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
92
93
94
|
\summary{2013}{9}{17}
\agendaitem{Minor architectures stabilisation policy}
\index{arches!minor}\index{arches!stabilization}\index{STABLEREQ}
\index{KEYWORDREQ}\index{arch!m68k}\index{arch!s390}\index{arch!sh}
\begin{itemize}
\item
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2984 (dead link)
\item
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/87741 (dead link)
\end{itemize}
Discussion from last week's meeting was continued. Options considered
were a) to drop all ebuilds to an unstable keyword and b) the
following proposal of rich0, hereinafter called "package-by-package":
\begin{quote}
If a maintainer has an open STABLEREQ, or a KEYWORDREQ blocking a
pending STABLEREQ, for 90 days with archs CCed and otherwise ready
to be stabilized, the maintainer can remove older stable versions of
the package at their discretion. A package is considered ready to be
stabilized if it has been in the tree for 30 days, and has no known
major flaws on arches that upstream considers supported.
\end{quote}
It was agreed that there should be a separate vote for each
architecture in question.
\index{arch!ia64}\index{arch!sparc}\index{arch!alpha}
\begin{itemize}
\item m68k:
\vote{Drop all ebuilds to unstable keyword.}{Accepted unanimously.}
\item s390:
\vote{Drop all ebuilds to unstable keyword.}{Accepted unanimously.}
\item sh:
\vote{Drop all ebuilds to unstable keyword.}{Accepted with 5 yes votes and
1 no vote.}
\item ia64:
\vote{Action is required for this architecture.}{
Accepted with 3 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 1 abstention.}
\vote{Drop to unstable globally, or package-by-package.}{
Package-by-package proposal accepted unanimously.}
\item sparc:
\vote{Action is required for this architecture.}{
Rejected, tie vote (3 yes votes, 3 no votes).}
\item alpha:
\vote{Action is required for this architecture.}{
Accepted with 4 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstention.}
\vote{Drop to unstable globally, or package-by-package.}{
Package-by-package proposal accepted unanimously.}
\end{itemize}
In summary:
\begin{itemize}
\item
m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally.
\item
alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according
to the "package-by-package" proposal.
\item
sparc: No action.
\end{itemize}
\agendaitem{GLEP draft "Prefix with libc"}
\index{prefix!with libc}\index{RAP}
References:
\begin{itemize}
\item
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3022 (dead link)
\item
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/87466 (dead link)
\item
\url{
http://git.heroxbd.z.tuna.tsinghua.edu.cn/?p=doc.git;a=blob;f=glep-gap.rst;hb=HE
AD}
\end{itemize}
GLEP draft:
After a short discussion, the following vote was taken:
\vote{The council endorses the GLEP draft for RAP and encourages its
further refinement (including inside the portage tree if helpful).
The council looks forward to the final draft for eventual approval.}{
Accepted unanimously.}
Reinitiation of a GLEP team and recovery of the GLEP process.
--- Action: rich0 will put out a call for volunteers.
|
GitWeb