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