Hello, Considering the strength of response from a Council member, I would like to officially apologize for providing the agenda items and I would like to withdraw them all appropriately. Thank you for your time, and I wish you re-election.
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:06:25 +0200 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:01:03 -0400 > "Anthony G. Basile" <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > The Council will be meeting on Sunday June 12. This is a call for any > > agenda items. > > In preferred order of discussion (i.e. shortest topics first): > > 1. the 'file installation masks' GLEP [spec:1, RFC:2, bug:3]. It still > hasn't been merged by the GLEP editors but it's otherwise ready with > reference implementation for Portage. Preferably please discuss this > separately/before LINGUAS as it is quite generic and I think having it > approved would benefit us. The part specifically needing Council > approval is the extra configuration file in metadata/ dir of the > repository. > > 2. The patch fixing USE_EXPAND handling in Portage to adhere to > the rules enforced by the PMS for EAPI 5 and newer [patch:4, > patch v1:5, bug:6]. The patch comes in two variants. The former > (preferred by me) applies the change to all EAPIs since this way we can > kill the ugly logic for earlier EAPIs and PMS leaves the behavior > undefined for them. The latter applies it only to EAPI 5 and newer, > leaving current behavior for older EAPIs. I don't think it really makes > sense to have different logic as EAPI 5 is quite common already, and > different behavior will only increase confusion. > > 3. New sys-devel/gcc USE=multislot [QA bug:7]. I originally wanted to > do this via QA but considering the replies to bugs opened so far, I > think Council approval would be additionally helpful. The key point of > my request would be to kill the flag, and stop force-removing old > versions implicitly. > > 4. LINGUAS [8,9]. Long story short, PMS considered, we implicitly strip > localizations from most of the packages out there. I think the first > step towards fixing it that the most people can approve is renaming > the USE_EXPAND from LINGUAS to I18N or L10N, or generally something > else, plus a news item. > > 5. USE=gui [10]. It seems to get some appreciation but I suspect it's > going to end up going to the Council anyway. > > I think that's all for now. If I recall something else, I'll let you > know. > > > [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:MGorny/GLEP:INSTALL_MASK > [2]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/af5de8be051fdf60d4d4aef97df6e683 > [3]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584452 > [4]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/42e3a134d14e33e037e35e6c5df9d05d > [5]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage-dev/message/b79fc6bd174a356c62bda59d0b0e9e8e > [6]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=583750 > [7]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=584610 > [8]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/a08ea09c2c8e534fd9bc1146703c66ff > [9]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/41e09d1ddc8b30abb9f9d21d205b7b82 > [10]:https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/eecad370248118c474a0d819fa7f3576 > -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpIn1cLwfc2z.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
