Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
Am Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2021, 15:40:02 CEST schrieb Marek Szuba: > Dear everyone, > > Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it > would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of > limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number of > stable arches in Gentoo Linux. Specifically, I propose to drop > - hppa, > - sparc, > to ~arch-only status. > > There are IMHO several good reasons for this: > - we have got very few people actually supporting these arches, and in > case of hppa there is also the hardware bottleneck. Subsequently, > stabilisation requests often take a long time to resolve > - last but by no means least, my personal experience from the last > several years suggests that running ~arch is reasonably trouble-free > these days > > WDYT? Reducing to what I have a personal opinion about. For quite a while I have been more or less the arch testing team for hppa and sparc, the latter reduced since ago and sam meanwhile utilize even faster machines to do much of the the sparc work (yay!). Running these machines is a bumpy ride. Things break quite regularly, besides the arch-independent breakage like missing dependencies or similar things, which I also find quite regularly. My machines should actually do some useful stuff, like running my Nagios and a bunch of nightly builds (CMake, libarchive, things like that). For that, I'd like to have the actual system to work. Given the amount of breakage I find when doing stabilizations I suspect this is not going to happen. My fear is that I'll be rebuilding stuff because there is an upgrade, and then back because there was an update, and in between I have to find out what actually went wrong. That's close to what I'm doing now, with the difference that the main system meanwhile can do it's work because it usually is unaffected, and I can decide to ignore the problem for one or another day until I'm bored enough to fight the breakage again. So from my limited PoV this would likely even increase the work that I have to do, or the pressure to do it in time to fix the system up to a point where it works. We have already removed many stable packages from hppa, just to reduce the amount of work. If sparc really becomes a problem I suspect that dropping most of the multimedia or whatever stuff there could also reduce the amount of work needed. Another note: these machines are quite slow, especially the hppa ones, when compared with a modern PC with SSD and tons of RAM. I would really _really_ welcome it if people could just run tatt for stabilizations on amd64 in a regularly empty chroot. It finds tons of stuff with missing dependencies or useflags (USE=static is always good for trouble) that I would otherwise run into on the slow machines. If you fix only half of the things before it hits the minor arches, which is not limited to the above list, it will greatly reduce the pain for everyone with a vintage fetish. So, do what I can't stop you from doing, but at least for me dropping hppa will likely not reduce any pain, and if sparc really is a problem than dropping some packages will likely do the same thing also. Oh, and maybe mark some for fonts and stuff ALLARCHES ;) Eike (aka Dakon) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Help with "unrecognized ELF files" needed
Hi! I'm having a problem with guile packages and portage QA checks. Guile puts the compiled bytecode into the /usr/lib64 directory which produces a portage warning that unrecognized ELF files are being installed. Example bug reports: https://bugs.gentoo.org/727146 https://bugs.gentoo.org/817230 What can I do about this issue? -- Have a great day! ~ Maciej XGQT Barć
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
On 14.10.2021 16:40, Marek Szuba wrote: Dear everyone, Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number of stable arches in Gentoo Linux. Specifically, I propose to drop - hppa, - ppc, - sparc, - x86 to ~arch-only status. [..] WDYT? There arches are mostly exotic these days, so marking them unstable is only going to reflect it more (which is right, respective arch teams might still support the stable profiles to make sure we are fine with the deptree),
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
On giovedì 14 ottobre 2021 15:40:02 CEST Marek Szuba wrote: > WDYT? I agree for arches that have exotic hardware but I'd keep x86 since testing can be done on amd64 via 32bit chroot. On the other hand I'm pretty sure we have few x86 users so, sooner or later, x86 will go into ~arch as well. Agostino
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving more architectures to ~arch only
On 14.10.2021 20.10, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 15:40 +0200, Marek Szuba wrote: >> Dear everyone, >> >> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it >> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of >> limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number of >> stable arches in Gentoo Linux. Specifically, I propose to drop >> - hppa, >> - ppc, >> - sparc, >> - x86 >> to ~arch-only status. >> Yes please. Still confused why people by default push KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~x86", but I guess they're the most compatible with each other. > > On one hand, I fully realize that these platforms are a hassle (hppa > and x86 especially). On the other hand, I wouldn't want to basically go > tell Dakon "sorry, you're doing a good job but we've arbitrarily decided > it's not worth your effort". Isn't this just strengthening the point; there's one guy behind all work ;) > > While we're discussing it, maybe we should start by defining a clear > criteria for platform support tiers? Like: what are the requirements > for a platform to maintain stable keywords? Then the decisions could > look less arbitrary, and people would have a clear way of knowing what > they need to do if they wish the platform to continue having stable > keywords. > ++ -- juippis OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-dev] app-misc/physlock: Upstream repo archived
Hi, I sent a pull request to upstream earlier this year to fix a PAM related issue (see also: Gentoo bug #774729), but the repo has since been archived [1]. Looking at the commit history, I see that there's only been a single upstream commit since the beginning of 2020. What is the proper procedure, if there is one, to reclaim a package with a dead upstream? I use physlock on all my machines and have recommended it to my friends as a solid screen locker and would very much like to help keep it alive. I would be willing to maintain a fork [2] as well as help maintain the Gentoo package itself. I've already got a little bit of experience in working with Portage by creating packages into my overlay [3]. [1]: https://github.com/muennich/physlock [2]: https://github.com/xxc3nsoredxx/physlock [3]: https://github.com/xxc3nsoredxx/unc3nsored I've CC'ed the current proxy maintainer for app-misc/physlock as well as the main upstream developer in case they have any input. - Oskari
