\summary{2014}{3}{11}

\agendaitem{Vote on GLEP 63}

Previous council action approved in principle the policies outlined in
"\glep{63}: Gentoo GPG key policies", but delayed the vote for approval
until the final language was put in place.  dilfridge presented a shorter
version of the GLEP which removed the "howto" language and reduced it to
just policy (\wgoref{User:Dilfridge/GLEP:1001a}).  Discussion progressed to a 
consensus that we should have only policy in the GLEP and a practical guide 
should be a separate document which can be changed without council vote.

We tabled the vote until either an email vote (initiated by dilfridge) or
the next meeting.


\agendaitem{Ban on EAPI 1 and 2 should extend to updating EAPI in existing 
ebuilds}
\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!2}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{3a319600f3dc2dc42703a710155b2882}

The council considered the question of whether the ban on EAPIs 1 and 2 should
extended to updating EAPIs in *existing* ebuilds, and not just new ebuilds added
to the tree. mgorny noted that we need bumps from EAPI 0 to 1 because we need
an easy way to introduce slotting without the major rewriting of ebuild phases
than an EAPI 0 to 3 bump would require.  After discussion, the council voted on
the following motion:

\vote{EAPI 1 and 2 are now banned.  This ban should not only be limited to new 
ebuilds, but should be extended to include updating EAPIs in *existing* ebuilds. 
In case of non-maintainer commits to fix dependencies, EAPI=0 ebuilds may be 
updated to EAPI=1 to keep the changes at a non-intrusive level, as a temporary 
workaround.}{Carried with 4 yes, 1 no and 1 abstention.}


\agendaitem{Make all cosmetic repoman warnings fatal}
\index{package!app-portage/repoman}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{8fb1d8c0dd80e17cbb1fc633006f14b9}

The council considered the question of whether all repoman warnings should be
made fatal.  Consensus was reached that this would lead to too many false
positives.

The motion failed with 4 no and 1 abstention.


\agendaitem{Adherence to FHS standards in Gentoo: putting config files int /etc}
\index{FHS}\index{udev rules}\index{configuration files!location}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item \agoref{gentoo-project}{474fc6822dba50ccc6192c9f31d8024a}
 \item \agoref{gentoo-project}{b59d8abb15e148b71d6e50180a2a27a7}
 \item \url{http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/filesystem/index.html}
\end{itemize}


The question of where config files should go was raised by patrick.  The
council discussed whether it should be policy to put all config files in /etc.
However, what defines a config file is unclear because some packages, like udev or
eudev, put their *default* config files in /lib/udev/rules.d which are overridden
by the files in /etc/udev/rules.d.  The former are not meant to be user-edited while
the later are.  The council is okay with static config files living outside of /etc
while user-editable config files should be in /etc.

rich0 introduced the following motion:

\vote{Council does not feel additional policy required regarding config files 
in /etc.
In particular packages that place config templates in /usr or /lib* and allow overriding
in /etc are fine. Specific issues not already discussed can be raised in future 
meetings.}{Passed with 4 yes and 1 abstention.}


\agendaitem{Bugs with council involvement}

The council looked at two open bugs:
\begin{itemize}
\item \bug{503382}: dberkholz said he would upload those summaries soon.
\item \bug{477030}: There has been no progress.  scarabeus was to nudge 
betelgeuse for that summary.
\end{itemize}

\agendaitem{Open floor}

No issues were brought forward.