20:01 < dberkholz@> looks like lu just got kicked offline 20:01 < jokey@> yep 20:02 < jokey@> he should really use screen ;) 20:02 < Flameeyes@> jokey: or quassel :P 20:02 screen ftw. 20:03 < dberkholz@> ok. one more time, agenda for the meeting is here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080710-agenda-mini.txt 20:03 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 53 nicks [6 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 47 normal] 20:03 Flameeyes: some kind of backgrounding IRC client? 20:03 < Flameeyes@> Betelgeuse: yeah it's a (core+client) client 20:03 < dberkholz@> who's here: Betelgeuse , Flameeyes , jokey , dertobi123 20:03 < Flameeyes@> I am 20:03 < dberkholz@> and me 20:03 < Halcy0n@> Me 20:03 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n, lu need to speak up (and show up again in lu's case) 20:03 < dberkholz@> ah, there you are 20:04 < jokey@> hi lu_zero 20:05 luca! 20:05 < fmccor > You might op him :) 20:05 < jokey@> he can do that himself ;) 20:05 < dberkholz@> lu_zero: back for good? 20:06 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o lu_zero] by ChanServ 20:06 < lu_zero@> sigh 20:06 < lu_zero@> let the damn thing sync 20:06 < lu_zero@> and I will 20:06 < lu_zero@> ok 20:08 < dberkholz@> ok, everyone's here now 20:08 < dberkholz@> sorry for the lag 20:08 < dberkholz@> first topic is glep 54 20:10 < dberkholz@> anyone got anything to say? 20:10 < jokey@> short statement for the logs? ;) 20:11 < jokey@> doesn't look like it 20:11 dberkholz: Well as older Portage versions don't handle it correctly, it can't yet be used in the tree so what's the use of making it official? 20:11 < lu_zero@> I don't feel the glep changed any way 20:11 < Flameeyes@> I still haven't heard anything that moves me from my original position of not liking it 20:12 dberkholz: glep 55 should be handled before 54 20:12 < dberkholz@> Betelgeuse: your reasoning, please? 20:12 dberkholz: 23:11 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: Well as older Portage versions don't handle it correctly, it can't yet be used in the tree so what's the use of making it official? 20:12 dberkholz: with GLEP 55 EAPI X can add the support for scm 20:13 dberkholz: and older Portage versions work just fine 20:13 < lu_zero@> glep 55 -> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/migrationpath.rst 20:13 < dberkholz@> glep 54 claims backwards compat is quite reasonable 20:13 < dberkholz@> "Portage versions prior to 2.1.2.12 (included in 2007.0) don't handle arbitrary version suffixes and die during various tasks making portage hard or impossible to use. Later versions just ignore them displaying warnings. Hence use of scm suffixes in gentoo-x86 tree will probably have to wait till 2008.0 release or later." 20:13 < Flameeyes@> so let's say virtual/eapi-migration-method 20:14 < Flameeyes@> [so glep55 or something providing the same interface] 20:14 < lu_zero@> dberkholz problem: if you have -scm installed 20:14 < lu_zero@> and then switch to a pm not knowing it 20:14 < lu_zero@> you have a nice recipe for inconsistency 20:14 dberkholz: In general I oppose adding things to EAPI 0 20:15 although zmedico seems to be doing it every once in a while 20:15 * lu_zero in general opposes having non-definitions 20:15 < igli > if it doesn't break anything.. ;) 20:16 < 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. 20:16 < Halcy0n@> Well, it only mentions one enhancement, I'd like to see what else we could do to judge if it is worth it. 20:16 < lu_zero@> Halcy0n that had been requested 20:16 < Flameeyes@> Halcy0n: that was my concern in the first place 20:16 < lu_zero@> the feedback hadn't be that helpful 20:16 < dberkholz@> (fyi, i'm writing down the exact questions we have for posting to the list afterwards) 20:17 < Halcy0n@> Okay, I'm still catching up with everything that has gone on, so ignore me if I repeat something that happened already :) 20:17 Halcy0n: Adding global scope functions. 20:17 Halcy0n: But that can also be done by cleaning profile bashrcs and adding stubs 20:17 < Flameeyes@> Betelgeuse: I _think_ Halcy0n was referred to 54 20:17 < dberkholz@> are we on 55 or 54 here? we seem to be bouncing around 20:17 < Halcy0n@> I thought we were discussing 54. 20:17 < jokey@> 54 20:17 < antarus > 54 20:17 < Flameeyes@> 42 20:18 < Flameeyes@> [sorry couldn't help it] 20:18 < antarus > Flameeyes: hike! 20:18 < antarus > Flameeyes: also good to see you here ;) 20:18 Halcy0n: periodit reinstalls 20:18 < lu_zero@> Betelgeuse I wasn't aware the package manager has cron capabilities... 20:19 lu_zero: lol 20:19 -!- lu_zero changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: glep 54 discussion || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080710-agenda-mini.txt 20:19 < 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. 20:21 < lu_zero@> Halcy0n I started to write down alternatives with features that interest me in http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst 20:22 < 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 20:22 < Halcy0n@> Do we all agree that we should wait to make a decision on this until we have a list of actual features, and why its the best solution? 20:22 < jokey@> (and make sure that it is the best option) 20:22 < jokey@> ++ 20:23 < Flameeyes@> agreed again 20:23 Halcy0n: agreed 20:23 < lu_zero@> agreed 20:23 Halcy0n: We can wait any way as it can't be used in the main tree. 20:24 < antarus > s/can't/should not be/ 20:24 < antarus > but I'm a pedant 20:24 < dberkholz@> ok, i've noted the issues raised here 20:25 < dberkholz@> once they're address, the glep can be revised and we'll consider it again 20:25 < dberkholz@> addressed* 20:25 < dberkholz@> let's move on to glep 55 20:25 -!- lu_zero changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: glep 55 discussion || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080710-agenda-mini.txt 20:26 < dberkholz@> who likes it? 20:27 * jokey doesn't, solves a non-existant problem 20:27 * lu_zero doesn't solves a non-existant problem in an unclean fashion 20:27 < lu_zero@> missing coma 20:27 * lu_zero doesn't, solves a non-existant problem in an unclean fashion 20:27 < Halcy0n@> Not I, same reason. 20:28 < Flameeyes@> ibid. 20:28 < jokey@> maybe we should just vote 20:28 what about the reasons mentioned in the glep? 20:28 < dberkholz@> 4 of us just said they don't like it because it solves a nonexistent problem 20:28 < antarus > I disagree with your wording 20:28 < antarus > it certainly solves a problem 20:28 dberkholz: agreed on that, make it 5 20:28 I agree with antarus 20:29 < antarus > the problem is not a blocker for Gentoo 20:29 < antarus > (to my knowledge) 20:29 < dberkholz@> is it a problem for gentoo in any fashion at all? are there any other features we want that depend on it? if so, i haven't seen a glep for 'em 20:29 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 20:30 < Halcy0n@> antarus: I can agree with that wording as well. :) I think we were implying it wasn't a problem for Gentoo when we were saying it solved a non-existant problem. 20:30 < antarus > I imagine the kde and java people have odd ideas rolling around 20:30 < lu_zero@> Alternatives anyway -> http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/migrationpath.rst 20:30 < Halcy0n@> So, can we vote on postponing a GLEP of this nature until another glep requires such changes? 20:31 Halcy0n: agreed 20:31 Halcy0n: like glep 54? 20:33 < jokey@> gentoofan23: nah, we want more input on that glep... 55 we just want to defer until we need something like that 20:33 < Halcy0n@> gentoofan23: you could say that, yes. If we want to introduce features, and actually have features that need these changes, then I'm all for it. 20:33 < Halcy0n@> Just changing things for the sake of changing them though... 20:33 jokey: until we have a pÃroblem this glep would solve, yeah 20:34 < jokey@> dertobi123: yep, :) 20:34 < dberkholz@> like one implementation of the overall idea in glep 54 20:34 < dberkholz@> since we just decided we want to hear about why that is better than the other ones, 55 may or may not be required 20:34 < Halcy0n@> Flameeyes: lu_zero, dberkholz: do you agree with postponing 55 as well? 20:34 < Flameeyes@> I do 20:34 < lu_zero@> Halcy0n 55 or any other migration paths 20:35 < lu_zero@> I don't like the one proposed in glep55 20:35 < lu_zero@> and I think there are nicer alternatives 20:35 dberkholz: the implementation is called paludis 20:36 < dberkholz@> Betelgeuse: i'm not talking about a PM that implements that feature. i'm talking about whether -scm is the best way to solve the problem. 20:36 dberkholz: you mean like a repo using said features? 20:36 < jokey@> no, the way the problem is solved 20:36 < DrEeevil > I still say a tag in the ebuild (like RESTRICT) is all you need 20:37 < jokey@> dberkholz: so we deferred this until we have use? 20:38 < dberkholz@> so, glep 54 in its current state is likely to depend on either glep 55 or some other eapi bump to allow -scm 20:38 < lu_zero@> DrEeevil please expand the reasoning in ml 20:39 < DrEeevil > lu_zero: ok 20:40 < dberkholz@> looks like this is postponed at least till we've got a solid 54 20:40 < jokey@> okay 20:40 < jokey@> next topic then? 20:40 < lu_zero@> jokey yup 20:40 < dberkholz@> glep 56 20:41 -!- jokey changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: glep 56 discussion || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080710-agenda-mini.txt 20:41 < Flameeyes@> dberkholz: for the logs, I don't see any change in the reasoning for discussing the two of these again since last time -- we might want to decide to not discuss them again until there's a need for them] 20:42 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe posted some updates to the GLEP a little while ago, did everyone have a chance to look at them? 20:42 < dberkholz@> Flameeyes: 54 & 55, you mean? 20:42 < Flameeyes@> dberkholz: yes 20:43 < dberkholz@> i like 56's current backwards compat section 20:43 < Flameeyes@> Halcy0n: have you the link handy of the exact changes? 20:43 < Halcy0n@> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0056.txt?r1=1.1&r2=1.2 is the diff 20:43 < Flameeyes@> thanks 20:44 < jokey@> glep is good from my pov 20:44 < Halcy0n@> I like this one 20:45 < jokey@> anyone having questions about it? 20:45 < lu_zero@> got pointed that useflag definitions should be bound to a matching atom 20:45 < Flameeyes@> good for me [well was good for me before too] 20:46 < lu_zero@> and that is yet not completely crystal clear (even if present) 20:46 i also like it, but in the last paragraph of backwards compatibility it is unclear to me what "approving" the glep has to do with auto-generation of use.local.desc 20:46 < Halcy0n@> lu_zero: I believe that's the restrict attribute? 20:46 < dberkholz@> dertobi123: by moving local flags to metadata.xml, instead of duplicating information in two places that gets out of sync we want to autogenerate the old location for legacy tools 20:46 < Cardoe > sorry all.. I mentally overslept. 20:47 dberkholz: might make more sense to change the wording from "approved" to "fully implemented" or "implemented for local use-flags" then? 20:47 < lu_zero@> Halcy0n as I said, it is a nit 20:48 < dberkholz@> i don't even see that it's a nit. it looks already addressed to me 20:49 < jokey@> indeed 20:49 < 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. 20:49 < Cardoe > Once that's in place that developers can use, then the infra script will happen. 20:50 < Cardoe > I've already discussed it with the Portage folks and the infra folks. 20:50 Cardoe: Won't devs require updated validation tools? 20:50 < lu_zero@> good 20:50 < Cardoe > jmbsvicetto: right. which is why we're going to update repoman first. 20:50 < Halcy0n@> I am for approving this one. 20:50 < dberkholz@> dertobi123: i guess my reading is a little different .. was reading the "will work to remove" part as implementing 20:50 Cardoe: ok 20:51 < jokey@> Halcy0n: make it more formal and "request for vote" :) 20:52 < dberkholz@> ok, let's vote: approve glep 56, yes or now 20:52 < dberkholz@> no* 20:52 < jokey@> yes 20:52 < Halcy0n@> yes 20:52 < dberkholz@> yes 20:52 dberkholz: the "will work to remove" part works for me as implementing, too 20:52 \o/ 20:52 so, yes 20:52 < Flameeyes@> yes 20:52 < dberkholz@> wb Betelgeuse =) 20:53 windzor: wherw was I? 20:53 < jokey@> okay, glep accepted :) 20:53 s/windzor/dberkholz/ 20:53 < dberkholz@> i dunno, not talking during the 56 discussion. figured you were elsewhere 20:53 < dberkholz@> that's all the agenda topics. two more quick things i wanted to mention 20:54 < dberkholz@> 1 -- we're moving to biweekly meetings, so the next one will be july 24 20:54 < dberkholz@> 2 -- we are actively discussing the appeals and will get decisions out asap 20:55 dberkholz: Where do you plan to announce the decisions? 20:56 < jokey@> dev-announce and council imho 20:56 < lu_zero@> agreed 20:56 < jokey@> dunno though ;) 20:56 < dberkholz@> via private email to them, certainly. not sure exactly where on the public side yet 20:58 Can you please update the topic here and or make a note on the council ml when you decide where to make the annoucement? 20:58 < dberkholz@> sure 20:58 < lu_zero@> dberkholz summary link? 20:58 -!- jokey changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next council session july 24 || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080710-agenda-mini.txt 20:58 < jokey@> actually... 20:58 < dberkholz@> lu_zero: i'll post it later this evening 20:58 < lu_zero@> ok 20:58 -!- jokey changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next council session july 24 20:59 < Flameeyes@> dberkholz: is the meeting still open? [mostly because I have to run] 20:59 < dberkholz@> we're done for today 20:59 < lu_zero@> btw my vote for 56 is yes ^^ 20:59 < antarus > dberkholz: well run meeting; thanks all 20:59 < Flameeyes@> sorry guys, I run away then :) have a nice weekend all of you :P