Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Council: call for agenda items for June 12 meeting

[Raymond Jennings]

I think the demise or replacement of the sunrise project should be put on
the agenda possibly.  This is not anything official, just a hopefully
helpful suggestion.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would
> like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I would
> like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, and I
> wish you re-election.
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400
> > "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12.  This is a call for any
> > > agenda items.
> >
> > In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first):
> >
> > 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still
> > hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with
> > reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this
> > separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it
> > approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council
> > approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the
> > repository.
> >
> > 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to
> > the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4,
> > patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former
> > (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can
> > kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior
> > undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer,
> > leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes
> > sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and
> > different behavior will only increase confusion.
> >
> > 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to
> > do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I
> > think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of
> > my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old
> > versions implicitly.
> >
> > 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip
> > localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first
> > step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming
> > the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something
> > else, plus a news item.
> >
> > 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's
> > going to end up going to the Council anyway.
> >
> > I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you
> > know.
> >
> >
> > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK
> > [2]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683
> > [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452
> > [4]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d
> > [5]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e
> > [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750
> > [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610
> > [8]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff
> > [9]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82
> > [10]:
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
> <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
>