\summary{2010}{7}{26}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-council}{33a301b55a124441d4a2b02055287b47}

Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-council}{620cb09e78b4e7d9997c45eb204f7fd7}

\agendaitem{Adding --as-needed to the default profile LDFLAGS}
\index{as-needed}\index{--as-needed}\index{LDFLAGS}

A motion to add --as-needed to the default profile LDFLAGS was passed by 
unanimous vote. \dev{scarabeus} will create a news item, \dev{ssuominen} already pushed the actual change.


\agendaitem{REQUIRED_USE}
\index{REQUIRED_USE}\index{EAPI!4}

Reference: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/required-use.html (dead link, see 
\ref{2010-05-ferringb-requireduse} for the text)

REQUIRED_USE was approved provisionally for EAPI 4 by all council members.


\agendaitem{Eclass removal policy}
\index{eclasses!removal}

Should an eclass still have to remain for 2 years in the tree after the last consumer was removed? Portage 2.1.4.4 went stable in the meantime, which saves the environment of an ebuild and thus also the eclass code.

All members agreed on removing the 2 year policy. QA will write a devmanual patch with a 30+ days minimum lastrite period for eclass removals


\agendaitem{Should there a policy about eclass API changes?}
\index{eclasses!api changes}

No decision was reached; discussions will continue on the mailing lists


\agendaitem{Use of invalid DEPEND atom "EAPI_TOO_OLD" instead of calling die in 
global scope on eclasses}
\index{EAPI_TOO_OLD}\index{die!in global scope}\index{PMS}\index{eclasses}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{dee3aab5e8c840ed3fa4add9c7d74b97} and 
replies

The council voted for calling die in global scope, instead of using an invalid DEPEND. \dev{ferringb} will prepare a patch for the devmanual; PMS will also be adapted. 


\agendaitem{Mailing list for the council agenda}
\index{mailing list!gentoo-council}
\index{mailing list!gentoo-dev}
\index{mailing list!gentoo-project}
\index{council!meeting!agenda}

Should the council agenda be posted to the -council mailing list, to -dev, or to  
-project?

Some developers suggested we should cross-post to -dev and -council, but not everyone likes cross-posting as it can lead to fragmentation. \dev{betelgeuse} suggested punting -council and using -project instead.

A motion to punt -council ended in a 2-2 tie. The discussion will be continued on the mailing lists.


\agendaitem{Bugs assigned to council@g.o}

\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \bug{234706}: \dev{halcy0n} will be asked if he wants to resume work on this 
 bug.
 \item
 \bug{256451}: \dev{ferringb} will be asked if he still wants to do this.
 \item
 \bug{256453}: \dev{wired} will take care of this.
 \item
 \bug{237381}: \dev{jmbsvicetto} will take care of this.
\end{itemize}


\agendaitem{Open floor}

No items were brought up.