18:00 <@lu_zero> =) 18:00 * dertobi123 yawns 18:01 * lu_zero yawns as well 18:01 <@dertobi123> luca! 18:01 <@lu_zero> quite an annoying monday ^^; 18:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 I'm ALIVE! 18:02 <@lu_zero> (sort of) 18:02 <@dertobi123> great :) 18:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by solar 18:02 <@dertobi123> so, rollcall? 18:02 <@ulm> here 18:02 <@lu_zero> \o/ 18:03 <@solar> solar here. but might have to leave. see above note 18:03 <@dertobi123> k 18:04 <@dertobi123> leio, Betelgeuse, Calchan ... wake up! 18:04 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has joined #gentoo-council 18:05 <@ulm> sigh 18:05 <@leio> sorry, I've been sick 18:07 <@dertobi123> ok, agenda item 1.1: who's logging? 18:08 <@leio> I'm always logging, fixed my clock now as well. 18:08 <@dertobi123> ok 18:08 <@dertobi123> for 1.2 we have Betelgeuse and Calchan missing 18:09 <@leio> has the agenda been publicized? 18:09 <@ulm> leio: see topic 18:09 * dertobi123 sighs 18:09 * leio looks at topic 18:09 <@dertobi123> look at the topic, gentoo-council@g.o, dev-announce@g.o and council@g.o please 18:10 <@leio> ok, I see, I just didn't see it in my client, because I apparently haven't opened mail client to filter it for the past days due to being ill, sorry 18:11 <@dertobi123> so, who wants to chair this meeting? 18:12 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 you would? 18:13 <@dertobi123> if noone else does ... yeah 18:13 <@dertobi123> any updates on 2.1 "everything on 10 years gentoo"? 18:13 <@dertobi123> if you need voice please /msg 18:14 -!- miknix [n=miknix@gentoo/developer/miknix] has quit [Client Quit] 18:15 <@solar> it's been going fine. the 20th is our cutoff day and 4th is the bday 18:16 <@dertobi123> solar: you're going to take a new snapshot on 20th or putting in security updates until then? 18:17 <@Betelgeuse> i am online in a couple minutes 18:18 <@Betelgeuse> phone now 18:21 <@dertobi123> well, lets move on 18:21 <@dertobi123> 3.1 18:21 <@dertobi123> ciaranm answered this topic is obsolete 18:21 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v tsunam_] by dertobi123 18:21 <@Betelgeuse> need to setup better reminders 18:21 <@dertobi123> tsunam_: can you confirm? 18:22 <@dertobi123> (or ulm?) 18:22 <@dertobi123> or Fauli? 18:22 <@solar> tsunam/jmbsvicetto: ping ^ 18:22 <@solar> my understanding is userrel is not saying it's obsolete 18:22 <@ulm> i haven't heard anything from them 18:25 * dertobi123 sighs 18:25 <@ulm> see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c18 18:25 <@ulm> but I don't know if such a meeting took place 18:25 <@dertobi123> so we do skip this one? any objections? 18:26 <@dertobi123> if there's still something to discuss or decide we can do so via mail 18:26 <@ulm> dertobi123: fauli has something to say 18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-v Fauli] by dertobi123 18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Fauli] by dertobi123 18:26 <@dertobi123> args 18:26 <@lu_zero> ^^ 18:26 <@dertobi123> yeah 18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v trelane] by solar 18:26 <+Fauli> :) 18:26 <@solar> trelane is asking to speak 18:26 <@lu_zero> well that 18:26 <@lu_zero> Fauli first 18:27 <+Fauli> The only thing I wanted to add, that I neither have heard anything or any progress. 18:27 <@dertobi123> ok, thanks Fauli 18:27 <+tsunam_> I'm here sorry for my delay 18:28 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: to answer the query. No this is not resolved, ciaran would just like to have it considered resolved 18:28 <@dertobi123> so, is there any progress? 18:29 <+tsunam_> that's pending the discussion on this matter 18:29 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: however I'm not hopeful that there will be progress quite frankly. But that gets into my personal experiences with the management of the PMS project and I'll avoid bringing that into the matter as it serves no purpsoes in the discussion 18:30 <+tsunam_> would help if I could type correctly however ~_~ 18:30 <@ulm> tsunam_: that will be addressed in 3.2 18:30 <@lu_zero> =\ 18:30 <@lu_zero> trelane you wanted to add something 18:30 <+tsunam_> to address this issue however, there is currently one method of change for anything currently 18:31 <+tsunam_> that's an EAPI 18:31 <+tsunam_> by the name its and Ebuild API 18:31 <+tsunam_> there's things that have been added to be under the PMS standard that are not directly ebuilds 18:32 <+trelane> (I'm deferring to tsunam_ to finish) 18:32 <@Betelgeuse> pms = package manager spec 18:32 <+tsunam_> following a guideline is appropriate for getting the approval however an EAPI has a far more rigorous(sp?) process for approval as it should 18:32 <@Betelgeuse> not ebuild api 18:33 <@ulm> the crucial question is if package.mask directories were established Portage behaviour before EAPI 0 18:33 <@ulm> if yes then PMS should just be updated 18:33 <@Betelgeuse> no 18:33 <@ulm> if no then it should go into EAPI 4 18:34 <@dertobi123> ulm: ack 18:34 <@Betelgeuse> it's a vdry recent feature 18:34 <+tsunam_> ulm: that's the issue I see is that EAPI is for ebuilds 18:34 <+Fauli> tsunam_: But PMS specifies the surroundings, too. 18:34 <+tsunam_> its shoehorning something into a system that its not really well served by 18:34 <+Fauli> And profiles is a surrounding. 18:34 <+tsunam_> Fauli: it does, and I'm not suggesting that PMS shouldn't 18:35 <+tsunam_> Fauli: what I'm suggesting is that EAPI's are quite possibly not the best location for those surrounding items 18:35 <+Fauli> Betelgeuse: Zac told on the bug that it was available in all 2.1 versions. 18:35 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, Zac with specificity says it is not a very recent feature http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c36 18:35 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Where else? 18:35 <@Betelgeuse> 2.1 is recent 18:35 <+tsunam_> that there might and could/should be implemented a new method of modifications to those surrounding features 18:36 <+Fauli> tsunam_: I see it differently, but this leads to far. Let's concentrate on this topic. 18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: branch 2.1 created 3 years ago 18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: not so recent 18:37 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, package.* support has been existant since the 2.1 dev cycle 18:38 <@leio> and when was EAPI-0 defined? 18:38 <+trelane> leio, October of last year IIRC 18:38 <@Betelgeuse> EAPI 0 is supposed to be very ancient portage 18:38 <+tsunam_> Fauli: that's something to discuss the where...perhaps another mechinism within PMS 18:39 <+tsunam_> Fauli/ALL: I don't wish to remove anything from PMS 18:39 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, was a specific version ever set? 3 years is pretty ancient in software terms 18:39 <+tsunam_> All I'm suggesting/wishing for is that there's consideration that EAPI's are not the best area for things that are surrounding and not directly related to Ebuild API 18:39 <@Betelgeuse> I would write a long explanation if my phone allowed 18:40 <@Betelgeuse> my laptop refuses to connect 18:40 <@dertobi123> ok, to sum up: there's something to discuss which could (and should!) happen on a mailinglist 18:40 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Profiles are directly linked to ebuilds as some syntax (package atoms) will be used there. 18:40 <+Fauli> dertobi123: Propose one. 18:40 <+tsunam_> leio: believe and don't quote me that PMS came into being about 2007, so the draft would of started about then as well 18:41 <@dertobi123> -dev or -pms mailinglist, dev to reach more people 18:41 <@dertobi123> Fauli: ^^ 18:41 <+Fauli> Ok. 18:41 <+trelane> dertobi123, this has been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum on the bug referenced in tsunam_'s request and is now before the council for some sort of direction forward. 18:41 <@ulm> tsunam_: December 2006 if I believe the git log 18:42 <@ulm> but I don't know if that was already any usable version 18:42 <@dertobi123> trelane: there's been lots of discussion, but no real suggestions for improvements 18:43 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: because quite frankly any suggestion is soundly rejected 18:43 <+tsunam_> because "there's EAPI" for that 18:43 <@dertobi123> rejected by whom? 18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, I for one would like clarified ciaran's notion that EAPI's do amend the profiles/ portion of the tree. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this issue. 18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, Ciaran 18:43 <+trelane> (hence that bug's existence) 18:44 <@dertobi123> simply put it, it doesn't matter what ciaranm is rejecting 18:44 <+trelane> dertobi123, then could he possibly stop rejecting it if he has no power to do so as it only muddies the issue? 18:44 <@dertobi123> at least not for gentoo 18:45 <+trelane> (by the way I think we're organically proceeding to 3.2 in this discussion here) 18:45 <+tsunam_> I'd like to keep them seperate if possible 18:45 <+tsunam_> as they are two different issues 18:45 <@dertobi123> we're not going solve 3.1 today 18:45 <@dertobi123> +to 18:45 <+trelane> agreed, dertobi123 with the chair's permission I'd like to proceed to 3.2 (I think tsunam_ would as well), thus leaving 3.1 unresolved 18:46 <@dertobi123> if there are no other objections, then lets move on to 3.2 - let's get 3.1 discussed on lists and on our agenda for our next meeting 18:46 <@dertobi123> -other 18:46 <+Fauli> Ok 18:47 <@ulm> fine with me 18:47 <@lu_zero> ok 18:47 <@solar> ok 18:47 <@dertobi123> ok, 3.2 18:47 <+trelane> I'd like to start by discussing the background of 3.2 as it affects (effects?) the previously mentioned bug 18:47 <@dertobi123> as 3.2 was proposed by ulm i'd like to hear from him first of all 18:48 <@ulm> trelane: we've just decided the discussion on said bug is finished for this meeting 18:48 <@ulm> dertobi123: see my message to -council, where I proposed 3.2.{1,2,3} 18:49 <@ulm> I'd like to hear the council members' opinion on it 18:49 <@dertobi123> so we can vote upon that, ok? 18:49 <@solar> I would go with 3.2.3 18:49 <+tsunam_> I'd at least like some kind of idea if the council believes that there would be value in having changes to the surrounding items implemented on a fairly quick basis, but I'll bring that up in whatever discussion place it takes point in 18:49 * lu_zero would as well 18:50 <@ulm> solar: please be more specific 18:50 <@dertobi123> lu_zero: as well, please 18:50 <@solar> as the existing system does not really work for the masses and seems targeted towards benefiting a very few while limiting the rest of gentoo and it's ideas 18:51 <@dertobi123> i'd choose 3.2.1 if we do opt to keep pms/eapi and it's surroundings and not choose some *completely* different 18:52 <@ulm> solar: but we also need some process for updating the spec 18:52 <@lu_zero> I'm not exactly happy with both .1 and .2 proposals 18:53 <@lu_zero> and seems that the pms related stuff usually lead to feuds 18:53 <@dertobi123> solar: what would be your different and improved system? 18:53 <@Betelgeuse> The spec is not a problem. Portage coding is. 18:53 <@solar> the current system more or less has to be approved by outside forces that many ppl plain and simply don't get along with. When you have that direct conflict all the time it hurts more than helps us as a distro. 18:53 <@solar> dertobi123: I don't know the end solution. But 3.2.1 and 2.3.2 are not without problems 18:53 <+tsunam_> gent's can you link to the 3.2.1, 3.2.2,3.2.3 specs for those who are not aware of what the solutions you are talking about 18:53 <@solar> s/2.3.3/3.2.2/ 18:54 <@dertobi123> i'm pretty sure we could find something better, than 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 ... yeah 18:54 <@solar> it's in the topic. 18:54 <@ulm> tsunam_: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_96c702e85f79b8f5e22472ae2c961534.xml 18:54 <@Betelgeuse> ciaramn is fine with Gentoo devs in charge 18:55 <@lu_zero> even if the dev would be bonsaikitten ? 18:55 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, he causes a huge problem for the larger community 18:56 <@Betelgeuse> not every dev 18:56 <+trelane> no, but quite a few of them. for PMS to work it must be easy for outside projects such as Gentoo, Sabayon, and yes even Paludis to interface with 18:57 <@Betelgeuse> he asked me and dev_zero at least 18:57 <+trelane> right now only 1/3 of those groups can interface 18:57 <+trelane> s/Gentoo/Funtoo in the above please 18:57 <+trelane> though adding Patrick I'd say Gentoo might be apt as well 18:57 <@dertobi123> so, to sum up: we tend to prefer 3.2.3 ... let's collect ideas for 3.2.3 until our next meeting and/or on list 18:58 <@dertobi123> objections? 18:58 <@ulm> dertobi123: right, let's postpone it. also calchan is not here, he also had some ideas about this topic 18:58 <@lu_zero> ok 18:58 <+tsunam_> what will occur in the meantime? 18:58 <+trelane> dertobi123, I'd like to specify a lpcation for this (preferably a bug) where commentary and a proposal can be worked on 18:58 <@Betelgeuse> i can't see agenda easily 18:59 <@dertobi123> trelane: file one, but discussion should happen on a list (again -dev or -pms would make sense) 18:59 <@ulm> trelane: bugzilla is horrible for long discussions 18:59 <@ulm> dertobi123: let's go for -pms, and we can announce it on -dev-announce once 18:59 <@Betelgeuse> mail list please 19:00 <@dertobi123> ulm: ok 19:00 <+trelane> I'm fine with -pms so long as this doesn't drag out on -dev? 19:00 <+trelane> I will agree with Ciaran regarding the trolls. 19:00 <@dertobi123> let's get it discussed on -pms 19:00 <+trelane> it hurts both sides of the argument. 19:00 <+trelane> thanks :) 19:00 <+tsunam_> I'll have to read the archives on that then as I don't subscribe to -pms 19:00 <@dertobi123> so, i'd propose to postpone 4, doesn't make sense to handle it today as Calchan is missing 19:01 <@Betelgeuse> fine 19:01 <@dertobi123> 5.1 next meeting, next logical date is october 12th 19:01 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: you stated "not all devs" are you suggesting that if the Council wanted to put a member onto a advisory board and it wasn't approved by the current management that we'd have a larger issue to deal with at that time? 19:01 <@dertobi123> ok for everyone? 19:01 <@Betelgeuse> if someone is missing we should call them 19:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 ok 19:02 <@ulm> ok 19:03 <@Betelgeuse> fine 19:03 <@dertobi123> okies, so 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th? 19:03 <@solar> Being that there was missing members from the council at this meeting. How would be feel about getting back together before then? 19:04 <@Betelgeuse> I will write a post on PMS when by a computer 19:04 <@Betelgeuse> i can do earlier 19:04 <@dertobi123> solar: depends. if people request items for the agenda and don't show up it's quite useless to schedule a meeting before then. if there's useful discussion regarding that eapi/pms stuff we can of course schedule a meeting inbetween our regular schedule. 19:05 <@lu_zero> solar which time? 19:05 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has left #gentoo-council [] 19:05 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: I would suggest that if Ciaranm is fine with Gentoo dev's being lead on PMS that it should extend to all dev's having a catch on "no no not this dev" is not commiting to the idea that he's suggesting he's okie with 19:06 <@Betelgeuse> do I get a slacker mark? 19:06 <@solar> tsunam_: imo what Ciaranm is is not not fine with is 100% moot to what we do at gentoo 19:06 <@leio> were you missing from previous meeting? 19:06 <@Betelgeuse> I was away last time 19:06 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: being 17 minutes late i'd say yes 19:07 <+tsunam_> solar: I agree and that's kind of the point I'm making..that IMO there's an attempted ACE card being held back 19:07 <@solar> if we can't think and act on our own. Then we all failed 19:07 <+tsunam_> to more or less veto a nomination 19:07 <@Betelgeuse> what was the limit 19:08 <@Betelgeuse> hard to access 39 atm 19:08 <@solar> you were here. There was no real voting that went on. 19:08 <+trelane> solar, while I agree, he's certainly still hijacking the agenda 19:08 <@dertobi123> okies, so again 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th? 19:08 <@Betelgeuse> i can do 19:09 <@Betelgeuse> unless slackered out 19:09 <+tsunam_> solar: no, but just saying depending on what the council comes up with for 3.2.3 it has potential 19:09 <@ulm> Betelgeuse: the meeting effectively started at 20:10 so I'd say you were not really late 19:09 <@dertobi123> ok, so next meeting on october 12th, Betelgeuse takes care of agenda 19:09 <@dertobi123> if it does make sense to have a meeting between the regular ones we decide so on list 19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by solar 19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-vvvv trelane tsunam_ Fauli tanderson] by solar 19:09 <@dertobi123> next one is open floor 19:10 <@solar> tsunam_: sadly I think the council with probably be locked on this topic. 19:10 < tsunam_> solar: *nods* 19:10 <@solar> only way I see to solve the initial problem is to declare it obsolete 19:10 < jmbsvicetto> So the whole discussion about PMS will move to the -pms ml? 19:11 <@dertobi123> solar: might be an option. 19:11 <@solar> but it's good to have things documented. Everybody loves a manpage 19:11 -!- Zorry [n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry] has joined #gentoo-council 19:12 <@solar> but should it be what we live by?? Harder to solve that 19:12 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, seems so 19:12 <@dertobi123> it has its advantages, but when it's main advantage is to slow down development and cause endless discussions ... 19:12 < bonsaikitten> well, if it actively disallows innovation it's bad 19:13 <@dertobi123> not actively, in-actively it might 19:13 < bonsaikitten> uhm, package.mask as directory has been possible for >18 months 19:13 < jmbsvicetto> dertobi123: I don't think the discussion is what's "slowing down" development. Instead, the way the discussion is taking place and the people that currently have authority over it would be to blame 19:13 < bonsaikitten> not allowing it is kinda very silly 19:13 <@solar> I have to pee very badly. Thank you all for coming and sharing your input 19:14 <@solar> well not to the bathroom. But other input 19:14 <@dertobi123> heh 19:14 <@dertobi123> solar: have a nice pee :P 19:14 <@Betelgeuse> i would like to drive where i have computer working 19:14 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, I'd prefer to stop short of blaming Fauli as I would assert that effective control over the problem is effectively impossible 19:14 <@dertobi123> jmbsvicetto: agreed. 19:15 <@Betelgeuse> is the official part still on? 19:15 <@dertobi123> no, we're done