path: root/meeting-logs/20090914.txt

18:00 <@lu_zero> =)
18:00  * dertobi123 yawns
18:01  * lu_zero yawns as well
18:01 <@dertobi123> luca!
18:01 <@lu_zero> quite an annoying monday ^^;
18:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 I'm ALIVE!
18:02 <@lu_zero> (sort of)
18:02 <@dertobi123> great :)
18:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by solar
18:02 <@dertobi123> so, rollcall?
18:02 <@ulm> here
18:02 <@lu_zero> \o/
18:03 <@solar> solar here. but might have to leave. see above note
18:03 <@dertobi123> k
18:04 <@dertobi123> leio, Betelgeuse, Calchan ... wake up!
18:04 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has joined #gentoo-council
18:05 <@ulm> sigh
18:05 <@leio> sorry, I've been sick
18:07 <@dertobi123> ok, agenda item 1.1: who's logging?
18:08 <@leio> I'm always logging, fixed my clock now as well.
18:08 <@dertobi123> ok
18:08 <@dertobi123> for 1.2 we have Betelgeuse and Calchan missing
18:09 <@leio> has the agenda been publicized?
18:09 <@ulm> leio: see topic
18:09  * dertobi123 sighs
18:09  * leio looks at topic
18:09 <@dertobi123> look at the topic, gentoo-council@g.o, dev-announce@g.o and council@g.o please
18:10 <@leio> ok, I see, I just didn't see it in my client, because I apparently haven't opened mail client to filter it for the past days due to being ill, sorry
18:11 <@dertobi123> so, who wants to chair this meeting?
18:12 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 you would?
18:13 <@dertobi123> if noone else does ... yeah
18:13 <@dertobi123> any updates on 2.1 "everything on 10 years gentoo"?
18:13 <@dertobi123> if you need voice please /msg
18:14 -!- miknix [n=miknix@gentoo/developer/miknix] has quit [Client Quit]
18:15 <@solar> it's been going fine. the 20th is our cutoff day and 4th is the bday
18:16 <@dertobi123> solar: you're going to take a new snapshot on 20th or putting in security updates until then?
18:17 <@Betelgeuse> i am online in a couple minutes
18:18 <@Betelgeuse> phone now
18:21 <@dertobi123> well, lets move on
18:21 <@dertobi123> 3.1
18:21 <@dertobi123> ciaranm answered this topic is obsolete
18:21 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v tsunam_] by dertobi123
18:21 <@Betelgeuse> need to setup better reminders
18:21 <@dertobi123> tsunam_: can you confirm?
18:22 <@dertobi123> (or ulm?)
18:22 <@dertobi123> or Fauli?
18:22 <@solar> tsunam/jmbsvicetto: ping ^
18:22 <@solar> my understanding is userrel is not saying it's obsolete
18:22 <@ulm> i haven't heard anything from them
18:25  * dertobi123 sighs
18:25 <@ulm> see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c18
18:25 <@ulm> but I don't know if such a meeting took place
18:25 <@dertobi123> so we do skip this one? any objections?
18:26 <@dertobi123> if there's still something to discuss or decide we can do so via mail
18:26 <@ulm> dertobi123: fauli has something to say
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-v Fauli] by dertobi123
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Fauli] by dertobi123
18:26 <@dertobi123> args
18:26 <@lu_zero> ^^
18:26 <@dertobi123> yeah
18:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v trelane] by solar
18:26 <+Fauli> :)
18:26 <@solar> trelane is asking to speak
18:26 <@lu_zero> well that
18:26 <@lu_zero> Fauli first
18:27 <+Fauli> The only thing I wanted to add, that I neither have heard anything or any progress.
18:27 <@dertobi123> ok, thanks Fauli
18:27 <+tsunam_> I'm here sorry for my delay
18:28 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: to answer the query. No this is not resolved, ciaran would just like to have it considered resolved
18:28 <@dertobi123> so, is there any progress?
18:29 <+tsunam_> that's pending the discussion on this matter
18:29 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: however I'm not hopeful that there will be progress quite frankly. But that gets into my personal experiences with the management of the PMS project and I'll avoid bringing that into the matter as it serves no purpsoes in the discussion
18:30 <+tsunam_> would help if I could type correctly however ~_~
18:30 <@ulm> tsunam_: that will be addressed in 3.2
18:30 <@lu_zero> =\
18:30 <@lu_zero> trelane you wanted to add something
18:30 <+tsunam_> to address this issue however, there is currently one method of change for anything currently
18:31 <+tsunam_> that's an EAPI
18:31 <+tsunam_> by the name its and Ebuild API
18:31 <+tsunam_> there's things that have been added to be under the PMS standard that are not directly ebuilds
18:32 <+trelane> (I'm deferring to tsunam_ to finish)
18:32 <@Betelgeuse> pms = package manager spec
18:32 <+tsunam_> following a guideline is appropriate for getting the approval however an EAPI has a far more rigorous(sp?) process for approval as it should
18:32 <@Betelgeuse> not ebuild api
18:33 <@ulm> the crucial question is if package.mask directories were established Portage behaviour before EAPI 0
18:33 <@ulm> if yes then PMS should just be updated
18:33 <@Betelgeuse> no
18:33 <@ulm> if no then it should go into EAPI 4
18:34 <@dertobi123> ulm: ack
18:34 <@Betelgeuse> it's a vdry recent feature
18:34 <+tsunam_> ulm: that's the issue I see is that EAPI is for ebuilds
18:34 <+Fauli> tsunam_: But PMS specifies the surroundings, too.
18:34 <+tsunam_> its shoehorning something into a system that its not really well served by
18:34 <+Fauli> And profiles is a surrounding.
18:34 <+tsunam_> Fauli: it does, and I'm not suggesting that PMS shouldn't
18:35 <+tsunam_> Fauli: what I'm suggesting is that EAPI's are quite possibly not the best location for those surrounding items
18:35 <+Fauli> Betelgeuse: Zac told on the bug that it was available in all 2.1 versions.
18:35 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, Zac with specificity says it is not a very recent feature http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261#c36
18:35 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Where else?
18:35 <@Betelgeuse> 2.1 is recent
18:35 <+tsunam_> that there might and could/should be implemented a new method of modifications to those surrounding features
18:36 <+Fauli> tsunam_: I see it differently, but this leads to far. Let's concentrate on this topic.
18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: branch 2.1 created 3 years ago
18:37 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: not so recent
18:37 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, package.* support has been existant since the 2.1 dev cycle
18:38 <@leio> and when was EAPI-0 defined?
18:38 <+trelane> leio, October of last year IIRC
18:38 <@Betelgeuse> EAPI 0 is supposed to be very ancient portage
18:38 <+tsunam_> Fauli: that's something to discuss the where...perhaps another mechinism within PMS
18:39 <+tsunam_> Fauli/ALL: I don't wish to remove anything from PMS
18:39 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, was a specific version ever set?  3 years is pretty ancient in software terms
18:39 <+tsunam_> All I'm suggesting/wishing for is that there's consideration that EAPI's are not the best area for things that are surrounding and not directly related to Ebuild API
18:39 <@Betelgeuse> I would write a long explanation if my phone allowed
18:40 <@Betelgeuse> my laptop refuses to connect
18:40 <@dertobi123> ok, to sum up: there's something to discuss which could (and should!) happen on a mailinglist
18:40 <+Fauli> tsunam_: Profiles are directly linked to ebuilds as some syntax (package atoms) will be used there.
18:40 <+Fauli> dertobi123: Propose one.
18:40 <+tsunam_> leio: believe and don't quote me that PMS came into being about 2007, so the draft would of started about then as well
18:41 <@dertobi123> -dev or -pms mailinglist, dev to reach more people
18:41 <@dertobi123> Fauli: ^^
18:41 <+Fauli> Ok.
18:41 <+trelane> dertobi123, this has been discussed ad infinitum et ad nauseum on the bug referenced in tsunam_'s request and is now before the council for some sort of direction forward.
18:41 <@ulm> tsunam_: December 2006 if I believe the git log
18:42 <@ulm> but I don't know if that was already any usable version
18:42 <@dertobi123> trelane: there's been lots of discussion, but no real suggestions for improvements
18:43 <+tsunam_> dertobi123: because quite frankly any suggestion is soundly rejected
18:43 <+tsunam_> because "there's EAPI" for that
18:43 <@dertobi123> rejected by whom?
18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, I for one would like clarified ciaran's notion that EAPI's do amend the profiles/ portion of the tree.  There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this issue.
18:43 <+trelane> dertobi123, Ciaran
18:43 <+trelane> (hence that bug's existence)
18:44 <@dertobi123> simply put it, it doesn't matter what ciaranm is rejecting
18:44 <+trelane> dertobi123, then could he possibly stop rejecting it if he has no power to do so as it only muddies the issue?
18:44 <@dertobi123> at least not for gentoo
18:45 <+trelane> (by the way I think we're organically proceeding to 3.2 in this discussion here)
18:45 <+tsunam_> I'd like to keep them seperate if possible
18:45 <+tsunam_> as they are two different issues
18:45 <@dertobi123> we're not going solve 3.1 today
18:45 <@dertobi123> +to
18:45 <+trelane> agreed, dertobi123 with the chair's permission I'd like to proceed to 3.2 (I think tsunam_ would as well), thus leaving 3.1 unresolved
18:46 <@dertobi123> if there are no other objections, then lets move on to 3.2 - let's get 3.1 discussed on lists and on our agenda for our next meeting
18:46 <@dertobi123> -other
18:46 <+Fauli> Ok
18:47 <@ulm> fine with me
18:47 <@lu_zero> ok
18:47 <@solar> ok
18:47 <@dertobi123> ok, 3.2
18:47 <+trelane> I'd like to start by discussing the background of 3.2 as it affects (effects?) the previously mentioned bug
18:47 <@dertobi123> as 3.2 was proposed by ulm i'd like to hear from him first of all
18:48 <@ulm> trelane: we've just decided the discussion on said bug is finished for this meeting
18:48 <@ulm> dertobi123: see my message to -council, where I proposed 3.2.{1,2,3}
18:49 <@ulm> I'd like to hear the council members' opinion on it
18:49 <@dertobi123> so we can vote upon that, ok?
18:49 <@solar> I would go with 3.2.3
18:49 <+tsunam_> I'd at least like some kind of idea if the council believes that there would be value in having changes to the surrounding items implemented on a fairly quick basis, but I'll bring that up in whatever discussion place it takes point in
18:49  * lu_zero would as well
18:50 <@ulm> solar: please be more specific
18:50 <@dertobi123> lu_zero: as well, please
18:50 <@solar> as the existing system does not really work for the masses and seems targeted towards benefiting a very few while limiting the rest of gentoo and it's ideas
18:51 <@dertobi123> i'd choose 3.2.1 if we do opt to keep pms/eapi and it's surroundings and not choose some *completely* different
18:52 <@ulm> solar: but we also need some process for updating the spec
18:52 <@lu_zero> I'm not exactly happy with both .1 and .2 proposals
18:53 <@lu_zero> and seems that the pms related stuff usually lead to feuds
18:53 <@dertobi123> solar: what would be your different and improved system?
18:53 <@Betelgeuse> The spec is not a problem. Portage coding is.
18:53 <@solar> the current system more or less has to be approved by outside forces that many ppl plain and simply don't get along with. When you have that direct conflict all the time it hurts more than helps us as a distro.
18:53 <@solar> dertobi123: I don't know the end solution. But 3.2.1 and 2.3.2 are not without problems
18:53 <+tsunam_> gent's can you link to the 3.2.1, 3.2.2,3.2.3 specs for those who are not aware of what the solutions you are talking about
18:53 <@solar> s/2.3.3/3.2.2/
18:54 <@dertobi123> i'm pretty sure we could find something better, than 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 ... yeah
18:54 <@solar> it's in the topic.
18:54 <@ulm> tsunam_: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_96c702e85f79b8f5e22472ae2c961534.xml
18:54 <@Betelgeuse> ciaramn is fine with Gentoo devs in charge
18:55 <@lu_zero> even if the dev would be bonsaikitten ?
18:55 <+trelane> Betelgeuse, he causes a huge problem for the larger community
18:56 <@Betelgeuse> not every dev
18:56 <+trelane> no, but quite a few of them.  for PMS to work it must be easy for outside projects such as Gentoo, Sabayon, and yes even Paludis to interface with
18:57 <@Betelgeuse> he asked me and dev_zero at least
18:57 <+trelane> right now only 1/3 of those groups can interface
18:57 <+trelane> s/Gentoo/Funtoo in the above please
18:57 <+trelane> though adding Patrick I'd say Gentoo might be apt as well
18:57 <@dertobi123> so, to sum up: we tend to prefer 3.2.3 ... let's collect ideas for 3.2.3 until our next meeting and/or on list
18:58 <@dertobi123> objections?
18:58 <@ulm> dertobi123: right, let's postpone it. also calchan is not here, he also had some ideas about this topic
18:58 <@lu_zero> ok
18:58 <+tsunam_> what will occur in the meantime?
18:58 <+trelane> dertobi123, I'd like to specify a lpcation for this (preferably a bug) where commentary and a proposal can be worked on
18:58 <@Betelgeuse> i can't see agenda easily
18:59 <@dertobi123> trelane: file one, but discussion should happen on a list (again -dev or -pms would make sense)
18:59 <@ulm> trelane: bugzilla is horrible for long discussions
18:59 <@ulm> dertobi123: let's go for -pms, and we can announce it on -dev-announce once
18:59 <@Betelgeuse> mail list please
19:00 <@dertobi123> ulm: ok
19:00 <+trelane> I'm fine with -pms so long as this doesn't drag out on -dev?
19:00 <+trelane> I will agree with Ciaran regarding the trolls.
19:00 <@dertobi123> let's get it discussed on -pms
19:00 <+trelane> it hurts both sides of the argument.
19:00 <+trelane> thanks :)
19:00 <+tsunam_> I'll have to read the archives on that then as I don't subscribe to -pms
19:00 <@dertobi123> so, i'd propose to postpone 4, doesn't make sense to handle it today as Calchan is missing
19:01 <@Betelgeuse> fine
19:01 <@dertobi123> 5.1 next meeting, next logical date is october 12th
19:01 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: you stated "not all devs" are you suggesting that if the Council wanted to put a member onto a advisory board and it wasn't approved by the current management that we'd have a larger issue to deal with at that time?
19:01 <@dertobi123> ok for everyone?
19:01 <@Betelgeuse> if someone is missing we should call them
19:02 <@lu_zero> dertobi123 ok
19:02 <@ulm> ok
19:03 <@Betelgeuse> fine
19:03 <@dertobi123> okies, so 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th?
19:03 <@solar> Being that there was missing members from the council at this meeting. How would be feel about getting back together before then?
19:04 <@Betelgeuse> I will write a post on PMS when by a computer
19:04 <@Betelgeuse> i can do earlier
19:04 <@dertobi123> solar: depends. if people request items for the agenda and don't show up it's quite useless to schedule a meeting before then. if there's useful discussion regarding that eapi/pms stuff we can of course schedule a meeting inbetween our regular schedule.
19:05 <@lu_zero> solar which time?
19:05 -!- arkanoid [n=arkanoid@exherbo/developer/arkanoid] has left #gentoo-council []
19:05 <+tsunam_> Betelgeuse: I would suggest that if Ciaranm is fine with Gentoo dev's being lead on PMS that it should extend to all dev's having a catch on "no no not this dev" is not commiting to the idea that he's suggesting he's okie with
19:06 <@Betelgeuse> do I get a slacker mark?
19:06 <@solar> tsunam_: imo what Ciaranm is is not not fine with is 100% moot to what we do at gentoo
19:06 <@leio> were you missing from previous meeting?
19:06 <@Betelgeuse> I was away last time
19:06 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: being 17 minutes late i'd say yes
19:07 <+tsunam_> solar: I agree and that's kind of the point I'm making..that IMO there's an attempted ACE card being held back
19:07 <@solar> if we can't think and act on our own. Then we all failed
19:07 <+tsunam_> to more or less veto a nomination
19:07 <@Betelgeuse> what was the limit
19:08 <@Betelgeuse> hard to access 39 atm
19:08 <@solar> you were here. There was no real voting that went on.
19:08 <+trelane> solar, while I agree, he's certainly still hijacking the agenda
19:08 <@dertobi123> okies, so again 5.2 - who's taking care of our agenda for october 12th?
19:08 <@Betelgeuse> i can do
19:09 <@Betelgeuse> unless slackered out
19:09 <+tsunam_> solar: no, but just saying depending on what the council comes up with for 3.2.3 it has potential
19:09 <@ulm> Betelgeuse: the meeting effectively started at 20:10 so I'd say you were not really late
19:09 <@dertobi123> ok, so next meeting on october 12th, Betelgeuse takes care of agenda
19:09 <@dertobi123> if it does make sense to have a meeting between the regular ones we decide so on list
19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by solar
19:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-vvvv trelane tsunam_ Fauli tanderson] by solar
19:09 <@dertobi123> next one is open floor
19:10 <@solar> tsunam_: sadly I think the council with probably be locked on this topic.
19:10 < tsunam_> solar: *nods*
19:10 <@solar> only way I see to solve the initial problem is to declare it obsolete
19:10 < jmbsvicetto> So the whole discussion about PMS will move to the -pms ml?
19:11 <@dertobi123> solar: might be an option.
19:11 <@solar> but it's good to have things documented. Everybody loves a manpage
19:11 -!- Zorry [n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry] has joined #gentoo-council
19:12 <@solar> but should it be what we live by?? Harder to solve that
19:12 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, seems so
19:12 <@dertobi123> it has its advantages, but when it's main advantage is to slow down development and cause endless discussions ...
19:12 < bonsaikitten> well, if it actively disallows innovation it's bad
19:13 <@dertobi123> not actively, in-actively it might
19:13 < bonsaikitten> uhm, package.mask as directory has been possible for >18 months
19:13 < jmbsvicetto> dertobi123: I don't think the discussion is what's "slowing down" development. Instead, the way the discussion is taking place and the people that currently have authority over it would be to blame
19:13 < bonsaikitten> not allowing it is kinda very silly
19:13 <@solar> I have to pee very badly. Thank you all for coming and sharing your input
19:14 <@solar> well not to the bathroom. But other input
19:14 <@dertobi123> heh
19:14 <@dertobi123> solar: have a nice pee :P
19:14 <@Betelgeuse> i would like to drive where i have computer working
19:14 < trelane> jmbsvicetto, I'd prefer to stop short of blaming Fauli as I would assert that effective control over the problem is effectively impossible
19:14 <@dertobi123> jmbsvicetto: agreed.
19:15 <@Betelgeuse> is the official part still on?
19:15 <@dertobi123> no, we're done