's okie with |
231 |
19:06 <@Betelgeuse> do I get a slacker mark? |
232 |
19:06 <@solar> tsunam_: imo what Ciaranm is is not not fine with is 100% moot to what we do at gentoo |
233 |
19:06 <@leio> were you missing from previous meeting? |
234 |
19:06 <@Betelgeuse> I was away last time |
235 |
19:06 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: being 17 minutes late i'd say yes |
236 |
19:07 <+tsunam_> solar: I agree and that's kind of the point I'm making..that IMO there's an attempted ACE card being held back |
237 |
19:07 <@solar> if we can't think and act on our own. Then we all failed |
238 |
19:07 <+tsunam_> to more or less veto a nomination |
239 |
19:07 <@Betelgeuse> what was the limit |
240 |
19:08 <@Betelgeuse> hard to access 39 atm |
241 |
19:08 <@solar> you were here. There was no real voting that went on. |
242 |
19:08 <+trelane> solar, while I agree, he's certainly still hijacking the agenda |
243 |
19:08 <@dertobi123> okies, so again 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th? |
244 |
19:08 <@Betelgeuse> i can do |
245 |
19:09 <@Betelgeuse> unless slackered out |
246 |
19:09 <+tsunam_> solar: no, but just saying depending on what the council comes up with for 3.2.3 it has potential |
247 |
19:09 <@ulm> Betelgeuse: the meeting effectively started at 20:10 so I'd say you were not really late |
248 |
19:09 <@dertobi123> ok, so next meeting on october 12th, Betelgeuse takes care of agenda |
249 |
19:09 <@dertobi123> if it does make sense to have a meeting between the regular ones we decide so on list |
250 |
19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by solar |
251 |
19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-vvvv trelane tsunam_ Fauli tanderson] by solar |
252 |
19:09 <@dertobi123> next one is open floor |
253 |
19:10 <@solar> tsunam_: sadly I think the council with probably be locked on this topic. |
254 |
19:10 < tsunam_> solar: *nods* |
255 |
19:10 <@solar> only way I see to solve the initial problem is to declare it obsolete |
256 |
19:10 < jmbsvicetto> So the whole discussion about PMS will move to the -pms ml? |
257 |
19:11 <@dertobi123> solar: might be an option. |
258 |
19:11 <@solar> but it's good to have things documented. Everybody loves a manpage |
259 |
19:11 -!- Zorry [n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry] has joined #gentoo-council |
260 |
19:12 <@solar> but should it be what we live by?? Harder to solve that |
261 |
19:12 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, seems so |
262 |
19:12 <@dertobi123> it has its advantages, but when it's main advantage is to slow down development and cause endless discussions ... |
263 |
19:12 < bonsaikitten> well, if it actively disallows innovation it's bad |
264 |
19:13 <@dertobi123> not actively, in-actively it might |
265 |
19:13 < bonsaikitten> uhm, package.mask as directory has been possible for >18 months |
266 |
19:13 < jmbsvicetto> dertobi123: I don't think the discussion is what's "slowing down" development. Instead, the way the discussion is taking place and the people that currently have authority over it would be to blame |
267 |
19:13 < bonsaikitten> not allowing it is kinda very silly |
268 |
19:13 <@solar> I have to pee very badly. Thank you all for coming and sharing your input |
269 |
19:14 <@solar> well not to the bathroom. But other input |
270 |
19:14 <@dertobi123> heh |
271 |
19:14 <@dertobi123> solar: have a nice pee :P |
272 |
19:14 <@Betelgeuse> i would like to drive where i have computer working |
273 |
19:14 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, I'd prefer to stop short of blaming Fauli as I would assert that effective control over the problem is effectively impossible |
274 |
19:14 <@dertobi123> jmbsvicetto: agreed. |
275 |
19:15 <@Betelgeuse> is the official part still on? |
276 |
19:15 <@dertobi123> no, we're done |