Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. Following Richard recommandation [1] I propose to vote for default ACCEPT_LICENSE value sets to: ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula" with @EULA a license group including every licenses considered as EULA which means needing approval by user. This is including most commercial licenses. At least, every packages using check_license() from eutils.eclass should have their license add in @EULA group license. Why this default value ? My initial post [2] mentioned 3 values. I choose the one I described the worst because of issues reported. Indeed, Richard [3] reported he didn't want to have a too restrictive value. This one is the less restrictive we can have. In addition, Ciaran McCreesh reported an issue with badly licensed ebuilds like most X packages [4]. This issue was a blocker for a too restrictive default value. With the proposed value, bad licensed packages will not be blocked. At least, by default. Setting this default value as soon as possible is the best compromise. It will put this feature in portage and let people use it. Packages needing user approval will be blocked and then fix bug 152593 [5]. In addition, users setting ACCEPT_LICENSE to a more restrictive value will help to catch bad licensed ebuilds by filing bugs. Finally, it is removing a reason for interactiveness (via check_license()) into ebuilds. This could be a first step for a new default value in the future (when all licenses will be fixed). So, may the council vote on this default value for ACCEPT_LICENSE ? [1] can't find something in gmame nor in archives.g.o, you should add the year after the "reminder for $month" ;) [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml [3] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_f391139d825eb793cf0694add4f39d93.xml [4] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml [5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152593 Thanks, Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Mounir Lamouri wrote: I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not interesting so much people out there. Why not make a definitive proposal so that the council doesn't just have to figure one out on the fly - that will probably lead to faster closure (and give people something to throw darts at if they hate it). Here is a suggestion: Default is ACCEPT_LICENSE="* -...@eula". My intent isn't to divert the discussion into this thread (everybody who cares is reading the other one I'm sure). However, the basic point is to propose one thing and then let everybody throw stones at it, so that they know what will happen if they don't complain. If you word it appropriately nobody will be offended that you're proposing a solution. Then the council can just look at the list and see no big flamewars and just approve it, rather than debating what it should actually be. Also - I wouldn't consider it a negative thing that your proposal hasn't gotten as many replies as glep55. You have proposed a small and (mostly) well-defined change to gentoo and if nobody complains then we should run with it!
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. > > Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review > must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) > before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days > before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be > notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. > > For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ > Hi, I would like to get ACCEPT_LICENSE default value [1] discussed in the next Council. If I can even get it widely discussed in gentoo-dev before the council, a vote will be great. But it looks like it is not interesting so much people out there. [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d5c1e7285399ebc27a74bdd02cb4d037.xml Mounir
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
2009-06-01 07:30:01 Mike Frysinger napisał(a):
> This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically
> the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
> (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
>
> If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
> vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
> Gentoo dev list to see.
Please vote on:
* Temporary unlocking of list of features of EAPI="3"
* Allowing bash-4.0 features in EAPI="3" ebuilds
* Temporary disallowing of adding bash-4.0 features to ebuilds in
gentoo-x86 repository until ${TIME:-1 month} has passed since
stabilization of =app-shells/bash-4.0* on all architectures.
Details of this proposition were already discussed on:
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_fac31baaca8de3fb39ba6209fced9362.xml
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Requesting ~arch keywords: Is a maintainer able to request ~arch keywords, if the package is not a dependency of some other package which is keyworded, and the maintainer doesn't have that arch? IMHO the packages should be keyworded if an arch team member or an user of that arch requests it. Keywording something if an user of said arch doesn't request it, is a waste of resources. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On P, 2008-06-01 at 05:30 +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. I am still waiting on seeing any results or follow-ups on this: Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams? - The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and has no relationship to whether bugs are open. We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see whether there's anything we can help improve. Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating staffing-needs entry. I still don't see any staffing needs entry or other methods to solve this beyond declaring them as dev profiles which doesn't help with the bugs, and I can't know if any effort has been underway for understanding the workflow. Without an update, it gives the impression nothing has been done, which I don't want to believe. I'd appreciate an update - not necessarily as part of the council agenda, but perhaps just per mail, with any discussions if any is necessary during the meeting. -- Mart Raudsepp Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Weblog: http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/leio signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On 01 Jun 2008 05:30:01, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically > the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel > (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. I would like the council to vote on whether --as-needed will be added to gentoo by default or not. > > Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review > must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) > before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days > before the meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be > notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself. > > For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ > > -- > gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Saturday 02 June 2007, Seemant Kulleen wrote: > Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes > and Kloeri)? yes, we're planning on replacing kloeri in line with the decisions made last time (when Flameeyes left) -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 20:18 -0700, Mike Doty wrote: > uberlord replaced flameeyes the month after he left. duh @ me, sorry about that. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Seemant Kulleen wrote: Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes and Kloeri)? Thanks, Seemant uberlord replaced flameeyes the month after he left. --taco -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Is the council planning on replacing the two missing members (Flameeyes and Kloeri)? Thanks, Seemant signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Monday 12 June 2006 09:28, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the > > 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > > irc.freenode.net) ! > > I've learned that the Gentoo Council meeting has been pushed to the > 3rd Thursday of June - meaning 2006-06-15. At which time will the > meeting be held? 1900 UTC or 2000 UTC? 1900 UTC (1400 EST) -mike pgpFoIk943LNb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:02:46AM +, Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the > 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > irc.freenode.net) ! I've learned that the Gentoo Council meeting has been pushed to the 3rd Thursday of June - meaning 2006-06-15. At which time will the meeting be held? 1900 UTC or 2000 UTC? Regards, Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd pgpxEyo3zdgSM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Friday 02 June 2006 00:33, Mark Loeser wrote: > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > > Gentoo dev list to see. > > As I requested in an earlier email, I would like it to be discussed how > we want to handle alternative package managers. The GLEPs both touch on > the issue, but if neither of those proposals are liked, then we are > still left not knowing what to do. > > Here is my original email: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/38231 > > As I said in my email, I want there to be a discussion (and hopefully a > decision) as to whether or not adding these packages to *our* tree is > best for us and our users. In my opinion, it seems to make the most > sense for alternative package managers to be hosted on their own > infrastructure so they are free to introduce new features and write > ebuilds to take advantage of those features. > > If it is required for me to be present at the meeting to discuss this (I > don't believe I have to be), then could whoever does the scheduling get > in touch with me, because it will be difficult for me to be here during > the day since I just started a new job. I support this request, and in return am willing to incorporate suggestions by the council into my GLEP. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgp1OzUoiuaFd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Friday 02 June 2006 00:16, Stephen Bennett wrote: > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200 > > Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. > > Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before > a GLEP is submitted to the council? Besides the fact that the GLEP is long (overengineered?) there is one main point of disagreement. That point is the requirement of primary package manager hosting. As shown by various council members, they also have their disagreements. It should not be that all points have to be resolved before the council can take a look at a GLEP. Part of the job of the council is to make decisions, not just to rubberstamp things. I believe that currently all things concerning the GLEP have been discussed, so now it is time to get feedback from the council. I did not request a decision now. I requested the council to discuss the GLEP. On another point, the overengineering. Writing a package manager requires a big investment in time. The GLEP is detailed in various points to allow package manager writers to know what they can expect in the future. This gives them a hard target to work with. I agree with grant that the council will let sanity prevail. I do however think that the decisions by the council at such a time could lead to disappointments on the part of people who have written a replacement package manager that is not accepted. In general the document is intended as a guideline for package manager writers that describes their place within gentoo. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpsV2lLD7n2P.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. As I requested in an earlier email, I would like it to be discussed how we want to handle alternative package managers. The GLEPs both touch on the issue, but if neither of those proposals are liked, then we are still left not knowing what to do. Here is my original email: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/38231 As I said in my email, I want there to be a discussion (and hopefully a decision) as to whether or not adding these packages to *our* tree is best for us and our users. In my opinion, it seems to make the most sense for alternative package managers to be hosted on their own infrastructure so they are free to introduce new features and write ebuilds to take advantage of those features. If it is required for me to be present at the meeting to discuss this (I don't believe I have to be), then could whoever does the scheduling get in touch with me, because it will be difficult for me to be here during the day since I just started a new job. Thanks, -- Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com pgpe56hmqGvv5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 21:44:39 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. Isn't it customary for issues raised on the list to be addressed before a GLEP is submitted to the council? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:10:04 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > > Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT] > > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 > > Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP > Realize you'ure after keeping it open, but there is more to the tree I would like the council to nail down the details of what package manager specific data can and cannot be put in gentoo-x86 as well as what the requirements and process of replacing or providing an alternative to portage will be. Getting the specifics down in writing will avoid a lot of headaches down the road as non-portage package managers mature. There are a lot of sides to this discussion, almost all of the possible view points were expressed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of it is available in the mailing list archives for review, so I'm also asking that the subscribers to [EMAIL PROTECTED] please refrain from starting another flamewar. -tcort pgpInSj1J2hlr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 03:00:13PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT] > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. > > Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) that was either > overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people > considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which. In any event, I just > want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative approach. Realize you'ure after keeping it open, but there is more to the tree then just ebuilds- 1) what sparked it all: profiles 2) metadata/glsa, 3) version ordering between ebuilds (is 1.06 greater then 1.051? Answer might surprise you ;) Etc- potential food for thought... ~harring pgpZE7KJRkhwA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 15:00:13 -0500 Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT] > > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager > > requirements. > > Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev > (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) that was either > overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people > considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which. In any event, I just > want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative > approach. Well, it's definitely better than the overengineered one by Paul. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
Paul de Vrieze wrote: [Thu Jun 01 2006, 02:44:39PM CDT] > I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on > the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. Incidentally, I drafted a competing GLEP that I posted to -dev (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) that was either overlooked in the rest of that thread or ignored because people considered it to be useless; I'm not sure which. In any event, I just want to bring it to the council's attention as an alternative approach. -g2boojum- -- Grant Goodyear Gentoo Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 GLEP: xx Title: Supporting alternative package managers Version: $Revision: 1.3 $ Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/11/13 17:16:50 $ Author: Grant Goodyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/x-rst Created: 22-May-2006 Abstract To support alternatives to the official package manager (portage, at the time of this writing), some sane ground rules need to be set. Specifically, no alternative ebuild-based package manager may be added to the tree unless it successfully works with all ebuilds supported by the official package manager. Moreover, no ebuilds may be added to the tree unless they are supported (without change) by the official package manager. Specification = * No alternative ebuild-based package manager may be added to the tree unless it successfully works with all ebuilds supported by the official package manager. If an alternative package manager is runtime incompatible with the official package manager, then it must be masked and provide appropriate warnings. * No ebuilds may be added to the tree unless they are supported (without change) by the official package manager. Rationale = The first rule sets a reasonable bar for adding an alternative package manager to the tree. Note that if an ebuild currently in the tree doesn't work with the official package manager, it isn't expected to work with an alternative package manager either. The second rule ensures that an alternative package manager cannot become a de-facto requirement by supporting packages that the official package manager cannot handle. In order to keep this proposal as simple and focused as possible, it has nothing to say about the process by which an alternative package manager might one day become the official package manager. It is assumed that sanity will reign, and no package manager will become official without being able to build installation media, providing a transition path from or to the existing official package manager, etcetera. Backwards Compatibility === Pretty much the whole point, and it's explicit here. Copyright = This document has been placed in the public domain. pgpZbopQvTPXT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for June
On Thursday 01 June 2006 13:02, Mike Frysinger wrote: > This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the > 2nd Thursday once a month), same bat channel (#gentoo-council @ > irc.freenode.net) ! > > If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even > vote on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole > Gentoo dev list to see. > > Keep in mind that every *re*submission to the council for review must > first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum) before > being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days before the > meeting. Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be notified at > least 14 days before the meeting itself. I would like the council to discuss GLEP 49 as has been discussed on the list some weeks ago. It is about the package manager requirements. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net pgpLugwsc0Rsu.pgp Description: PGP signature
