summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20080710.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20080710.tex119
1 files changed, 119 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20080710.tex b/decisions/summary-20080710.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0d91fc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20080710.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+
+\summary{2008}{7}{10}
+
+
+GLEP 56: Approved. Cardoe will get repoman changes made, followed by a
+ server-side script to generate use.local.desc from
+ metadata.xml.
+
+
+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:
+\begin{itemize}
+ \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.
+
+< 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.
+
+
+\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}
+
+Summary: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be,
+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.
+
+Requested changes were made: \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.
+