Improve 7/2008

1 files changed, 35 insertions, 84 deletions

diff --git a/decisions/summary-20080710.tex b/decisions/summary-20080710.tex
index 0d91fc9..339ba7f 100644
--- a/decisions/summary-20080710.tex
+++ b/decisions/summary-20080710.tex
@@ -1,119 +1,70 @@
 
 \summary{2008}{7}{10}
 
+Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{2164d07c74d191ad819b24b416e1e466}
 
-GLEP 56: Approved. Cardoe will get repoman changes made, followed by a 
-         server-side script to generate use.local.desc from 
-         metadata.xml.
+Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{bb3a3a0c1b0acb771a263294a67b722e}
 
 
-The meeting wrapped up in under 1 hour again. We still need to work 
-harder to push more discussion and questions to the mailing list, 
-though.
+The meeting wrapped up in under 1 hour again. We still need to work harder to 
+push more discussion and questions to the mailing list, though.
 
 
 \agendaitem{GLEP 54}
 \index{GLEP!54}
 
-Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "A few questions to 
-our nominees" 4+ hours before the meeting.
-
-Last month: 
+References:
 \begin{itemize}
+ \item
+ \glep{54}
  \item 
  \agoref{gentoo-dev}{c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea}
  \item
  \agoref{gentoo-dev}{05614741b3942bfdfb21fd8ebb7955e0}
 \end{itemize}
 
-Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list 
-no later than July 17.
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for scm
-<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine
-
-<Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: In general I oppose adding things to EAPI 0
-
-<   lu_zero@> dberkholz problem: if you have -scm installed
-<   lu_zero@> and then switch to a pm not knowing it
-<   lu_zero@> you have a nice recipe for inconsistency
-
-<   Halcy0n@> I would really like to see a list of features that we would 
-                    end up having after implementing this GLEP.  The GLEP 
-                    mentions possible enhancements, but I'd like to see what we 
-                    would have planned if we go forward with this change.
-<   Halcy0n@> Well, it only mentions one enhancement, I'd like to see 
-                    what else we could do to judge if it is worth it.
-Halcy0n@> Betelgeuse: yes, I know there are some things we could do,
-                    but I'd like to see a more extensive list of possibilities, 
-                    what are other possible ways of doing this (like a metadata 
-                    tag for the ebuild), and why those other methods aren't 
-                    sufficient.
+Several points were made in the discussion. Once \glep{55} is implemented, a 
+new EAPI could add SCM support, while package managers not supporting that 
+would continue to work fine. On the other hand, adding this to an existing 
+format would lead to difficulties when switching package manager. A more 
+explicit list of intended features was requested, and it should be made more 
+clear what the advances of the intended approaches were. 
 
-< dberkholz@> i think the point here is that the glep should address what 
-                    made its implementation superior to other possible ones, 
-                    which it also describes
-
-< dberkholz@> ok, i've noted the issues raised here
-< dberkholz@> once they're address, the glep can be revised and we'll 
-                    consider it again 
-\end{verbatim}
-
-Summary: There were numerous questions that apparently were not brought 
-         up on the mailing list in advance or were not addressed.
+In summary, there were numerous questions that apparently were not brought up 
+on the mailing list in advance or were not addressed. These should be addressed 
+in a revision of the GLEP. 
 
 
 \agendaitem{GLEP 55}
 \index{GLEP!55}
 
-Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "GLEP 55" 4+ hours 
-before the meeting.
-
-Last month:
-\agoref{gentoo-dev}{c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea}
-
-Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list 
-once we're ready.
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-<Betelgeuse@> But I don't see the use of accepting it before we a) 
-                    Portage has something that would make use of it b) some 
-                    other pkg manager is made official
-<   Halcy0n@> So, can we vote on postponing a GLEP of this nature until 
-                    another glep requires such changes? 
-\end{verbatim}
+References:
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item 
+ \glep{55}
+ \item
+ \agoref{gentoo-dev}{c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea}
+\end{itemize}
 
-Summary: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be, 
-but that's unclear until it's been revised.
+It was decided that this is on hold pending a concrete requirement for it. 
+\glep{54} may be one such requirement, but that's unclear until it's been 
+revised.
 
 
 \agendaitem{GLEP 56}
 \index{GLEP!56}\index{GLEP!56!approval}
 
-Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "[GLEP56] USE flag 
-descriptions in metadata" 4+ hours before the meeting. (Cardoe: Did the 
-requested updates ever get made?)
-
-Last month:
-\agoref{gentoo-dev}{54ee20d2b1d8122370afdd4b3d7aafc9}
-
-Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list 
-no later than July 17, if requested changes are made.
+References: 
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item 
+ \glep{56}
+ \item
+ \agoref{gentoo-dev}{54ee20d2b1d8122370afdd4b3d7aafc9}
+\end{itemize}
 
-Requested changes were made: \url{
+The requested changes were made, see \url{
 http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.txt?r1=1.1&r2=1.2
 }
 
-\begin{verbatim}
-<    Cardoe > Well the first step of making that portion happen is going 
-                    to be to add a check to repoman that if use.local.desc is 
-                    not present in the repo, do new QA check.
-<    Cardoe > Once that's in place that developers can use, then the 
-                    infra script will happen.
-<    Cardoe > I've already discussed it with the Portage folks and the 
-                    infra folks.
-\end{verbatim}
-
-Summary: Approved.
+\vote{Approval of \glep{56}}{Approved with 6 yes votes.}