blob: c67df03f2f0a7a684d1e3025154095a84478589a (
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
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
|
\summary{2016}{2}{14}
\agendaitem{Options for new XML validation language}
\index{xml validation}
References:
\begin{itemize}
\item \agoref{gentoo-project}{3ebf4ccf0d4f27d6240888a3100d0d58}
\item \agoref{gentoo-project}{fa05f5319ef4255d3e3fe34da79a2534}
\end{itemize}
The situation of what would be the best option to choose wasn't completely
clear to the council and the proposing party wasn't present.
Any further decision have been postponed until better metrics are available.
\begin{itemize}
\item Which are Gentoo's requirements for an xml validation language?
\item Can both options provide the necessary capabilities?
\item What are the pros and cons specific for our requirements?
\item What are the advantages over our current system? Specifically what cannot
be done currently?
\item Which tools are impacted when switching from DTD to an alternative?
\end{itemize}
Michał Górny volunteered to do some research on the output of all three
validators.
\agendaitem{Discuss situation of libressl support maintenance}
\index{package!dev-libs/libressl}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{dc5406af670aebc050362fcbd8cd528e}
The libressl situation sums up as following:
\begin{itemize}
\item main maintainer is currently inactive
\item no team is present for libressl in Gentoo
\item 1/2 of the tree has libressl support implemented
\item a quite solid \href{https://github.com/gentoo/libressl/wiki/Transition-plan}{transition
plan} is in place
\end{itemize}
The council shortly touched various topics around the introduction of
libressl into the Gentoo ecosystem, but concluded that a project team
is needed, to which questions and concerns can be directed.
Some question which arise and should be answered by the project comprise
\begin{itemize}
\item Finish the work or remove it again?
\item Does it make sense to introduce a second highly security relevant library
to the tree?
\item Who adds the necessary code to the packages, the libressl team directly, or
via patch and bugs, or just the maintainers?
\item Who is maintaining the libressl support in the packages, the libressl project
or the individual maintainers?
\item What happens in case of API divergence between libressl and openssl? Who
maintains the necessary patches?
\end{itemize}
\agendaitem{Automatic bug assignments}\index{bugs!assignment}\index{bugs!wrangling}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{00e02ff494857599633e2bbc30520ca3}
The general preference of the council is positive towards automatic bug
assignments. But so far no working solution has been proposed. At this
point the Council sees no reason for any decision to be made itself.
The community or the bug wrangling project should draft an implementation.
\agendaitem{The usage of use() in global scope violates PMS}\index{use}\index{PMS}\index{dynamic SLOT}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{69ed522b3b53de90e616267a77441012}
The council members unanimously request all global usage of use() violating
PMS (\verb+https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-650007.1\verb+) to be fixed
until the March 2016 council meeting. After that members of the QA are
asked to fix remaining ebuilds/eclasses.
This decision renders the proposed solution for dynamic SLOTs, \bug{174407},
impossible.
This topic was deferred to a later meeting to give time for an alternative solution to be found.
\agendaitem{Bugs with council involvement}
\begin{itemize}
\item \bug{569914}:
dilfridge is kindly to be asked to provide the missing council meeting logs
and summary for the 20150727 meeting
\item \bug{568068}:
ulm volunteered to prepare an updated \glep{42} for the next meeting.
The only open question is if the new news item format should include a
Display-If-Visible header.
\end{itemize}
\agendaitem{Open floor}
No items were brought forward.
|
GitWeb