Quick summary ============= GLEP 54: There were numerous questions that apparently were not brought up on the mailing list in advance or were not addressed. GLEP 55: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be, but that's unclear until it's been revised. GLEP 56: Approved. Cardoe will get repoman changes made, followed by a server-side script to generate use.local.desc from metadata.xml. The meeting wrapped up in under 1 hour again. We still need to work harder to push more discussion and questions to the mailing list, though. Topics ====== GLEP 54 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "A few questions to our nominees" 4+ hours before the meeting. Last month: dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea.xml lu_zero: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_05614741b3942bfdfb21fd8ebb7955e0.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list no later than July 17. dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for scm dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine dberkholz: In general I oppose adding things to EAPI 0 < lu_zero@> dberkholz problem: if you have -scm installed < lu_zero@> and then switch to a pm not knowing it < lu_zero@> you have a nice recipe for inconsistency < Halcy0n@> I would really like to see a list of features that we would end up having after implementing this GLEP. The GLEP mentions possible enhancements, but I'd like to see what we would have planned if we go forward with this change. < Halcy0n@> Well, it only mentions one enhancement, I'd like to see what else we could do to judge if it is worth it. Halcy0n@> Betelgeuse: yes, I know there are some things we could do, but I'd like to see a more extensive list of possibilities, what are other possible ways of doing this (like a metadata tag for the ebuild), and why those other methods aren't sufficient. < dberkholz@> i think the point here is that the glep should address what made its implementation superior to other possible ones, which it also describes < dberkholz@> ok, i've noted the issues raised here < dberkholz@> once they're address, the glep can be revised and we'll consider it again Summary: Specific questions and requests are above. GLEP 55 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "GLEP 55" 4+ hours before the meeting. Last month: dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c6e4ba8293f50c1e0444e67d59cf85ea.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list once we're ready. But I don't see the use of accepting it before we a) Portage has something that would make use of it b) some other pkg manager is made official < Halcy0n@> So, can we vote on postponing a GLEP of this nature until another glep requires such changes? Summary: On hold pending a concrete requirement for it. GLEP 54 may be, but that's unclear until it's been revised. GLEP 56 ------- Preparation: Post your opinion to the -dev thread "[GLEP56] USE flag descriptions in metadata" 4+ hours before the meeting. (Cardoe: Did the requested updates ever get made?) Last month: dberkholz: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_54ee20d2b1d8122370afdd4b3d7aafc9.xml Goal: Status check at meeting to see who's ready to vote. Vote on-list no later than July 17, if requested changes are made. Requested changes were made: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.txt?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 < Cardoe > Well the first step of making that portion happen is going to be to add a check to repoman that if use.local.desc is not present in the repo, do new QA check. < Cardoe > Once that's in place that developers can use, then the infra script will happen. < Cardoe > I've already discussed it with the Portage folks and the infra folks. Summary: Approved. Roll call ========= (here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?) betelgeuse here dberkholz here dertobi123 here flameeyes here halcy0n here jokey here lu_zero here