path: root/meeting-logs/20141021.txt

[15:00:23] <rich0> Ok, I have 19:00 on my watch.
[15:00:27] <rich0> Roll call...
[15:00:32] -*- ulm here
[15:00:36] -*- WilliamH here
[15:01:20] <rich0> blueness, dilfridge, radhermit?
[15:01:20] <radhermit> here
[15:02:45] <rich0> I just sent a text to dberkholz
[15:02:59] <dilfridge> here
[15:03:07] <rich0> Ok, just blueness
[15:03:44] <blueness> here!
[15:03:55] <blueness> shit i got busy in another channel
[15:03:58] <blueness> but i'm ready :)
[15:04:06] <rich0> Ok, let's get started - no word from dberkholz but I did text him.
[15:04:09] <blueness> and there's the text :)
[15:04:15] <blueness> at least this time i wasn't asleep
[15:04:43] <rich0> Ok, same agenda, but we're up to Deprecating and killing the concept of herds
[15:04:55] <rich0> Looks like mgorny is at the center of every agenda item today.  :)
[15:04:57] <WilliamH> kill them with fire and nukes
[15:05:11] <blueness> WilliamH, no kill them with loooove
[15:05:17] <rich0> Nah, nukes are reserved for cvs keywords.
[15:05:26] <blueness> ah yes
[15:05:29] <dilfridge> not kill but correct the definition (people not packages)
[15:05:37] <ulm> I'm o.k. with killing herds, as long as we keep a distinction in metadata if the maintaining entity is a person or a team
[15:05:38] <blueness> okay i'm all for killing herds, but two things
[15:06:00] <blueness> 1) we keep the mail aliases somehow so that we can track packages
[15:06:04] <WilliamH> ulm: you can tell that in the <maintainer> tags
[15:06:14] <blueness> so maybe change <herd> to just <email>
[15:06:24] <dilfridge> <maintainer><email>kde@gentoo.org</email><name>Gentoo KDE team</name></maintainer>
[15:06:31] <dilfridge> compare this ^ to
[15:06:36] <dilfridge> <herd>kde</herd>
[15:06:38] <blueness> i like that
[15:06:48] <rich0> Would we require all packages to have a maintainer or project listed to be considered maintained?
[15:06:54] <WilliamH> dilfridge: nuke the <herd> tag
[15:06:57] <ulm> dilfridge: that's not what the DTD defines as name
[15:07:00] <rich0> That is, just an alias isn't good enough unless it is a real project?
[15:07:01] <blueness> 2) we need to really figure out what the relationship between herds and projects are
[15:07:02] <WilliamH> dilfridge: it is unnecessary
[15:07:05] <ulm> name is for a person
[15:07:27] <blueness> i don't even know what teams i'm on anymore because i've just been working with herds aka mail aliases
[15:07:35] <WilliamH> blueness: herds are groups of packages, maintained by devs who are members of projects.
[15:07:36] <dilfridge> if we can come up with a similarly concise metadata fomulation then I am for nuking something. I'm not happy to blow up all metadata files to infinity.
[15:07:46] <radhermit> so this doesn't kill herds, just changes metadata? I'm fine with that, never liked the 2nd layer of redirection
[15:08:13] <blueness> radhermit, that's my understanding
[15:08:14] <ulm> dilfridge: +1
[15:08:15] <WilliamH> blueness: for example, the accessibility project maintains the accessibility and gnome-accessibility herds.
[15:08:19] <blueness> so we're really not loosing any data
[15:08:21] <rich0> I think we're all for simplifying things here.  I'm not quite sure we are solid on what we want to change TO.
[15:08:40] <dilfridge> a) keep metadata.xml somehow short and concise.
[15:08:55] <radhermit> just use straight email addresses in metadata only
[15:09:01] <ulm> WilliamH: same for emacs team, it maintains emacs and xemacs herds
[15:09:08] <dilfridge> b) kill the concept "herds=sets of packages" (because noone uses it like that)
[15:09:19] <blueness> on point b correct
[15:09:42] <WilliamH> The <herd> tag should go
[15:10:11] <ulm> WilliamH: replace it by <project> or <team>?
[15:10:13] <dilfridge> which leads us to - what else is needed after a) and b) is done? redefine former herds as teams?
[15:10:23] <rich0> Should metadata have a way to distinguish between personal and alias emails?  Can alias emails be "maintainers" unless they're projects?  Where do non-maintaining aliases go?
[15:11:00] <rich0> dilfridge: I think we should define where we want to be.  Getting there is a simpler problem.
[15:11:14] <dilfridge> we could introduce a <team> tag that goes to a xxx@gentoo.org alias
[15:11:23] <blueness> dilfridge, that would be better
[15:11:26] <dilfridge> same usage as herd today
[15:11:33] <mgorny> why extra tags? <maintainer type="xxx">
[15:11:41] <rich0> mgorny: ++
[15:11:44] <rich0> That was my thought.
[15:11:47] -*- WilliamH agrees with mgorny here, why keep tags?
[15:11:51] <blueness> i've got this gut feeling that we need to define the existing and members so we know who is taking care of what packages
[15:11:54] <dilfridge> because it's an extra 20 characters that I have to type.
[15:11:54] <radhermit> <maintainer type="bot">
[15:12:02] <rich0> But what about aliases that aren't maintainers?  Do we want to ban them?  Only true projects can have aliases?
[15:12:17] <blueness> we want aliases that are not maintaiers
[15:12:25] <dilfridge> sure
[15:12:27] <WilliamH> dilfridge: here specifically does *not* go to an email@g.o I don't think, you have to look it up in herds.xml
[15:12:34] <WilliamH> s/here/herd/
[15:12:38] <rich0> Maybe the tag should be <email type="maintainer">
[15:12:42] <dilfridge> WilliamH: yes, but that's an abomination
[15:12:56] <blueness> rich0, interesting idea
[15:12:59] <dilfridge> one level of indirection beyond sanity
[15:14:16] <rich0> So, some principles.  Get rid of herds.  Have email in metadata, and have a way to tell if the email is personal, proejct, or just non-maintaining alias.
[15:14:21] <ulm> just rename <herd> to <team>
[15:14:26] <WilliamH> Ok, a maintainer tag contains a name and an email... that email could be an alias, just like we do now...
[15:14:35] <ulm> no attributes or other such xml abominations
[15:14:36] <dilfridge> rich0, ulm: ++
[15:15:00] <mgorny> ulm: that's extra work for no benefit
[15:15:02] <blueness> rich0, yeah that sounds okay
[15:15:03] <rich0> ulm: what is a "team"?  :)  Just an email address, that may or may not be a project, and which may or may not maintain a package?
[15:15:15] <dilfridge> with the distinction that <team>x</team> directly maps to x@gentoo.org without exceptions
[15:15:22] <ulm> mgorny: we'll have to update the dtd in any case
[15:15:31] <rich0> Ok, is our goal to fully spec this out today, or do we want to punt on the details and resolve next meeting?
[15:15:43] -*- WilliamH is against a team tag
[15:15:46] <rich0> Maybe we just vote on the direction, and then let the DTD be fixed on the lists or something.
[15:15:49] <ulm> rich0: a team is the group of devs maintaining what is currently called a herd
[15:15:50] <blueness> rich0, this is too complex for me to think on the fly
[15:16:03] <WilliamH> just use a maintainer tag...
[15:16:08] <rich0> blueness: that is my concern - I don't just want to bikeshed the solution in 10mins.
[15:16:12] <WilliamH> maintainers can be aliases...
[15:16:33] <rich0> We can vote on the general direction and requirements, but then let the implementation be worked out on the lists with a final vote.
[15:16:38] <rich0> We can also propose a migration plan on the lists.
[15:16:51] <rich0> Until today we didn't really know where everybody stood on it.
[15:17:05] <dilfridge> please migrate after git, it will make it so much more sane
[15:17:08] <rich0> That would be my proposal.  
[15:17:28] <WilliamH> That's reasonable because it could all be done in one commit.
[15:17:42] <rich0> ++ - Git will be done next Tuesday anyway.  :)
[15:17:49] -*- rich0 ducks
[15:17:50] <WilliamH> heh
[15:17:52] <radhermit> heh ok
[15:18:13] <ulm> while we're at it, we could also make the maintainer tag for individual devs more concise
[15:18:24] <ulm> nick should be enough for gentoo devs
[15:18:39] <dilfridge> true
[15:18:40] <rich0> ulm: what about proxies?
[15:18:45] <rich0> Shoudl they get a different tag?
[15:18:50] <rich0> (or attribute)
[15:18:59] <radhermit> do we need to bikeshed this all now?
[15:18:59] <rich0> I'm thinking about software that has to parse this stuff.
[15:18:59] <ulm> rich0: they would keep full e-mail addresses of course
[15:19:05] <radhermit> seems like something for lists
[15:19:11] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not sure that's necessary, because you can list multiple maintainers
[15:19:14] <dilfridge> no @ -> dev
[15:19:16] <rich0> radhermit: ++
[15:19:20] <dilfridge> ++
[15:19:21] <ulm> yeah, let's discuss it on lists
[15:19:21] <blueness> http://dpaste.com/1J2YMFS
[15:19:29] <rich0> Ok, then how about this for a quick summary:
[15:19:32] <blueness> ^^ this seems to be what we are all saying
[15:19:42] <mgorny> also note that metadata.xml is not only for gx86 but also for other repos
[15:19:45] <mgorny> including non-gentoo
[15:20:07] <WilliamH> mgorny: all we have to be concerned about is gentoo-x86
[15:20:24] <rich0> "The council is in favor of retiring herds, allowing non-maintainer aliases to exist, and having a way to distinguish between individuals, projects, and non-maintainer aliases in metadata.xml.  The details of how to implement this will be worked out in the lists before the next meeting."
[15:20:43] <blueness> yes!
[15:20:47] <blueness> perfect
[15:20:47] <ulm> +1
[15:20:51] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:20:54] <radhermit> yes
[15:20:57] -*- rich0 yes
[15:20:57] -*- ulm yes
[15:20:57] <dilfridge> yes
[15:21:19] <rich0> Ok, I think that is all six of us
[15:21:44] <rich0> Ok, recorded.
[15:21:46] <rich0> Next topic.
[15:21:51] <rich0> Status of Games Team
[15:22:05] <rich0> Looking at the past summary, I believe radhermit was going to try to coordinate an election.
[15:22:06] <radhermit> I sent one email, probably should have sent a followup one at some point
[15:22:13] <radhermit> but that didn't happen
[15:22:35] <radhermit> and no election happened because no new members stepped forward afaik
[15:23:03] <WilliamH> So should we disband the team and assign everything to m-n then?
[15:23:12] <rich0> I guess my question is whether the urgency to do something is the same?
[15:23:15] <blueness> there's no real way of asking "who's on such and such a team" is there?
[15:23:17] <dilfridge> WilliamH: would that help?
[15:23:38] <rich0> We did give the go-ahead for people to avoid the team if they felt the need.
[15:23:48] <rich0> So, it should be less of a barrier to progress.
[15:23:50] <radhermit> I'll probably be in the same room as the current team leader sometime later today if that helps anything :P
[15:23:55] <WilliamH> blueness: the project page should list the members
[15:24:05] <radhermit> if you want me to force him to relinquish his crown ;)
[15:24:20] <blueness> radhermit, how is that?
[15:24:29] <blueness> i'm not even sure who's who on that team
[15:24:33] <radhermit> We're both located near Boston
[15:24:36] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Games
[15:24:49] <blueness> oh mike
[15:25:05] <radhermit> afaik, vapier probably doesn't care about being lead in games anymore
[15:25:05] <ulm> heh, they moved the project page to the wiki?
[15:25:10] <radhermit> I can ask him though
[15:25:21] <dilfridge> btw that page is incorrect as per council decision
[15:25:30] <dilfridge> "The Gentoo Games Project manages all games that are added into the Portage tree."
[15:26:04] <rich0> radhermit: I definitely think you should talk to him if you have the opportunity.  
[15:26:10] <rich0> I'd be interested in how he feels about things.
[15:26:23] <dilfridge> it was migrated by creffett|irssi by the way, most likely together with a bunch of others
[15:26:30] <rich0> I don't want to block somebody from contributing - really most of this issue is about making sure games doesn't block others from contributing.
[15:27:07] <blueness> mgorny, is my understanding correct that games is blocking the removal of emul-* stuff which is blocking multilib stuff from progressing?
[15:27:22] <mgorny> not anymore
[15:27:23] <radhermit> uh, I don't think so
[15:27:27] <mgorny> multilib team did all the work for them
[15:27:30] <radhermit> multilib should just fix stuff
[15:27:33] <radhermit> since they want it done
[15:27:39] <mgorny> though most of the dependencies are still insane
[15:27:42] <radhermit> like how most stuff works in the tree
[15:28:05] <blueness> okay so isn't that the original issue with that team?  i mean if the original problem is gone, can we just leave it alone?
[15:28:10] <blueness> or are there other issues?
[15:28:26] <mgorny> did they solve the 10-year security issue?
[15:28:27] <rich0> blueness: that is what I'm thinking.  I don't want to just outright disband the team if they're doing something and they aren't really a problem.
[15:28:29] <radhermit> people mentioned wanting to rework how games were installed/policies/etc
[15:28:32] <mgorny> about nethack?
[15:28:53] <rich0> mgorny: I guess I'd ask whether anybody else wants to solve that issue.  If games is standing in the way that is one thing.
[15:28:54] <blueness> hey! leave nethack alone ... its legendary!
[15:28:58] <blueness> j/k
[15:29:12] <WilliamH> <qa hat on> There are a number of games that are hard masked in the tree because of security issues. these are closed-source binaries so will probably not be fixed. </qa hat>
[15:29:18] <radhermit> imo, if people are serious about changing stuff just join and start discussing more
[15:29:22] <mgorny> it's not nethack being broken, it's games.eclass install of it
[15:29:32] <rich0> WilliamH: If they're hard-masked, then it isn't a problem, right?
[15:29:48] <rich0> If something is truly broken and isn't maintained, then that is a treecleaning issue.
[15:29:50] <blueness> mgorny, okay thanks for that clarification
[15:29:58] <WilliamH> rich0: what's the point of them being in the tree if they are hard masked for security and have been for years?
[15:30:07] <rich0> WilliamH: do they still work?
[15:30:14] <rich0> Maybe people still want to use it?
[15:30:26] <blueness> mgorny, can we have a clear list of what's wrong with games team and then we can decide whether or not to leave lying dogs alone
[15:30:55] <rich0> I'll buy that nethack is doing something wrong.  The question is, is somebody gong to fix it, or are we talking about treecleaning nethack/
[15:30:56] <blueness> if the problems are big, we already get the picture that there's no movement there, we'll just disband and treeclean
[15:31:00] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not saying people shouldn't use it if they want to, I'm just questioning why it is still in the main tree instead of an overlay?
[15:31:18] <blueness> WilliamH, that's a good idea, move it to an overlay
[15:31:20] <ulm> blueness: it's all in mgorny's e-mail message, requiring an agenda item for a previous meeting
[15:31:35] <ulm> mgorny: do you have a pointer to it?
[15:31:37] <rich0> WilliamH: I get that, but why not allow it in the main tree?  Does it hurt anything?
[15:31:42] <mgorny> ulm: a minute
[15:31:49] <blueness> ulm, mgorny i read it but i need a reminder
[15:31:49] <mgorny> i think it's still in qa agenda
[15:32:23] <WilliamH> rich0: we should unmask if it is going to stay in the main tree; p.mask should not be permanent.
[15:32:28] <rich0> Making all of games m-n won't make the bugs disappear.
[15:32:35] <ulm> mgorny: this on, I think: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
[15:32:35] <mgorny> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
[15:32:36] <blueness> rich0, if there's a real problem(s) here, then let's act by saying we're give QA the power to move that stuff to an overlay and disband the game team
[15:32:38] <ulm> *one
[15:32:39] <rich0> WilliamH: I don't see why not, but we can take that offline.
[15:32:44] <ulm> heh :)
[15:33:07] <rich0> I'm not sure that there is a policy against having masked security problems in the tree permanently.
[15:33:14] <rich0> As long as they build/etc.
[15:33:19] <mgorny> but QA's dead!
[15:33:24] <mgorny> we need to disband it too :P
[15:33:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: not completely.
[15:33:30] <radhermit> ...
[15:33:32] <dilfridge> how about we state "everyone is free to join games team" instead?
[15:33:45] <radhermit> didn't I sort of state that already?
[15:33:50] <mgorny> but seriously, since last failed meeting i don't know if qa can work
[15:34:04] <dilfridge> hmm? what did I miss this time?
[15:34:08] <dilfridge> never mind, later
[15:34:14] <mgorny> i also mailed the -qa@ list about games team, and never got any response
[15:34:24] <blueness> mgorny, two problems i see: 1) political.  demanding exclusivity.  2) the games.eclass breaking things like LFH
[15:34:36] <dilfridge> 1) is solved
[15:34:52] <dilfridge> 2) is solved by solving 1), noone is forced to use games.eclass
[15:35:00] <dilfridge> what's the problem?
[15:35:27] <blueness> dilfridge, well there's only one problem remaining and that is a treecleaning of bad packages
[15:35:41] <rich0> blueness: I suggest we let QA/treecleaners do that per-package.
[15:35:43] <blueness> if we remove that cruft from the tree than i'd be happy with the state of things
[15:35:46] <ulm> dilfridge: lack of consistency throughout the tree is an issue
[15:35:48] <mgorny> well, the problem is that even if not everyone is forced to use it, we end up being inconsistent
[15:35:50] <dilfridge> ok, but that applies to all packages, not just games
[15:35:55] <radhermit> it would be nice to do things in a uniform fashion
[15:35:57] <radhermit> right
[15:36:07] -*- WilliamH agrees with dilfridge
[15:36:09] <mgorny> recently gnome team rewrote their packages to use games.eclass
[15:36:15] <radhermit> seriously?
[15:36:15] <dilfridge> huh?
[15:36:15] <mgorny> because someone told them to
[15:36:26] <dilfridge> that is kinda stupid.
[15:36:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: who told them to?
[15:36:34] <mgorny> hasufell, i think
[15:36:39] <rich0> Still, I don't buy that we can NEVER have a package with a potential security issue in the tree if it is masked.  But, I think we can let QA/tree-cleaners do their job first.
[15:36:40] <dilfridge> LOL
[15:36:49] <WilliamH> gees
[15:36:49] <mgorny> now if i tell them to switch back, we end up in kinda stupid way
[15:36:57] <WilliamH> mgorny: go for it.
[15:37:08] <WilliamH> mgorny: they don't need to use games.eclass
[15:37:35] <rich0> I don't have a problem with people using the eclass.  It just shouldn't be mandatory, and of course that makes it kind of useless.
[15:37:35] <dilfridge> this is getting slightly bizarr
[15:37:39] <blueness> rich0, this looks messier than i thought.  how about as a first line of action the council asks treecleaners to focus on games that are abondoned or seroius disrepair
[15:38:03] <rich0> Well, first line of action is that radhermit chats with vapier, but yes, agree blueness
[15:38:11] <blueness> rich0, yeah true
[15:38:15] <rich0> I think we should separate org vs package issues.
[15:38:18] <WilliamH> blueness: basically we just need to do the work in qa;
[15:38:21] <radhermit> don't treecleaners scan for all pkgs with tons of open bugs anyway?
[15:38:26] <WilliamH> blueness: following up on p.mask.
[15:38:32] <WilliamH> blueness: not just games
[15:38:34] <radhermit> i.e. they should already be catching things
[15:38:46] <radhermit> open bugs that are ancient at least
[15:38:47] <WilliamH> blueness: so I don't think there is any need for the council to do anything on that.
[15:39:14] -*- WilliamH really isn't part of treecleaners
[15:39:22] <WilliamH> I can't really speak for how they do things
[15:39:47] <rich0> So, how about something like this:
[15:39:47] <ulm> should we make any statement about policy? like games group, or non-FHS directory layout in games.eclass?
[15:39:50] <ulm> or do we leave this to qa?
[15:40:07] -*- WilliamH votes leave p.mask to qa
[15:40:28] <dilfridge> leave it to qa for now, since the question of exclusivity has been decided
[15:40:30] <radhermit> right, if people have serious issues with certain pkgs, contact qa
[15:40:34] <radhermit> we don't micromanage
[15:40:49] <blueness> right
[15:41:03] <radhermit> if QA is unresponsive... well then
[15:41:11] <radhermit> find some new QA members? :)
[15:41:20] <mgorny> i'm the new QA member :P
[15:41:21] <rich0> "Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on the organization issues for another month.  Council will reach out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
[15:41:38] <mgorny> but i don't feel like stating 'i decide this because nobody else responded and qa was unable to meet properly'
[15:41:49] <radhermit> heh that is always fun
[15:42:06] <radhermit> we've had QA dictators in the past... ;)
[15:42:08] <rich0> is creffett still the QA lead?
[15:42:17] <WilliamH> rich0: yes
[15:42:51] <rich0> Is there another election due soon?
[15:42:58] <rich0> I'd think that would be coming up soon.
[15:43:00] <dilfridge> december according to schedule, I think
[15:43:12] <dilfridge> let me look it up
[15:43:16] <rich0> Maybe we should just ping them and figure out where things stand.
[15:43:25] <rich0> Thankless job I'm sure.  :)
[15:43:45] <rich0> In any case, I suggest we defer on games to radhermit and QA/treecleaners for another month.
[15:43:50] <rich0> Maybe continue to monitor.
[15:43:56] <ulm> dilfridge: 2013-12-16 was last election
[15:44:00] <rich0> I don't think anybody wants to take any kind of direct action right now.
[15:44:02] <dilfridge> yes
[15:44:19] <rich0> Ok, was my proposal above worth voting on?  We don't necessarily need to vote.
[15:44:20] <dilfridge> bug 494454
[15:44:22] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/494454 "Vote of confirmation QA lead creffett"; Community Relations, Developer Relations; RESO, FIXE; dilfridge:council
[15:44:23] <rich0> We can just ping them.
[15:45:05] <dilfridge> rich0: you get a yes from me
[15:45:07] <rich0> Ok, any objections to moving on in the agenda.
[15:45:10] <ulm> rich0: voting is ok for me
[15:45:19] <ulm> moving on, too :)
[15:45:23] <rich0> ok, then let's vote: "Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on the organization issues for another month.  Council will reach out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
[15:45:27] -*- rich0 yes
[15:45:30] -*- ulm yes
[15:45:31] -*- dilfridge yes
[15:45:35] <radhermit> sure
[15:45:36] <blueness> yes
[15:45:36] -*- WilliamH yes
[15:45:43] <rich0> ok
[15:45:48] <rich0> next item.
[15:45:53] <rich0> Status of projects:\
[15:45:59] <rich0> the multilib porting and subsequent disposal of emul-... packages
[15:46:12] <mgorny> i replide to the mail
[15:46:19] <rich0> Anybody want anything further?
[15:46:21] <mgorny> replied*
[15:46:26] <rich0> I don't need to see mgorny dance...
[15:46:37] <ulm> mgorny: any eta for stable unmasking?
[15:46:43] <mgorny> i'm currently working on finishing qt work for qt folks
[15:47:00] <mgorny> i think all issues are being worked out, so it's a matter of review + moving to the tree
[15:47:02] <mgorny> then stabilizations
[15:47:05] <radhermit> do qt5 work too while you're at it ;)
[15:47:11] <dilfridge> ugh I see dev-lang/perl in the list :(
[15:47:12] <mgorny> with arch teams... i'd say 1-2 months :P
[15:47:33] <dilfridge> ok let's summarize, things are moving ahead.
[15:47:34] <dilfridge> ok?
[15:47:39] <radhermit> oh I see we finally have it in the tree masked, nevermind...
[15:48:13] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status < the ultimate list
[15:48:20] <mgorny> qt4 is probably ~1 month too
[15:48:38] <radhermit> libperl?
[15:48:43] <dilfridge> yes
[15:48:45] <radhermit> isn't that dead?
[15:49:00] <dilfridge> the libperl package is dead, but that's just a library in dev-lang/perl
[15:49:01] <radhermit> or merged with perl itself
[15:49:04] <radhermit> right
[15:49:10] <radhermit> but that list has the actual pkg
[15:49:14] <mgorny> the emul- list is not 100% necessary
[15:49:21] <radhermit> alright
[15:49:22] <mgorny> we only port the packages that are actually necessary
[15:49:28] <dilfridge> sys-devel/libperl is gone soon.
[15:49:43] <mgorny> perl won't need to be multilib most likely
[15:49:47] <dilfridge> phew
[15:49:47] <mgorny> python may be necessary for samba-5
[15:49:51] <mgorny> unless we find way around it
[15:50:07] <radhermit> next up... multilib PMS ;)
[15:50:27] -*- dilfridge feels like kicking someone :o)
[15:50:57] <dilfridge> ok about the migration of packages to the wiki
[15:51:07] <dilfridge> s/packages/project pages/
[15:51:19] <rich0> dilfridge: go ahead
[15:51:36] <dilfridge> the silly thing is, being in the metastructure project I'm probably the right person to talk to myself
[15:52:02] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Wiki/Project_Page_Migration_Status
[15:52:08] <dilfridge> this is the definitive list here
[15:52:29] <dilfridge> just translating a page is in most cases (imho) trivial
[15:52:41] <dilfridge> maybe we should propose a deadline?
[15:53:07] <rich0> dilfridge: after that we disband x86 and amd64?  :)
[15:53:18] <dilfridge> :P
[15:54:00] <rich0> I do think a deadline does make sense all the same.
[15:54:07] <dilfridge> but seriously, it is not too much work per page. of course for one person doing all is a lot of work.
[15:54:23] <rich0> For obviously-critical projects we may just have to do something, but some of those projects may be defunct.
[15:55:45] <rich0> Ok, anything else on that?
[15:55:55] <rich0> Do we want to actually take action?  The agenda is just for status.
[15:56:09] <dilfridge> status is "stalled in the middle" right now
[15:56:22] <ulm> maybe send a reminder to the mailing list?
[15:56:28] <dilfridge> yes, good idea.
[15:56:38] <rich0> yeah, talk is cheap at least :)
[15:56:59] <rich0> Ok, next agenda item is bug 503382
[15:57:01] <willikins> rich0: https://bugs.gentoo.org/503382 "Missing summaries for 20131210, 20140114, and 20140225 council meetings"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; CONF; ulm:council
[15:57:10] -*- rich0 looks around the room
[15:57:14] -*- blueness smacks head
[15:57:34] <mgorny> i say disband previous council
[15:58:10] <rich0> ok, moment of silence observed...
[15:58:20] <ulm> that was dberkholz
[15:58:22] <blueness> hd=eh
[15:58:24] <rich0> yup
[15:58:27] <blueness> erre heh
[15:58:30] <rich0> Ok, we'll prod him.
[15:58:40] <rich0> I don't see him on the list of chairs for this term
[15:58:48] <dilfridge> :)
[15:58:53] <rich0> Ok...
[15:59:00] <rich0> Open floor
[15:59:06] <rich0> Anybody want to take a shot?
[16:00:00] <WilliamH> Ok, I have a question about a procedure...
[16:00:02] <mgorny> i can say that bashcomp2 is progressing fast too :P
[16:00:10] <mgorny> i filed a lot new bugs today
[16:00:11] <rich0> WilliamH: go ahead
[16:00:21] <WilliamH> I know that generally a package needs a last rites and 30 days before removing it from the main tree.
[16:00:36] <WilliamH> Is that also true for a package that is in p.mask?
[16:00:42] <rich0> WilliamH: might as well
[16:00:44] <WilliamH> s/p.mask/p.mask already/
[16:00:48] <rich0> Unless there is some reason to rush.
[16:00:57] <rich0> Or unless of course it is already masked for removal.
[16:01:15] <rich0> My two cents at least.
[16:01:21] <ulm> WilliamH: I'd keep the 30 days between last rites and removal there too
[16:01:29] <ulm> but it's a guideline only
[16:01:34] <dilfridge> I used to give a few days then too, as e.g. sending a last-rites mail "has been masked since..., will be removed in 10 days"
[16:01:38] <blueness> rich0, et al.  i have to run.  i'll read the backlog
[16:01:38] <rich0> Obviously copyright issues or such warrant an exception
[16:01:45] <rich0> blueness: ok, 
[16:01:51] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's reasonable.
[16:02:22] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's one reason I haven't pushed hard personally to work on p.mask.
[16:02:33] <WilliamH> dilfridge: I wasn't sure how to go about that.
[16:02:39] <dilfridge> ok
[16:03:01] <rich0> Anything else on that?
[16:03:16] <rich0> mgorny: ++ on bashcomp2.   Just in time for my switch to zsh.  :)
[16:03:55] <rich0> Anything else for open floor?
[16:04:36] <rich0> If not, we're done.  Next meeting will be Nov 11
[16:05:10] <rich0> I'll post the summary shortly, and start the agenda for next month.
[16:05:13] <rich0> Thanks all :)