Gentoo Archives: gentoo-council

From: Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o>
To: gentoo-council <gentoo-council@l.g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev-announce <gentoo-dev-announce@l.g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-council] Agenda for the meeting of December 7th, 2009
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:40:58
Hi all,

Here's the agenda for the meeting on Monday. Two topics didn't make it for this
meeting. I will be addressing the reasons why this happened in a different
email as I don't want to delay this agenda any longer. One obvious reason
though is time: you'll see that it's pretty packed.

1. Intro (5 minutes, including late arrivals)
  1.1. Make sure somebody is logging
  1.2. Roll call
  1.3  Who wants to chair? I can volunteer if nobody doesn't as I know the
       topics already.
  1.4. Last chance for remarks on the agenda (in particular does anybody mind
       extending the duration of topics as the timing is tight)

2. EAPI3 status (10 minutes)
  Can we have an ETA? Even a vague one would help.

3. Prefix (15 minutes)
  3.1. The prefix team has answered all questions (see full thread at [1]),
       provided a PMS patch [2], and have a portage branch ready with most if
       not all features. Vote for or against it. If voting against please
       suggest improvements.
  3.2. EAPI bump
    3.2.1. Should we make a quick, prefix-specific EAPI bump?
    3.2.2. Should we wrap together prefix plus whatever features of EAPI3 which
           are already ready into an intermediate EAPI and ship that now?
    3.2.3. Should we add prefix to EAPI3 and ship it all together when what's
           missing of EAPI3 is ready?

4. GLEPs 58, 59, 60 and 61 (15 minutes)
  Read more about this as well as a nice summary at [3]. Vote for or against
  each of these 4 GLEPs. If voting against please suggest improvements and/or

5. mtime preservation (15 minutes)
  Three alternatives have been proposed:
  5.1. The package manager must preserve modification times of regular files.
       This includes files being compressed before merging. Exceptions to this
        - Files newly created by the package manager
	- Binary object files being stripped of symbols
	- Maybe others
       Depending on the exact wording and exceptions this can be made
       equivalent to 5.3 below.
  5.2. Let ebuilds call dopreservemtimes (with an API similar to docompress) in
       both src_install and pkg_preinst. Doing so would instruct the package
       manager that it must preserve mtimes (including subsecond, if supported
       on the filesystem) for a particular set of paths, even if doing so means
       no stripping etc. All other mtimes may be rewritten as the package
       manager sees fit, and from this next EAPI onwards must be rewritten at
       merge time for anything predating the start of the build.
  5.3. Just document precisely the current behavior of portage and what can be
       relied upon.
  Note that none of these propositions have a solution for subsecond resolution
  requirements. But note also that no package could be identified as having
  such requirement yet. Do we care?

6. Wrap-up (5 minutes)
  6.1. Who is in charge of the logs? The summary?
  6.2. Date/time next meeting? Should we delay by one week to let our bodies
       recover from the end-of-year festivities?
  6.3. Who will follow-up topics and write the agenda for the next meeting?

7. Open floor (ad libitum)

See you Monday at 1900UTC.