rich0 14/06/24 19:57:22 Added: 20140624-summary.txt 20140624.txt Log: Upload this week's council summary.
Revision Changes Path 1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624-summary.txt file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain Index: 20140624-summary.txt =================================================================== Summary of Gentoo council meeting 24 Jun 2014 Roll call ============ Present: blueness, dilfridge, rich0, williamh Absent: dberkholz, scarabeus, ulm IUSE_RUNTIME / GLEP 62 ====================== See the logs for full discussion. There will likely be a need for some bikeshedding on the lists as it comes time to implement this, as we set guidelines on when this feature should be used. "The council accepts IUSE_RUNTIME for implementation in EAPI6 as outlined in GLEP 62. The actual GLEP will be approved when EAPI6 is approved as part of PMS." Aye: blueness, dilfridge, rich0, williamh Passed Bugs assigned to Council ======================== dberkholz and betelgeuse are reminded to upload their summaries and link on the council page. Open floor ========== Only item brought up was general celebration that our term is finally ended, and those of us who return are looking forward to it! Summary submitted by Richard Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> 1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624.txt file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20140624.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain Index: 20140624.txt =================================================================== [15:04:39] <rich0> roll call :) [15:04:48] -*- dilfridge here [15:04:56] -*- WilliamH here [15:05:00] <rich0> blueness, dberkholz, scarabeus, ulm? [15:06:14] <blueness> rich0, png [15:06:21] <blueness> sorry almost forgot! [15:06:25] <rich0> np :) [15:06:32] <rich0> 3rd time might be the charm for finishing our term! [15:06:38] <blueness> yep [15:06:48] <rich0> Ok, let's get started and hopefully dberkholz, scarabeus, and ulm will catch up. [15:06:55] <rich0> GLEP 64 [15:06:56] <blueness> yep [15:06:59] <rich0> Err, GLEP 62. [15:07:43] <rich0> Thoughs? [15:07:46] <rich0> Thoughts? [15:08:00] <rich0> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:62 [15:08:00] -*- WilliamH is looking for the glep [15:08:19] <blueness> reading [15:08:37] <rich0> mgorny: ping, FYI - your GLEP is under discussion... [15:09:21] <rich0> I like the fact that it avoids polluting @world [15:09:46] <dilfridge> I like the whole idea, I just think the detail description of the algorithm is not really making sense under "Reference implementation" [15:10:15] <rich0> Well, it obviously isn't an actual implementation - more of a design. [15:10:28] <dilfridge> yeah, sure, [15:10:34] <rich0> I'd probably have this section updated once an actual implementation is done. [15:10:44] <dilfridge> but I think this is more something that should come out of writing the code [15:10:47] <dilfridge> exactly [15:10:48] <blueness> dilfridge, yeah i don't see that as bad, its an outline of what IUSE_RUNTIME entails [15:11:21] <rich0> So, we can approve the GLEP, except that the reference implementation can be updated once actually implemented. :) [15:11:24] <WilliamH> I'm sure this was discussed and I missed it, why is this a glep instead of a feature for a new eapi? [15:11:26] <blueness> rich0, i guess the point is if a package installs a perl script, you and you add IUSE_RUNTIME=dev-lang/perl then perl is NOT pulled in? [15:11:32] <blueness> err ... not exactly [15:11:54] <blueness> but some flag which pulls in perl [15:11:56] <rich0> WilliamH: it wasn't discussed. Probably was just propsoed this way since GLEPs used to be the way these things were done. [15:12:21] <dilfridge> ulm had something to say about this [15:12:57] <dilfridge> as far as I can remember, his argument originally was "it's 100% backward compatible and could even in theory be added independent of eapi" [15:13:04] <WilliamH> blueness: as an example, logrotate could be a use flag aas long as it were in IUSE_RUNTIME. [15:13:28] <blueness> this is the point -> enabling or disabling any of the flags must not involve rebuilding the package, [15:13:32] <dilfridge> exactly [15:13:48] <blueness> okay i get it now, i'm okay with it [15:13:56] <rich0> exactly - perl wouldn't be pulled in unless you enabled the perl USE flag. If you enabled it later then perl would be pulled in, but the package wouldn't rebuild. [15:14:14] <blueness> right [15:14:17] <rich0> If you disabled it later then perl isn't pulled in, though it won't go away if something else pulls it in, obviously [15:14:30] <rich0> Any issues with the actual proposal? [15:14:54] <blueness> not really, i also don't see the 'reference implementation' as a problem [15:14:56] <rich0> There is the GLEP vs EAPI6 bit - probably does make more sense as part of the EAPI, though I'm not opposed to having the GLEP as well. [15:15:30] <dilfridge> the "Reference implementation" section is not a problem, I just would not see it as "close to final", more as a roadmap [15:15:47] <WilliamH> Yes this is more of a roadmap. [15:16:31] <dilfridge> one suggestion would be, if an implementation in portage is ready in time, consider it for EAPI=6, otherwise postpone for later (this should not hold up the EAPI) [15:16:33] <rich0> Do we just want to approve it for EAPI6? [15:16:53] <blueness> sure if we approve the gleb [15:16:56] <blueness> glep [15:17:03] <rich0> dilfridge: makes sense - I'd probably leave that up to the PMS/portage teams or the next council [15:17:13] <blueness> unless you think it will hold up eapi=6 and we don't want that [15:17:26] -*- WilliamH isn't in favor of retroactively applying it to older eapis either. [15:17:42] <rich0> No, I'd just make it work for new EAPIs unless all the PMs chime in that it isn't an issue. [15:17:53] <rich0> That's the whole point of PMS. [15:17:59] <dilfridge> not retroactively [15:18:38] <rich0> Granted, the proposal is basically designed to handle that - older PMs would ignore the IUSE_RUNTIME and just treat it as a use flag. [15:18:46] <rich0> So, the dependency would work fine, it would just trigger a rebuild when it changes. [15:18:51] <dilfridge> well, it's not an issue in terms of definition or functionality, just in matters of convenience (if a pm does not respect IUSE_RUNTIME people end up with an insane number of rebuilds) [15:19:14] <rich0> So, in that sense it could potentially go into EAPI6 even if portage isn't ready. [15:19:14] <dilfridge> (assuming that IUSE_RUNTIME is widely accepted) [15:19:40] <dilfridge> hmm [15:19:44] <rich0> If it gets rid of einfo spam, more power to it! :) [15:20:31] <rich0> Ok, do we just want to include it in EAPI6 then? We can save appropving the GLEP until the rest of EAPI6 is ready to be approved? [15:20:50] <dilfridge> we can add it to the list of planned EAPI6 features, yes [15:20:55] <rich0> EAPI6 itself gets its real approval when PMS is submitted to the next council. [15:21:26] <rich0> I think any of the items we included in EAPI6 are at the discretion of the PMS team if for whatever reason the PMs can't implement all of them. [15:21:34] <WilliamH> We should probably find out from the portage guys a rough idea of whether it will hold up EAPI 6? [15:21:38] <rich0> That is why this isn't a final approval. [15:22:25] <rich0> WilliamH: I don't see this as a hard commitment to anything. This is just a process to get rid of EAPI6 items that we don't want so that people don't implement them only to have the next council reject them. [15:23:00] <rich0> Granted, I guess they could still do that. :) [15:23:00] <blueness> WilliamH, who are the portage guys these days? [15:23:00] <blueness> ie who's the lead? [15:23:09] <dilfridge> blueness: dol-sen [15:24:03] <rich0> My personal recommendation would be to include, and then let the portage guys reject it later. Anything not implemented would be dropped from the final EAPI6. [15:24:10] <blueness> rich0, let's add it, they can always amend later [15:24:17] <rich0> blueness: ++ [15:24:23] <blueness> <mid-air!> [15:24:29] <rich0> Really we're just saying htat it is "approvable" [15:25:11] <dilfridge> sounds good [15:25:16] -*- dilfridge approves [15:25:22] <blueness> call the vote! [15:25:33] <rich0> Ok, so how about "The council accepts IUSE_RUNTIME for implementation in EAPI6 as outlined in GLEP 62. The actual GLEP will be approved when EAPI6 is approved as part of PMS." [15:25:37] <rich0> vote! [15:25:43] -*- rich0 yes [15:25:47] -*- blueness yes [15:25:53] -*- dilfridge yes for glep 62 [15:25:58] -*- WilliamH yes [15:26:11] <rich0> ok, passes 4-0 with 3 absent. [15:26:27] <rich0> That brings us to bugs. [15:26:33] <dilfridge> yawn [15:27:24] <rich0> dberkholz: write your summaries! [15:27:54] <rich0> blueness: I think the last one is yours? [15:28:02] <blueness> which bug? [15:28:12] <WilliamH> I need to ask a quick question about the rules of the glep though. [15:28:13] <rich0> bug 477030 [15:28:14] <willikins> rich0: https://bugs.gentoo.org/477030 "Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; CONF; ulm:council [15:28:26] <rich0> WilliamH: sure, we're just about at AOB anyway [15:28:38] <blueness> rich0, all my summaries are posted afaik [15:28:40] <blueness> let me look [15:28:53] <rich0> you're right [15:29:02] <WilliamH> I guess my logrotate example is wrong, because of rule 3. [15:29:09] <rich0> Unless you were responsible before you joined the council [15:29:17] <rich0> 2013-06-11 [15:29:20] <rich0> It was the last council [15:29:31] <rich0> I just was looking at your bug comment [15:29:31] <dilfridge> betelgeuse [15:29:50] <rich0> Ok, just say it three times and hopefully it will happen. [15:29:56] <blueness> rich0, oh that was me being a newbie ;) [15:29:57] <dilfridge> :D [15:30:00] <WilliamH> I was thinking we could use this to reinstate use flags for things like logrotate, xinetd, etc. [15:30:06] <dilfridge> brb [15:30:29] <rich0> WilliamH: what is the problem with that? [15:30:43] <rich0> Which rule 3? flags listed in IUSE_RUNTIME must not be referenced in phase functions, DEPEND, LICENSE or SRC_URI, [15:30:43] <rich0> ? [15:30:53] <WilliamH> rich0: right. [15:31:02] <rich0> why would logrotate be part of those phases? [15:31:09] <rich0> It would be an RDEPEND. [15:31:21] <WilliamH> if use logrotate; then [15:31:29] <WilliamH> # install logrotate config files [15:31:29] <rich0> You install the logrotate script unconditionally, and then pull in logrotate conditionally as an RDEPEND. [15:31:30] <WilliamH> fi [15:32:01] <rich0> This would only manage dependencies, not what actually gets installed. [15:32:05] <rich0> That is the key to IUSE_RUNTIME. [15:32:11] <WilliamH> rich0: logrotate isn't an rdepend, the package doesn't need it to run. [15:32:28] <rich0> You don't use IUSE_RUNTIME with things the package NEEDS to run. [15:32:39] <rich0> It is for things that optionally improve the package. [15:32:48] <WilliamH> rich0: right, so you can't put logrotate in rdepend. [15:32:49] <rich0> I need to dig up some examples. [15:33:05] <rich0> WilliamH: why not? It is a suggested dependency, basically. [15:33:13] <floppym> I think it would be a bad idea to add IUSE_RUNTIME="logrotate systemd openrc ..." to every packages. [15:33:29] <rich0> Myabe logrotate isn't a great example. [15:33:34] -*- WilliamH agrees with floppym [15:33:51] <rich0> I forget what the last package I installed was that had about 10 lines of einfo about useful stuff I could optionally install. [15:34:07] <floppym> net-misc/netctl is a good example. [15:34:53] <rich0> Good one [15:35:49] <rich0> systemd has some [15:35:56] <rich0> sys-apps/systemd-ui: for GTK+ systemadm UI and gnome-ask-password-agent [15:36:05] <rich0> dracut has a laundry list [15:36:07] <dilfridge> logrotate is a bad example, since in that case the idea originally was to control installation of a small file [15:36:27] <dilfridge> (which is not possible if you dont reinstall on switching useflag) [15:36:32] <rich0> in this case it wouldn't be about controlling the file installation, but about pulling in logrotate itself. [15:36:36] <dilfridge> yep [15:36:50] <rich0> dracut is actually a pretty good example [15:37:14] <rich0> http://pastebin.com/4cfwVqSb [15:37:27] <WilliamH> In that case, I would not suggest logrotate as a use flag still. [15:38:10] -*- WilliamH still doesn't like that we force users to use install_mask if they want to get rid of small files like that. [15:38:42] <rich0> Anything else on this? I'm not hearing that we want to actually revisit the vote... [15:38:54] <rich0> I'd definitely like to get to open floor this week! :) [15:39:22] <blueness> i'm good, this was more of a clarification for me [15:39:42] <rich0> Sure, and the bonus of this is that it gives everybody more stuff to fight over in six months! [15:39:42] <WilliamH> heh we can move on. [15:39:57] <rich0> Thus ensuring we or our replacements still have a job to do... [15:40:05] <rich0> Ok, open floor then. [15:40:09] <rich0> And any other business. [15:41:01] -*- rich0 enjoys the crickets... [15:41:19] <dilfridge> let me just state that I think this was a productive year :) [15:41:36] <blueness> i think so too [15:41:44] <blueness> now i have to sit down and write my glep [15:41:48] -*- WilliamH agrees [15:41:54] <rich0> Yes, I was pretty happy with how things went. [15:42:49] <rich0> Ok, then I guess we'll wrap up. It has been great serving with all of you! [15:42:59] <WilliamH> Same here. :-) [15:43:10] <blueness> Handshakes all around! [15:43:16] <rich0> Who knows, maybe a few of us will get to repeat the adventure. The lists are much quieter than they were last election. [15:43:18] <dilfridge> Yep, thank you all! same from me! [15:43:59] <blueness> well some of us are running again so maybe we'll see one another again [15:44:08] <blueness> <mid-air!> [15:44:14] <rich0> Ok, then we're officially done barring any emergencies, and anybody who can find me after the meeting is welcome to a free drink. :) [15:44:15] -*- WilliamH is curious how many have accepted their nomminations so far... [15:44:16] <blueness> WilliamH, i was going to ask jmbsvicetto that very question [15:44:21] <blueness> the business that anyone can nominate did not turn out so bad [15:44:31] <blueness> the fact that you *have* to accept stopped the madness [15:44:49] <dilfridge> https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council/2014/council-201406-nominees.xml [15:45:05] <rich0> blueness: yup - I raised the question just so that we didn't get any birthers after somebody gets elected and it is pointed out that no dev nominated them. :) [15:46:25] <rich0> Lots of incumbents this year - we're gluttens for punishment! [15:46:30] <rich0> err, gluttons [15:46:46] <rich0> Good thing I'm not running on a platform of being an ispell replacement [15:48:01] <rich0> Ok, well, we're officially dismissed. I'll post the logs/summary.
