| 1 |
El sáb, 11-06-2016 a las 03:35 -0700, Daniel Campbell escribió: |
| 2 |
> On 06/10/2016 02:45 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Hello, |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would |
| 7 |
> > like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I |
| 8 |
> > would |
| 9 |
> > like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, |
| 10 |
> > and I |
| 11 |
> > wish you re-election. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200 |
| 15 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400 |
| 19 |
> > > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > > |
| 22 |
> > > > Hi everyone, |
| 23 |
> > > > |
| 24 |
> > > > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12. This is a call |
| 25 |
> > > > for any |
| 26 |
> > > > agenda items. |
| 27 |
> > > In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first): |
| 28 |
> > > |
| 29 |
> > > 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It |
| 30 |
> > > still |
| 31 |
> > > hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready |
| 32 |
> > > with |
| 33 |
> > > reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss |
| 34 |
> > > this |
| 35 |
> > > separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think |
| 36 |
> > > having it |
| 37 |
> > > approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council |
| 38 |
> > > approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the |
| 39 |
> > > repository. |
| 40 |
> > > |
| 41 |
> > > 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to |
| 42 |
> > > the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4, |
| 43 |
> > > patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former |
| 44 |
> > > (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way |
| 45 |
> > > we can |
| 46 |
> > > kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior |
| 47 |
> > > undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and |
| 48 |
> > > newer, |
| 49 |
> > > leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really |
| 50 |
> > > makes |
| 51 |
> > > sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, |
| 52 |
> > > and |
| 53 |
> > > different behavior will only increase confusion. |
| 54 |
> > > |
| 55 |
> > > 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally |
| 56 |
> > > wanted to |
| 57 |
> > > do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, |
| 58 |
> > > I |
| 59 |
> > > think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key |
| 60 |
> > > point of |
| 61 |
> > > my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old |
| 62 |
> > > versions implicitly. |
| 63 |
> > > |
| 64 |
> > > 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly |
| 65 |
> > > strip |
| 66 |
> > > localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the |
| 67 |
> > > first |
| 68 |
> > > step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is |
| 69 |
> > > renaming |
| 70 |
> > > the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally |
| 71 |
> > > something |
| 72 |
> > > else, plus a news item. |
| 73 |
> > > |
| 74 |
> > > 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect |
| 75 |
> > > it's |
| 76 |
> > > going to end up going to the Council anyway. |
| 77 |
> > > |
| 78 |
> > > I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let |
| 79 |
> > > you |
| 80 |
> > > know. |
| 81 |
> > > |
| 82 |
> > > |
| 83 |
> > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK |
| 84 |
> > > [2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf |
| 85 |
> > > 60d4d4aef97df6e683 |
| 86 |
> > > [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452 |
| 87 |
> > > [4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a1 |
| 88 |
> > > 34d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d |
| 89 |
> > > [5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6 |
| 90 |
> > > bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e |
| 91 |
> > > [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750 |
| 92 |
> > > [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610 |
| 93 |
> > > [8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e53 |
| 94 |
> > > 4fd9bc1146703c66ff |
| 95 |
> > > [9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30 |
| 96 |
> > > abb9f9d21d205b7b82 |
| 97 |
> > > [10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad37024811 |
| 98 |
> > > 8c474a0d819fa7f3576 |
| 99 |
> > > |
| 100 |
> > |
| 101 |
> > |
| 102 |
> I can understand wanting to avoid a conflict of interest, but I |
| 103 |
> really |
| 104 |
> don't see the trouble in suggesting your ideas hit the agenda. The |
| 105 |
> council can always choose "we don't want to decide on this yet". At |
| 106 |
> least, that's what I understand. |
| 107 |
> |
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
Yeah, I also fail to see what is wrong with suggesting the items for |
| 110 |
the agenda... is not that the purpose of this call? Or maybe I am |
| 111 |
missing some replies to the thread :| |
Archives