| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 3 |
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 4 |
> to discuss or vote on. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Please respond to this email with agenda items. Please do not hesitate |
| 7 |
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 8 |
> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday |
| 11 |
> 7th of May 2013. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Please respond to the gentoo-project list for the items and have the |
| 14 |
> actual discussion on the items on the best suited mailing list (usually |
| 15 |
> gentoo-dev or gentoo-project). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I would like to get the council's opinion on enabling the |
| 19 |
"preserve-libs" portage feature by default in the stable portage |
| 20 |
branch. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This feature compliments the slot-operator feature introduced with |
| 23 |
EAPI 5 by keeping libraries installed until reverse dependencies can |
| 24 |
be rebuilt. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Zac Medico seems to be ok with it, but requested that I ask the |
| 27 |
council to discuss it. |
Archives