Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: David Seifert <soap@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-08-14)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 07:48:16
Message-Id: 51fba668e22a6a3eefccf3b352b24877309768cb.camel@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items for upcoming council meeting (2022-08-14) by Georgy Yakovlev
1 On Sun, 2022-07-31 at 09:24 -0700, Georgy Yakovlev wrote:
2 > Hello,
3 >
4 > Please reply with any topics you wish to be discussed during the next
5 > council meeting (2022-08-14).
6 >
7 > Current default agenda:
8 > 1. Roll call
9 > 2. Open bugs with council participation
10 > 3. Open floor
11 >
12 > -
13 > Georgy
14 >
15
16 I would like to finalise the multilib transition started many years ago.
17 Why am I asking for this? As a community, the question on how to handle
18 multilib in Gentoo is a settled issue and we want a final determination
19 for moving past previous proposals. To this end, I would want the
20 council to rule on the following:
21
22 1. Declare the current multilib solution (multilib-minimal.eclass,
23 [${MULTILIB_USEDEP}] usedeps) the final _de facto_ and _de jure_
24 approach Gentoo has chosen to take with respect to the multilib problem.
25 No other proposals will be entertained anymore. This does not affect the
26 historically differing implementation in the toolchain.
27
28 2. Portage-multilib is a dead end and doesn't have the manpower to
29 remain viable. While the majority of the portage team supports this
30 decision, I ask the council to give its blessing for ending Portage-
31 multilib as a branch within the portage git repo. The branch should be
32 removed, the author is free to maintain his fork going forward in a
33 separate repo not associated with portage.
34
35 3. Maintainers are free to close any bugs that are only reproducible
36 with Portage-multilib as INVALID.
37
38 Regards
39 David