1 |
Hi all, |
2 |
|
3 |
Here's the agenda for the meeting on Monday. Two topics didn't make it for this |
4 |
meeting. I will be addressing the reasons why this happened in a different |
5 |
email as I don't want to delay this agenda any longer. One obvious reason |
6 |
though is time: you'll see that it's pretty packed. |
7 |
|
8 |
1. Intro (5 minutes, including late arrivals) |
9 |
1.1. Make sure somebody is logging |
10 |
1.2. Roll call |
11 |
1.3 Who wants to chair? I can volunteer if nobody doesn't as I know the |
12 |
topics already. |
13 |
1.4. Last chance for remarks on the agenda (in particular does anybody mind |
14 |
extending the duration of topics as the timing is tight) |
15 |
|
16 |
2. EAPI3 status (10 minutes) |
17 |
Can we have an ETA? Even a vague one would help. |
18 |
|
19 |
3. Prefix (15 minutes) |
20 |
3.1. The prefix team has answered all questions (see full thread at [1]), |
21 |
provided a PMS patch [2], and have a portage branch ready with most if |
22 |
not all features. Vote for or against it. If voting against please |
23 |
suggest improvements. |
24 |
3.2. EAPI bump |
25 |
3.2.1. Should we make a quick, prefix-specific EAPI bump? |
26 |
3.2.2. Should we wrap together prefix plus whatever features of EAPI3 which |
27 |
are already ready into an intermediate EAPI and ship that now? |
28 |
3.2.3. Should we add prefix to EAPI3 and ship it all together when what's |
29 |
missing of EAPI3 is ready? |
30 |
|
31 |
4. GLEPs 58, 59, 60 and 61 (15 minutes) |
32 |
Read more about this as well as a nice summary at [3]. Vote for or against |
33 |
each of these 4 GLEPs. If voting against please suggest improvements and/or |
34 |
alternatives. |
35 |
|
36 |
5. mtime preservation (15 minutes) |
37 |
Three alternatives have been proposed: |
38 |
5.1. The package manager must preserve modification times of regular files. |
39 |
This includes files being compressed before merging. Exceptions to this |
40 |
are: |
41 |
- Files newly created by the package manager |
42 |
- Binary object files being stripped of symbols |
43 |
- Maybe others |
44 |
Depending on the exact wording and exceptions this can be made |
45 |
equivalent to 5.3 below. |
46 |
5.2. Let ebuilds call dopreservemtimes (with an API similar to docompress) in |
47 |
both src_install and pkg_preinst. Doing so would instruct the package |
48 |
manager that it must preserve mtimes (including subsecond, if supported |
49 |
on the filesystem) for a particular set of paths, even if doing so means |
50 |
no stripping etc. All other mtimes may be rewritten as the package |
51 |
manager sees fit, and from this next EAPI onwards must be rewritten at |
52 |
merge time for anything predating the start of the build. |
53 |
5.3. Just document precisely the current behavior of portage and what can be |
54 |
relied upon. |
55 |
Note that none of these propositions have a solution for subsecond resolution |
56 |
requirements. But note also that no package could be identified as having |
57 |
such requirement yet. Do we care? |
58 |
|
59 |
6. Wrap-up (5 minutes) |
60 |
6.1. Who is in charge of the logs? The summary? |
61 |
6.2. Date/time next meeting? Should we delay by one week to let our bodies |
62 |
recover from the end-of-year festivities? |
63 |
6.3. Who will follow-up topics and write the agenda for the next meeting? |
64 |
|
65 |
7. Open floor (ad libitum) |
66 |
|
67 |
See you Monday at 1900UTC. |
68 |
Denis. |
69 |
|
70 |
[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2a62689c71f95e4de5699a330b8b5524.xml |
71 |
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_62b5df924d6e9e74c94149e7e7f17d23.xml |
72 |
[3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_da4bd914abf0d830cbd063328abf742f.xml |