blob: 6bf3e4810802e1594f79fc1a5953c4419493b7c4 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
\summary{2008}{2}{14}
Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{eedef3ff358221e8dd267182f8ff9103}
\agendaitem{Code of Conduct enforcement}
\index{Code of Conduct!enforcement}
\dev{dberkholz} posted a simple suggestion to -council last night, see the
\agoref{gentoo-council}{ba125098c929ea31f34051dfb009d436}. The basic idea is to
just promote individual developers responding to people who are being jerks.
Privately, unless things get out of hand. Council supported the implementation.
\dev{dberkholz} will get things going.
\agendaitem{Document of being an active developer}
\index{developer certificate}\index{project!devrel}
Updates: \dev{araujo} was working on a script to automatically insert data into
XML in scribus or inkscape formats. He said he would work on it this weekend.
Creating the template file is on hold pending a format decision from this
script project.
Any news from devrel on key? \dev{dberkholz} pinged \dev{musikc} for an update.
\agendaitem{Slacker arches}
\index{arches!slacking}
There was no news on this issue.
\agendaitem{GLEP 54: scm package version suffix}
\index{GLEP!54}\index{scm version suffix}
Concerning \glep{54}, none of the planned discussion on gentoo-dev took place.
No resubmission to the council was done.
\agendaitem{GLEP 55: Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)}
\index{GLEP!55}\index{EAPI suffix}
Concerning \glep{55}, none of the planned discussion on gentoo-dev took place.
No resubmission to the council was done.
\agendaitem{GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml}
\index{metadata.xml}\index{upstream tags}
References:
\begin{itemize}
\item
\glep{46}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-dev}{46d474d621455bc204654dc483e87cc5}
\end{itemize}
The GLEP was approved, with a caveat: Questions were raised about requiring
http:// and https:// only. What about ftp:// ? What about no limitation, and
requiring tools to throw out protocols they don't recognize? Why is that
restriction there?
Once those questions are resolved, the GLEP will be finalized.
\agendaitem{EAPI=1: Where is the approved specification?}
\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!0}\index{PMS}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{e1b4a369534e30b8a64c6c6429cfe729}
A long discussion was had about whether we should continue using EAPI=1 when we
don't have EAPI=0 approved, reverting EAPI=1, and the value of specifications in
producing quality code. People generally agreed about not adding any new EAPIs
until the PMS for EAPI=0 is approved, but there wasn't agreement on changing
anything about EAPI=1.
To make forward progress, \dev{halcy0n} agreed to work on getting the PMS ready
for EAPI=0. He asked for anyone else interested to contact him so we can get it
done and approved ASAP.
\dev{halcy0n} will give us an update at the next council meeting.
|
GitWeb