summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
blob: da533e3b73810128f1b8cb17492204709dfedd35 (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
\summary{2015}{12}{13}

\agendaitem{Games file-path policy}
\index{EAPI!6}\index{games!file paths}\index{eclass!games.eclass}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item \agoref{gentoo-project}{c60f7c1514f175b8cc0d376ae9373e17}
 \item \agoref{gentoo-project}{9578d459aee22ca47b1dc19149684662}
\end{itemize}

The council voted in favor of deprecating the /usr/games and /etc/games
directories. Games packages should {\em not} install any files there, but
follow the normal guidelines for install locations instead. Two
exceptions are made: (a) Games packages can install files in
/usr/share/games (instead of /usr/share) if that is the location used
by upstream. (b) Shared high-score or game state files can be placed
in /var/games or a subdirectory of it. 

A vote was conducted and passed stating that new packages should not
inherit the current games eclass. Following this a vote was held on
whether "EAPI 6 should be blocked in the current games eclass", which
passed with a vote count of 4 yes, 2 no and 1 abstainations.

\agendaitem{Review, and possibly vote on GLEP 67}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{effdb2474965825fdfc06d0276e3318d}

The council unanumously voted in favor of "The council approves the
general direction of \glep{67} but notes that minor alterations might
be needed to provide clarity before final approval"

\agendaitem{Bugs with council involvement}

The council briefly discussed \bug{503382}. The current status
of this bug is a missing summary for the 20140225 meeting. Ulm has
volunteered to write this and it is ongoing.

\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{EAPI!5}\index{news item}

The council discussed \bug{568068}. It was a concensus for defining a new
news item format for additional EAPI settings and clarify that version
1.0 uses EAPI 0. In order to be consistent with terminology, the term
"package dependency specification" should be used rather than
"dependency atom".