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
|
Summary of the council meeting 14/May/2017
Agenda call: [1]
Agenda announcement: [2]
Roll call
------------------------------------------------------
Present: blueness, dilfridge, jlec, k_f, rich0, ulm, williamh
Absent: -
Discussion on Guidelines for the council summaries [3]
------------------------------------------------------
There was agreement that the guidelines make sense and should be added
to the Wiki for future use.
(This was done at a later date as wiki page [4].)
GLEP 72: arches.desc [5,6]
------------------------------------------------------
Dilfridge gave a short introduction what problems the proposal
addresses: 1), algorithmically finding out which arches are
''stable'', 2), introducing an official state for arches that have
stable keywords for arch team usage only, 3), easing transitions from
and to stable state of an arch. This is achieved by introducing a new
file arches.desc in profiles.
After some discussion and clarification, about the corresponding user
configuration as well as the impact on catalyst, the topic was tabled
for further discussion on the mailing lists and revisiting at the next
meeting.
An additional suggestion was to add a column to the arches.desc file
that specifies whether an arch is security-supported.
Open bugs with council involvement
------------------------------------------------------
Bug 618254:
Handling this issue was postponed; also it is actually ComRel
business.
Bug 616206 (EAPI 6 reapproval, [7]):
The modifications to EAPI 6 have already been approved via a
vote on the bug; the bug can be closed.
Bug 565566 (New ChangeLogs are in chronological order, [8]):
No progress has been made.
Mailing list moderation [9]
------------------------------------------------------
This topic boiled down into a lengthy discussion how single
participants dominate mailing list threads, inhowfar that influences
Gentoo's public perception, and what could be done to improve the
situation. In addition, it was discussed whether the ComRel team
should become involved. In the end a vote was taken:
Do we want moderation of gentoo-dev and gentoo-project?
-> not passed, with 5 no, 1 yes, 1 absent
Open floor
------------------------------------------------------
* OpenPGP verification of the gentoo repository: a brief discussion of
the current status and possible next steps took place
* Arch status of sparc, ia64, ppc: While several people voiced support
for moving sparc and ia64 to dev or exp status, no action was taken.
[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/079a51bf7f588e6b9f0cb6692cf36700
[2] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a698bb4ef56217c7fa7bff97ab9d852c
[3] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7d6a15b12347ce173609e0f50595fbc0
[4] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_summary_guidelines
[5] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a0babd1fcfd6471bfa9afd76e51a4c3b
[6] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0072.html
[7] https://bugs.gentoo.org/616206
[8] https://bugs.gentoo.org/565566
[9] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/ad3bbffe2286cced97b64571edc1245d
|
GitWeb