blob: 63f00f772a80ea8cdbf0deb888400cb63dde4d8a (
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
87
88
89
90
91
|
\summary{2009}{2}{12}
Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{221d6a37687a1512034bb2757c560d0a}
Agenda announcement: ?
\agendaitem{Should the council have a dedicated secretary?}
\index{council!secretary}
Previously \dev{dberkholz} fulfilled this role, but he became busy. Because
fulfilling the secretary duties can distract from the meeting, a dedicated,
non-council member secretary is ideal.
Conclusion: \dev{tanderson} volunteered and is the new secretary. Logs and
summary are to be posted on the -council mailing list. If no objections to them
are raised within one day, they are posted to the council page and the lists.
\agendaitem{Council Elections}
\index{council!election}
Should there be staggered elections every 6 months where half the council
members stand for reelection?
Conclusion: Leave things as they are; elections every 6 months is too
cumbersome. Full elections will be held once a year.
What happens if there aren't enough candidates nominated to fill all the
council seats?
Conclusion: If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations' will be the
current council. A second period of nominations will be opened for the remaining
council seats. No third period of nominations will be opened in the event
'_reopen_nominations' ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the
council.
\agendaitem{Prepalldocs}
\index{prepalldocs}\index{EAPI!0}\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!2}
Reference: \bug{250077}
Should 'prepalldocs' be allowed in current EAPIs?
Conclusion: Prepalldocs is banned in current EAPIs (0, 1, 2). It should be
removed from ebuilds. \dev{betelgeuse} will make QA checks for repoman.
\agendaitem{BASH version allowed in the tree}
\index{bash!features in ebuilds}\index{PMS}
PMS states that ebuilds can only rely on BASH 3.0 features. However, some code
in gentoo-x86 uses BASH 3.1 features('+=' being the most notable) and so is not
in conformance with PMS. It was suggested that BASH versions newer than 3.0 be
allowed in a future EAPI. \dev{ciaranm}, however, commented that this would
require \glep{55} being accepted so that a package manager would not have to
source the ebuild before knowing what BASH version it requires.\footnote{This
discussion cannot be found in the meeting log. However, it is referenced in the
meeting log during the ``open bugs'' discussion.}
Conclusion: No decision. \dev{cardoe} will follow this up with \dev{dev-zero}
as a backup.
\agendaitem{Open Bugs}
\begin{itemize}
\item
\bug{234711}:
\glep{54} solves two problems, version ordering\footnote{This was actually a
matter of debate during the meeting.} and periodic reinstall of live packages.
The Live Template proposal
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst\footnote{See
\ref{2000-02-luzero-live} for the text.} overlaps in that it also allows for
periodic reinstall of live packages. \dev{lu_zero} maintains that Live Template
provides proper version ordering, while \dev{ciaranm} maintains that it does
not.\\
Conclusion: No decision. The council cracked the whip on \dev{lu_zero} and
he is going to handle the issue.
\item
\glep{55}: Should .ebuild-\$eapi be approved? This ties in with "BASH version
allowed in the tree" issue mentioned above.\\
Conclusion: No decision. \dev{dev-zero} will be handling this bug.
\end{itemize}
|
GitWeb