On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 19:13:58 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Dear developers, > > TL;DR: Unless arch teams decide to help us, the Python team will stop > supporting non-x86 arches and start dropping non-x86 keywords from > reverse dependencies. > > > Python team is struggling with a large number of keywordreqs > and stablereqs. It is common for new versions of Python packages to > bring new dependencies, and it is uncommon for arch teams to handle our > requests in time. > > The situation is particularly bad on arm64 which seems to have initially > stabilized a lot of packages but afterwards can't manage to stabilize > new versions. Even with the recent effort of NeddySeagoon, it is still > common for me to open new stablereqs while the old ones are waiting for > arm64. Overall, arm64 ends up staying behind with dependencies as well > which makes each new stablereq more and more effort. > > However, all non-x86 arches are bad. Making keywordreqs takes > tremendous effort, and keeping them up-to-date with frequent package > releases is simply impossible. It is quite frustrating when a keyword > request is open for a month, then some arch tester points out that > the package list is outdated, you spend even more effort updating it, > then you wait again and the same situation repeats. > > In the end, we've reached the point where very high profile packages > such as dev-python/virtualenv are missing almost all keywords. To be > honest, I don't want to spend another hour trying to update package > list, so that *maybe* some arch team will finally consider helping us. > > For this reason, I propose that the Python team officially stops > supporting non-x86 arches. For obvious reasons we will have to continue > keeping Portage and the most basic packages work but we will not put any > special effort to restore lost keywords, and we will drop keywords from > low-profile packages as their dependencies are not keyworded. > > I am thoroughly frustrated by this state of affairs, and I'm having > a serious trouble motivating myself to do anything about it. FWICS > others have abandoned the ship earlier. I will probably try to prepare > some script to determine where we need to drop keywords, for a start. I've never joined an arch team as I'm not really interested in stable. I understand what you're saying about keyword requests but I didn't realise they were also a big issue. I'm not even keeping up with the work I'm supposed to be doing already so I don't exactly want to sign up for more. However, I do have a couple of (unstable) arm systems that are important to me so I need to keep them running and up to date. Perhaps we could write a tool that looks up newer versions of installed ebuilds that have dropped keywords for a given arch and report which dependencies also need keywording. I guess we don't have something like that? -- James Le Cuirot (chewi) Gentoo Linux Developer
pgpXeEcqGrGXe.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
