Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > > >> - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) > > > We haven't been asked to get involved, therefore we don't need to. > > > w

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tobias Scherbaum wrote: >> - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) > We haven't been asked to get involved, therefore we don't need to.

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote: > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Discuss on-list before meeting > > --- > > - Council meta stuff (-council) > > - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? > > - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? > > I'm in fav

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:28:31 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata > > generation. Which means it won't work for overlays. > > I'm not an expert on metadata generation, so please tell me if I'm > wrong here. Most if not all overlays don't sh

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 17:02 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800 > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new > > features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash, > > things ought to work. > > Only if you're g

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Tobias Scherbaum
Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Discuss on-list before meeting > --- > - Council meta stuff (-council) > - Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum? > - Should we have 2-year staggered terms? I'm in favor of a fixed size of council members, I'd like to see at least 5

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata > generation. Which means it won't work for overlays. Come to think of it... This is yet another reason GLEP 55 is necessary. -- Ciaran McCreesh

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new > features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash, > things ought to work. Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata generation. Which

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 16:11 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600 > Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly > > obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We > > already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:02:29 -0800 Donnie Berkholz wrote: > - PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev) The question for this one, really, is whether people are happy having such a vaguely specified utility whose behaviour keeps changing in ways that break existing idioms. If t

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-22 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600 Jeremy Olexa wrote: > I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly > obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We > already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not sure where the red > tape is here. The problem is, if the

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Donnie Berkholz wrote: On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel that this mak

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is > unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or > something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel > that this makes it hard for ot

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Jeremy Olexa
Donnie Berkholz wrote: This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed t

Re: [gentoo-dev] One-Day Gentoo Council Reminder for January 22

2009-01-21 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 15:35 Wed 21 Jan , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council > meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the > channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC). > > If you're supposed to show up, please