1 |
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tiziano Müller<dev-zero@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> This is your friendly reminder! Same bat time (typically the 2nd & 4th |
3 |
> Thursdays at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ |
4 |
> irc.freenode.net) ! |
5 |
> |
6 |
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote |
7 |
> on, let us know! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo dev |
8 |
> list to see. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: |
11 |
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ |
12 |
> |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Following is the preliminary meeting agenda. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
> EAPI 3: Short discussion of the progress |
18 |
> ---------------------------------------- |
19 |
> |
20 |
> zmedico will provide an update on the progress of the implementation. Short |
21 |
> discussion of problems and implementation decisions if needed. |
22 |
|
23 |
I'd say let's involve all the package manager maintainer groups. Each |
24 |
packager manager can have a rep speak on their behalf and we can plow |
25 |
through this topic fairly quickly. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Default ACCEPT_LICENSE |
29 |
> ---------------------- |
30 |
> Goal: A possible default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE has been proposed. Decide |
31 |
> whether that's ok. What happens to the X11 license files (one for each app)? |
32 |
|
33 |
In virtually all situations MIT has been used for the X11 license, |
34 |
which should be sufficient enough for us. The previously proposed |
35 |
defaults for ACCEPT_LICENSE all looked reasonable to me. |
36 |
|
37 |
> |
38 |
> |
39 |
> Bash-4 in EAPI-3 |
40 |
> ---------------- |
41 |
> Goal: A request has been made to allow bash-4.0 features in EAPI-3. Decide |
42 |
> first whether or not to open the EAPI-3 feature list at all. |
43 |
|
44 |
No. bash-4 has seen some regressions and some oddities. 24 patches in |
45 |
and its starting to seem remotely sane, except the problem is it does |
46 |
not have wide scale adoption yet. I expect to see a lot of patches |
47 |
coming. Additionally, EAPI-3 has been an ongoing thing long enough. |
48 |
The more we keep pushing this off the more items should be shuffled |
49 |
in. We decided what EAPI-3 was a long time back. Stick with that. |
50 |
EAPI-4 can be the bases of bash-4 support. |
51 |
|
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Define EAPI development/deployment cycles |
55 |
> ----------------------------------------- |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Goal: Start discussion about EAPI development/deployment. For example: |
58 |
> Collect problems of eapi introductions in the past, like reverting |
59 |
> ebuilds to former eapis to get them stable, not waiting for the pm |
60 |
> support a certain eapi before requesting stable keywords for ebuilds |
61 |
> using the new eapi, .... Collect problems of EAPI development like |
62 |
> feature-freeze, late feature removals (due to implementation problems). |
63 |
> Eventually develop a lightweight EAPI development model. |
64 |
|
65 |
This is still something being discussed on the mailing lists and |
66 |
belongs there. Not in a council meeting. |
67 |
|
68 |
If I am AFK during the council meeting due to being in a skiff, I have |
69 |
designated tanderson/gentoofan23 as my proxy. |
70 |
|
71 |
-- |
72 |
Doug Goldstein |