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

[Daniel Campbell]

On 06/10/2016 02:45 PM, Michał Górny 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
>>
>
>
>
I can understand wanting to avoid a conflict of interest, but I really
don't see the trouble in suggesting your ideas hit the agenda. The
council can always choose "we don't want to decide on this yet". At
least, that's what I understand.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6