1 files changed, 71 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20121009.tex b/decisions/summary-20121009.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1eb8039
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20121009.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+
+\summary{2012}{10}{9}
+
+
+\agendaitem{Allow using EAPI 5 in the tree}
+\index{EAPI!5}
+
+\vote{Portage supports EAPI 5 since version 2.1.11.19.
+Therefore 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.}{unanimous yes}
+
+
+\agendaitem{Package name specification}
+\index{packages!names}\index{PMS}
+
+References: 
+\begin{itemize}
+ \item 
+ \agoref{gentoo-project}{e96d276a4524778bc80871bba48c06c6}
+ \item
+ \url{https://174536.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=324680}, attachment on 
+ \bug{174536}
+\end{itemize}
+
+\vote{
+\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
+ \item 
+ Drop the limitation entirely (possibly in a future EAPI).
+ \item
+ 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.
+ \item 
+ Leave the spec as it is (and make Portage comply with it).
+ \item
+ 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.
+\end{enumerate}
+}{By majority, option b) was chosen.  This means the specification (PMS)
+has to be adapted to make it stricter on package names, see above linked bug 
+attachment.}
+
+
+\agendaitem{Open bugs with council involvement}
+
+\bug{383467}:
+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.
+
+
+\agendaitem{Open Floor}
+\index{package!sys-fs/udev}\index{in_iuse}\index{EAPI!6}\index{git migration}
+\index{unified dependencies}
+
+chainsaw and williamh informed us about developments on udev at the
+linux kernel mailing lists, see \url{https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303}, and 
+possible actions that follow up from there.
+
+_AxS_ requested quasi-consensus on in_iuse functionality; an EAPI 6
+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.