22:00:44 alright, woodpecker's clock says it's time 22:00:51 do we have everybody? 22:01:01 Betelgeuse will be late and is excused 22:01:02 yep 22:01:18 * ulm is here 22:01:26 here 22:01:28 we had leio and solar just a few minutes ago 22:01:37 --> FuzzyRay (~pvarner@gentoo/developer/FuzzyRay) has joined #gentoo-council 22:02:06 can somebody please set +m whil I take care of some of the logistics? 22:02:12 --- leio sets mode +m #gentoo-council 22:02:54 oh, I'm just seeing tobias may not be with us today 22:03:17 he voted already in case he can't make it. i take that as being present (not a slacker) 22:03:25 here 22:03:37 got intoo the car 22:03:43 Betelgeuse, wow, I hope you didn't lose your driver's license ;o) 22:03:50 :] 22:03:51 let's see how long the battery lasts 22:03:57 I am not driving :) 22:04:23 ok 22:04:25 3G sucks phone battery like hell 22:04:31 and it's already low 22:04:42 so we have everybodu except for tobias who will be excused 22:04:54 who wants to chair? 22:04:57 no 22:05:11 I don't think we have any excusing concept per our current rules, unfortunately 22:05:48 leio, we don't, youre right 22:06:09 we might create some, because he at least cared about voting, (so he is not slacking) 22:06:23 we have voted to not being able to change GLEP39 on our own 22:06:32 not do that now 22:06:53 get into the aganda please 22:06:59 yes please 22:07:01 before we go to deep in discussions ... 22:07:03 who wants to chair? 22:07:07 as usual I volunteer to chair if nobody doesn't, but don't let that stop you 22:07:11 so much on plate 22:07:28 Calchan: with lack of vlunteers feel free 22:07:32 I would if I had a connection 22:07:37 Calchan: just go. Betelgeuse is on limited phone battery. 22:07:42 alright then 22:07:51 any remarks regarding the agenda? 22:08:01 --> Zorry (~zorry@fu/coder/zorry) has joined #gentoo-council 22:08:26 ok, let's switch to the first topic then 22:08:36 glep 58 22:09:00 (as for 1.1, I'm logging and will be committing the raw log post-meeting before sleep) 22:09:01 I hope you have all read the agenda items and the material that was linked in there in order to make that a quick vote if possible 22:09:16 leio, thanks, I forgot abou tthat 22:09:25 i did read them 22:09:27 I always log 22:09:49 so, does anybdoy have any comment regarding glep 58? 22:09:54 if not we'll proceed to vote 22:09:55 I read allthe GLEPS during gregkh's talk 22:10:08 after which robbat2 committed some stuff 22:10:30 can we change any grammatical things after acceptance or not? :) 22:10:32 Calchan: only thing is that the timestamps seem to differ. You list 6-12 months while robin noted 18months . 22:10:33 Calchan: shouldn't we vote on 60 first? 22:10:42 it's a prerequisite of 58 22:11:49 ulm good point 22:12:03 so what's the general feeling, do you guys want to vote on 60 forst? 22:12:31 fine b me 22:12:34 now that ulm says it, it seems logical to me although I don't mind too much 22:12:50 let's discuss/vote 60 first then 22:12:55 yes, we can do 60 first as a prerequisite. As for comments about 60 I can't phantom a case where AUX would really have to be duplicated with a new type of entry 22:13:16 as I don't see any of the new ones covering package directories 22:13:27 any files in package directories* 22:14:03 leio: OTHER covers them 22:14:28 if they aren't in EXEC anyway 22:14:35 "Choosing a file", point 5 suggests otherwise? 22:14:39 Were'n't comments supposed to be before the meeting 22:14:48 so that we an just vote today 22:15:00 yeah just voting was supposed 22:15:09 so let's do that 22:15:29 Betelgeuse is right, leio and ulm if you consider the above to be a blocker then just vote no please, ok? 22:15:35 and I vote yes 22:15:48 I vote yes for glep 60 22:15:50 yes 22:15:53 yes 22:16:18 I vote yes on all of them 22:16:26 leio? 22:16:42 Calchan: Might be easier to ask if someone objects to any of them 22:16:44 I don't 22:16:51 I see what is meant there, but it should be more clearly written 22:16:52 I vote yes 22:16:59 Then we can use time more efficiently 22:17:18 Betelgeuse, technically we have to vote o each of then individually, and it can be done quickly so let's do it 22:17:25 Calchan: ok 22:18:03 NeddySeagoon just reminded me that we hae a missing member who sent in his vote by mail 22:18:40 but as we don't have a rule for that I told him we can't use votes by mail 22:18:48 we'll have to discuss that someday though 22:18:52 ok, 60 is go 22:18:57 let's vote on 58 now 22:19:04 58 - yes 22:19:09 yes for 58 22:19:11 58 - yes 22:19:14 yes for 58 22:19:18 yep 22:19:42 yes 22:19:50 58 is accepted too 22:20:03 let's vote on 59 now 22:20:09 yes 22:20:14 yes to all 22:20:27 59 - yep 22:20:32 yes for 59 22:20:44 yes here too 22:20:51 yes 22:20:55 Do any council ppl vote no on any of robins gleps? perhaps we can save some time per Betelgeuse suggestion? 22:21:06 solar: we have to actively name it anyway 22:21:15 due to proccess as i see it 22:21:27 I'll be curious how zac will do whirlpool though :) 22:21:48 leio, we talked of using external binaries 22:22:00 not important for the meeting 22:22:01 59 is go so we only have 61 left now 22:22:05 yes on 61 22:22:28 yes 22:22:34 yup 22:22:36 abstain on 61 22:23:54 yes from me 22:24:37 no (due to the part covering per-package manifests) 22:25:11 we already know solar wnated to vote yes on 61, although if you could confirm that would be nice 22:25:59 so we have 4-2 for glep 61 22:26:17 pita :p 22:26:18 yes 22:26:29 solar, that's my second name ;o) 22:26:48 Calchan: I see 4 yes 1 no 1 abstention 22:26:59 ulm, indeed 22:27:27 I am almost home. Will move from car to apparatement 22:27:35 ulm, I'll scan you a copy of my conting sheet to prove you I did note your abstention ;o) 22:27:42 Betelgeuse, ok 22:27:57 --> reavertm (~quassel@gentoo/developer/reavertm) has joined #gentoo-council 22:28:41 alright, any comments about these gleps? 22:29:11 if there aren't any we'll switch to the next topic 22:29:26 here's how it will work though: it' 22:29:27 only that he finish editing them to orig spec that we had agreed on 22:29:37 --> antarus (~antarus@gentoo/developer/antarus) has joined #gentoo-council 22:29:38 well, I'm supposed to keep my mouth shut, as I'm late with comments ;) 22:29:58 leio: don't let that hold you back. If you have a concern raise it 22:30:08 s an open ended discussion, I will ask you to conclude before 2100UTC since we are a few minutes late 22:30:24 at which point we'll conclude the meeting wehatever the outcome of the discussion 22:30:27 glep 60 is confusing about AUX 22:30:27 agreed? 22:30:49 leio, let's discuss that during the open floor 22:31:02 ok, let's discuss the VDB issue 22:31:18 I have proosed a few topics, but feel free to add more 22:31:37 Do we care about VDB caches currently not being compatible across 22:31:38 package managers? 22:32:09 would be nice to have it same, at least for us (read me) who have both pkgcore and portage :] 22:32:12 While it would be nice. I would leave that up to the pkg-mgr maintainers 22:33:31 the point is if we don't care there's nothing that prevents package manager maintainers to experiment with various stuff without needing a timestamp or other mechanism 22:33:46 it would make many people lives easier though 22:34:24 here ws another question, but we can still discuss the previous one at the same time 22:34:42 Do we want to develop a way to work with more than one type of VDB cache (similar to Brian's proposal or not) or do we prefer investing our time into developing a new VDB? 22:34:54 neither 22:35:04 solar, can you expand a bit? 22:35:32 if you read up to the last thing I said. It still holds true for this statement 22:36:13 but to go into more details. The VDB is imo outside of our scope at this time. it's not PMS. The PMS ppl clearly don't want it in. I happen to think they are right. 22:36:44 solar, talkig about PMS, is a VDB cache EAPI material, i.e. should it be defined in PMS? 22:36:59 No I don't think so. 22:37:10 how can it even be... 22:37:18 (EAPI material) 22:37:19 portage for example allows the use of more then one type of vdb backend. 22:37:31 and I would hate to limit them to 1 type. 22:38:04 so if we define anything at this time. I feel we would harm future growth more then help it 22:38:28 leio, agreed, on the other hand I think it's worth thinking whether even not being EAPI material if it shouldn't be in PMS anyway 22:38:31 We keep trying to slap things under EAPIs that can't be, they cover packages and to provide an upgrade path. That doesn't work for an uniform all-covering cache 22:38:49 solar, on of the remark was about it not being versioned, meaning that it could be 22:39:19 (nor profiles/ in my opinion, but that's some old somewhat never-ending discussion) 22:39:28 leio, that all boild down to: should PMS only cover EAPIs or can it be broader? 22:39:34 the movement is towards not relaying on VDB in packages, I think that's good 22:39:43 --> PSYCHO___ (~scarabeus@gentoo/developer/scarabeus) has joined #gentoo-council 22:39:43 --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to PSYCHO___ 22:40:00 to actually support these other types of VDB in portage (built_with_use == bad, etc) 22:40:07 <-- scarabeus has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 22:40:43 --- PSYCHO___ is now known as scarabeus 22:40:46 I think package manager authors should be able to innovate to come up with the most efficient cache 22:40:48 so another question now: what do you think about Brian's proposal in general? 22:41:01 both form the necessity and implementation point of view 22:41:18 --> [mrf] (~mrf@unaffiliated/mrf/x-6141039) has joined #gentoo-council 22:41:35 i think we need such thing 22:42:57 scarabeus, thanks, any other opinions? 22:43:10 the proposal sounds ok to me (thats why i wanted to talk about it :P) but i am not exactly what you would call expert in that area :] 22:44:11 mine is that there doesn't seem to be any harm caused by it, so if it helps some of us I would tend to say why not 22:45:33 it's outside of our scope. But personal feeling is there is no harm in updating the mtime of /var/db/pkg 22:46:03 yes, why not, while we are sort of stuck with current VDB and if it increases performance, but not sure if I'd want to decide on that if package manager/tool authors could just agree on it :) 22:47:13 leio, agreed here, I'm looking forward to the day they can all talk without us, on the other hand I consider them disagreeing a healthy thing 22:47:53 if that leads to a best solution with discussions.. 22:48:00 so I didn't think we could reach that stage, but are we ready to make a decision on Brian's proposal? 22:48:11 no 22:48:15 <-- reavertm has quit (Ping timeout: 276 seconds) 22:48:26 solar, I was going to add the following: 22:48:42 still no. This is an open discussion. Not a vote :p 22:49:31 solar: he dont want to hear yes/no i guess :] that is not point of open floor :D 22:50:03 scarabeus, this isn't the open floor it's topic 6 22:50:44 i am bit slightly off :P 22:50:49 dont bite me :P 22:50:51 mea culpa 22:52:42 not open floor but open discussion 22:52:44 :] 22:53:13 Calchan: did you have something else to add? 22:53:39 to conclude with this my opinion is that I would be happy that any package manager who wants to join in this vdb timestamp feature is welcome to do so 22:53:51 solar, I was typing, I'm a bit slow today ;o) 22:54:04 ok so my statement on the matter is that: If zac implemented it in portae and was the same implemented in pkgcore i would be happy person so i would like to see that happen 22:54:06 The question was "but are we ready to make a decision on Brian's proposal" (for that statement alone. I'm saying no. No as it's outside of the scope.) If the VDB is going to be documented it's on a per pkg mgr basis at this point. We cant impose rules unless all the VDB equivs get a unified format.spec. Then that brings us back to hampering innovation. 22:54:25 if any of you want to summarize his opinion now it would help the poor guy who is going to make the meeting summary 22:54:58 solar, thanks, that's a nice summary from you 22:55:19 solar, and btw it's perfectly ok to answer no to any of my questions ;o) 22:55:20 on the other hand, if some package manager isn't participating in the vdb timestamp feature, it means it is not usable if user is using both a package manager not doing it, and one doing it 22:55:45 but it's not a bad idea. Zac and ferringb are welcome to do it. think they are even already 22:55:48 leio, I would say then it's up to the users of this package manager to lobby the maintainers to ad the feature 22:56:15 meanwhile it breaks everything for the participating package manager or something 22:56:34 it's only a problem if they use more than one pkg manager at the same time 22:57:28 ulm, in the future it would only be a problem if they use one package manager that doesn't have the feature alibng with others 22:57:47 right 22:57:49 ulm, as long as they use only package managers that have the feature they can use as many as they want 22:58:25 are we done on this topic? 22:58:59 not sure how one would summarize this topic in a meeting summary, indeed :) 22:59:17 leio, if you want I'll take care of it 22:59:37 let's conclude the meeting then 22:59:49 actions 23:00:05 leio, do you want to investigate this AUX issue? 23:00:12 --> PSYCHO___ (~scarab@gentoo/developer/scarabeus) has joined #gentoo-council 23:00:13 --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to PSYCHO___ 23:00:20 although we did accept the glep we can always ask for some minor tuning 23:00:30 what kind of acceptance we gave to these gleps? Can they be changed anymore at all? 23:00:50 leio, we are the council, we have powerz ;o) 23:00:51 leio: yes. That was one of our conitions 23:00:59 leio: even GLEP 1 should be updated 23:01:28 they have to be fixed up before changes are pushed around in the tree. 23:01:38 I will talk with Robin 23:01:42 any other actions for next meeting that I'm not seeing? 23:01:47 we really rushed them. It's sad robin was not here 23:02:19 I wouldn't say the time available for people to discuss rushing. 23:02:49 7.2 Who takes care of the summary and log for this meeting? When? 23:02:58 I can do the summary if that helps 23:03:10 unless leio or anybody else wnats to do it 23:03:15 Betelgeuse: rushing as in robin did not finish documenting everything in the gleps. Some of the data needs to be yanked etc. 23:03:58 wo will commit the logs and when? 23:04:03 as said before, I will commit the log today 23:04:09 leio, ok thanks 23:04:12 (well, after midnight my time) 23:04:37 next meeting: can we already agree on a date/time or do we discuss it off-list? 23:05:00 1 or 8 23:05:07 i cant 15. 23:05:16 and then 22 and 29 again i can 23:05:20 I don't have travelling schedule for Mars 23:05:27 I'd prefer 8, 3 weeks to organize a meeting is short 23:05:40 I like the 8th next month. It's a full 4 weeks away. 23:05:43 yeah 8 i can 23:05:46 although I did it this time I had to rush it 23:05:50 8 ok for me too 23:06:19 ok let's put 8 as a tentative date and confirm that on list during this coming week but no later, ok? 23:06:25 ack 23:06:31 8 is fine 23:06:38 same time as usual I guess, which is 1 hour earlier than today 23:06:50 i.e. 1900 UTC 23:07:02 Who will follow-up discussions and prepare the agenda for the next meeting? 23:07:34 as usual I volunteer 23:07:44 but feel free to take that off my plate 23:07:50 if is it just reading the mails and putting it together i can help (hey i can at least try :]) 23:08:08 scarabeus, ok thanks, let's be in touch about this then 23:08:46 ok my mail is obvious i live in CET and i am on irc most of the time expect monday and thursday :] 23:09:01 scarabeus, there's a lot of dicussing with people in the background too though, if only to make sure they'll answer on the lists 23:09:19 scarabeus: but mondays around 1900 UTC work ok for you in general? 23:09:32 yep, basicaly yes 23:09:40 i have 3 hours gap there :] 23:10:04 are you guys ok with opening the floor and ending the meeting? 23:10:12 yes 23:10:14 yep 23:10:39 yes 23:10:39 is that open floor discussion not part of a meeting anymore? (for what to commit as raw log) 23:11:15 leio, feel free to commit whatever's relevant to your eyes, bytes aren't that expensive these days 23:11:52 well, that's just why I ask right now, it has more meaning (are council members supposed to try to stick around and participate, etc) 23:12:04 anyway, yeah, lets remove moderation, you are chair and say when meeting is over :) 23:12:16 :]] 23:12:44 * solar declares it lunchtime then cya. 23:13:08 --- scarabeus sets mode -m #gentoo-council 23:13:14 so lets see :] 23:13:28 we need tree signing like yesterday 23:13:33 plz2make it happen 23:13:41 I don't even care if it is osprey signing post commit 23:13:43 I'll take anything 23:14:11 done 23:19:12 its quite quiet open floor 23:19:21 i hear the pin to drop :P 23:19:47 scarabeus: don't disturb the silence 23:20:31 scarabeus, close the meeting and do a runner 23:21:14 :]