Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Council agenda for 12 March 2009
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:22:39
Message-Id: 20090309072235.GC23793@comet.hsd1.or.comcast.net
1 This week's agenda:
2
3 On 19:19 Mon 02 Mar , Thomas Anderson wrote:
4 > - GLEP 55
5 > There had been quite a bit of discussion on this topic recently.
6 > Within hours of the council meeting new proposals were being proposed
7 > and discussion was ongoing.
8 >
9 > Conclusion:
10 > No decision as of yet. Ciaran Mccreesh(ciaranm) and Zac
11 > Medico(zmedico) volunteered to benchmark the various proposals on
12 > the package managers they maintain(paludis and portage
13 > respectively. Petteri(Betelgeuse) will assist with the portage
14 > benchmarks. Tiziano(dev-zero) and Alec Warner(antarus) will write
15 > up a comparison of the various proposals and their various
16 > advantages and disadvantages within a week.
17 >
18 > - GLEP 54
19 > There had been some discussion on gentoo-dev since last meeting,
20 > though no consensus or agreement had been reached(surprise!)
21 >
22 > Conclusion:
23 > Thomas Anderson(tanderson) and Luca Barbato(lu_zero) will write up
24 > a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the two
25 > proposals(-scm and _live). This will be completed within a week.
26
27 Both of these GLEPs are still pending progress on the above commitments.
28 We cannot move forward before these steps are completed. If for some
29 reason we still haven't seen the above or a detailed reason describing
30 the lack thereof by the meeting, let's get live updates there.
31
32 > - Overlay Masking in Repositories.
33 > Brian Harring(ferringb) asked for discussion for when overlays
34 > attempted to unmask packages provided by the master
35 > repository(gentoo-x86). Because this is only available in portage
36 > (it is contrary to PMS), Brian thought it should not be allowed.
37 >
38 > Numerous suggestions were made to the effect that if a standardized
39 > set format was agreed upon for repositories and package.unmask was
40 > allowed to contain sets, then this problem would be fixed.
41 >
42 > Conclusion:
43 > No decision, as only discussion was requested. Mart Raudsepp(leio)
44 > will follow up on this with discussion on gentoo-dev
45
46 What, if anything, do you think we should do here? I looked over the
47 discussion on -dev and it wasn't entirely clear to me what needed to
48 happen next.
49
50 Mart, perhaps you could fill us in -- do you need to respond to some of
51 the open questions?
52
53
54 Other than that, I didn't see any requests on the announcement thread.
55 Let's get an update on open bugs.
56
57 --
58 Thanks,
59 Donnie
60
61 Donnie Berkholz
62 Developer, Gentoo Linux
63 Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com