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
|
\summary{2012}{10}{9}
\agendaitem{Allow using EAPI 5 in the tree}
\index{EAPI!5}
\vote{Portage supports EAPI 5 since version 2.1.11.19.
Therefore EAPI 5 is allowed for ebuilds in the tree. The Council likes to note
that EAPI 5 is not allowed to be used for stable ebuilds yet, for as
long as a Portage supporting it is not marked stable.}{unanimous yes}
\agendaitem{Package name specification}
\index{packages!names}\index{PMS}
References:
\begin{itemize}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-project}{e96d276a4524778bc80871bba48c06c6}
\item
\url{https://174536.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=324680}, attachment on
\bug{174536}
\end{itemize}
\vote{
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
\item
Drop the limitation entirely (possibly in a future EAPI).
\item
Make it stricter, i.e. disallow package names ending in a hyphen
followed by anything that looks like a valid PVR. This is current
Portage behaviour, and the tree complies with it, too.
\item
Leave the spec as it is (and make Portage comply with it).
\item
Require a) for Package managers and b) by tree policy.
Practically, this would mean that repoman would reject "foo-1" as
package name, but the rest of Portage would accept it.
\end{enumerate}
}{By majority, option b) was chosen. This means the specification (PMS)
has to be adapted to make it stricter on package names, see above linked bug
attachment.}
\agendaitem{Open bugs with council involvement}
\bug{383467}:
grobian and scarabeus will try to sort this thing out with jmbsvicetto at
LinuxDays Prague, which will take place 20th and 21st of October 2012.
\agendaitem{Open Floor}
\index{package!sys-fs/udev}\index{in_iuse}\index{EAPI!6}\index{git!migration}
\index{unified dependencies}\index{dependencies!unified}
chainsaw and williamh informed us about developments on udev at the
linux kernel mailing lists, see \url{https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303}, and
possible actions that follow up from there.
_AxS_ requested quasi-consensus on in_iuse functionality; an EAPI 6
feature was suggested.
_AxS_ asked the Council if they knew anything about a git rollout by
infra, however, since this is infra domain, the Council doesn't know or
control this.
ferringb wanted to have the Council take a look at the current unified
dependencies discussion. It was pushed for the next agenda, to have
some preparation necessary to discuss the topic in a clear and directed
manner.
|
GitWeb
