I think the demise or replacement of the sunrise project should be put on the agenda possibly. This is not anything official, just a hopefully helpful suggestion.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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/> >
