
\summary{2014}{2}{25}


\agendaitem{GLEP 63 (GPG signing)}
This is now a draft and has a number assigned, see \glep{63}. However, a vote
hasn't been requested yet, and there are still some pending changes.
Therefore postponed to next meeting.


\agendaitem{EAPI deprecation}
\index{EAPI!0}\index{EAPI!3}\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!2}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \agoref{gentoo-project}{14cc0e4a82ac3fe0a6aca94aaebb981f}
 \item
 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90291 (broken link)
\end{itemize}


The council voted to deprecate or ban EAPIs 0 to 3:
\vote{Deprecate EAPI 3}{Accepted unanimously.}
\vote{Deprecate EAPI 0}{Accepted unanimously.}
\vote{Ban new EAPI 1 ebuilds}{Accepted unanimously.}
\vote{Ban new EAPI 2 ebuilds}{Accepted (5 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention).}


\agendaitem{Stable keywords on testing architectures}
\index{arch!m68k}\index{arch!sh}\index{arch!s390}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \agoref{gentoo-project}{e4e0ee942cf7af8f47b8e3d312498be7}
 \item
 \bug{498332}, comments 5 and 11
\end{itemize}

Some developers continued to mark ebuilds stable on archs dropped to
testing (namely, m68k, sh, and s390), leaving dependencies on these
archs in an inconsistent state. The council notes that this will not
be a problem if these archs are marked as "exp" in profiles.desc.
The respective arch team can use repoman -e, whereas other developers
can ignore stable keywords for these archs. In particular, dropping
the last stable version of an ebuild for an "exp" arch is allowed.

\vote{Minor archs with inconsistent stable keywording should be
marked "exp".}{Accepted unanimously.}


\agendaitem{gtk USE flags}
\index{use flag!gtk}\index{project!QA}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \agoref{gentoo-project}{a0a53d00109512557d233997699e8ce1}
 \item
 \agoref{gentoo-project}{b2e8c759b08c29f2c4215ea74511bf1c}
 \item
 \agoref{gentoo-dev}{cb8a98613ce0682f9ee0aaa268f3374b}
\end{itemize}

Following the recent announcement of the QA team on USE flag policy,
especially gtk flags, the council discussed whether QA has such
authority over tree policy.

\vote{QA's right to create standards in \glep{48} includes flag
  names and functionalities.}{Accepted (5 yes, 2 abstentions).}

The council did not vote on the concrete issue of gtk flags. It was
suggested that the QA and GNOME teams should discuss any further
issues arising there.


\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{category naming}

TomWij asked whether consistent category naming or bigger categories
should be preferred, which was briefly discussed.

