| 1 |
Gentoo council meeting summary 09 October 2012 |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Roll Call |
| 4 |
========= |
| 5 |
betelgeuse |
| 6 |
chainsaw |
| 7 |
dberkholz |
| 8 |
grobian |
| 9 |
scarabeus |
| 10 |
ulm |
| 11 |
williamh |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Allow using EAPI5 in the tree |
| 15 |
============================= |
| 16 |
Portage supports EAPI 5 since version 2.1.11.19. |
| 17 |
Vote: unanimous yes |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
EAPI 5 is allowed for ebuilds in the tree. The Council likes to note |
| 20 |
that EAPI 5 is not allowed to be used for stable ebuilds yet, for as |
| 21 |
long as a Portage supporting it is not marked stable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Package name specification |
| 25 |
========================== |
| 26 |
See [1]. |
| 27 |
Vote: |
| 28 |
a) Drop the limitation entirely (possibly in a future EAPI). |
| 29 |
-> noone voted for this option |
| 30 |
b) Make it stricter, i.e. disallow package names ending in a hyphen |
| 31 |
followed by anything that looks like a valid PVR. This is current |
| 32 |
Portage behaviour, and the tree complies with it, too. |
| 33 |
-> vote by: betelgeuse dberkholz grobian scarabeus ulm williamh |
| 34 |
c) Leave the spec as it is (and make Portage comply with it). |
| 35 |
-> vote by: chainsaw |
| 36 |
d) Require a) for Package managers and b) by tree policy. |
| 37 |
Practically, this would mean that repoman would reject "foo-1" as |
| 38 |
package name, but the rest of Portage would accept it. |
| 39 |
-> noone voted for this option |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
By majority, option b) was chosen. This means the specification (PMS) |
| 42 |
has to be adapted to make it stricter on package names, e.g. [2]. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Open bugs with council involvement |
| 46 |
================================== |
| 47 |
Bug 383467 "Council webpage lacks results for 2010 and 2011 elections" |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
grobian and scarabeus will try to sort this thing out with jmbsvicetto at |
| 50 |
LinuxDays Prague, which will take place 20th and 21st of October 2012. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Open Floor |
| 54 |
========== |
| 55 |
chainsaw and williamh informed us about developments on udev at the |
| 56 |
linux kernel mailing lists, and possible actions that follow up from |
| 57 |
there [3]. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
_AxS_ requested quasi-consensus on in_iuse functionality, an EAPI6 |
| 60 |
feature was suggested. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
_AxS_ asked the Council if they knew anything about a git rollout by |
| 63 |
infra, however, since this is infra domain, the Council doesn't know or |
| 64 |
control this. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
ferringb wanted to have the Council take a look at the current unified |
| 67 |
dependencies discussion. It was pushed for the next agenda, to have |
| 68 |
some preparation necessary to discuss the topic in a clear and directed |
| 69 |
manner. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
Next meeting date |
| 73 |
================= |
| 74 |
13 November 2012, 20:00 UTC |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2152 |
| 78 |
[2] https://174536.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=324680 |
| 79 |
[3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
-- |
| 82 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 83 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives