Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On 17 February 2013 22:46, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/17/2013 11:03 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. The same thing is for S390/S390X/M68K/. So how I am able to install one of that _supported_ arches if there isn't any sort of guide? An interesting fact is that we have an handbook for MIPS[4], a declared unsupported architecture (does not make sense for me). I am supporting mips for the Lemote loongson2f and for the Atheros AR7161. I'm trying to get my hands on a godson and Stuart will be sending me two fulongs, which you can add to that list. Don't let the fact that MIPS is a ~arch fool you. I don't think we should make it a fully supported arch because of the number of ISA's and ABI's and endiannesses (if such a word exists). It is impossible to test for all combos which is what stable should mean. So don't even think of dropping MIPS! Just leave it ~arch and I'll give it love. I agree with you. MIPS is not going away and the reason we only support ~mips is like you said the vast diversity in hardware and software components. But I think nobody said to drop MIPS right? ;) As far as the other arches go, I'm interested in: amd64, arm, mips, ppc, ppc64 and x86. ppc and ppc64 used to lack manpower. They appear to be in a better state now that Agostino is doing mass stabilisations for them, but I am not sure if the packages are actually tested during runtime or they are just tested for build problems. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On 02/17/13 17:03, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. The same thing is for S390/S390X/M68K/. So how I am able to install one of that _supported_ arches if there isn't any sort of guide? Like ARM, most SH devices don't have a CDROM drive, so thats why there's no ISO. Like I told you, the way to install onto those kind of machines is either tftpbooting or putting the disk into another machine and configure it from there. I've installed all my ARM and SH machines using the latter. The reason for not having a manual is like ARM, there are specific boards which require different configurations, kernels, bootloaders, etc. Same reason as why there's no ISO, some boards couldn't even boot from the CDROM, and you'll need a kernel for each board, etc... I've always thought that whoever has a SH board, m68k, or access to a s390 machine, and wants to use Gentoo, is smart enough to do it by itself.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Agostino Sarubbo a...@gentoo.org wrote: Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. What do you think about? I haven't seen many problems, except one point: that m68k seems to have much the same level of activity as mips, and it would be nice if we could drop it down in the little CC list on Bugzilla (to the unstable arches part). Cheers, Dirkjan
[gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. The same thing is for S390/S390X/M68K/. So how I am able to install one of that _supported_ arches if there isn't any sort of guide? An interesting fact is that we have an handbook for MIPS[4], a declared unsupported architecture (does not make sense for me). Another example is that we have no stable keyword on GCC/glibc for m68k and I don't know if I need to use another compiler or another libc. Checking on bugzilla I saw no report for some of those arches, so for me that _partially_ means that probably there are very few users for those arches on gentoo. Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. What do you think about? Ref: [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml [2]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml [3]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/#doc_chap2 [4]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook- mips.xml?style=printablefull=1 -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. We also have another choice if there is so little interest in these arch's. 3) get rid of their keywords entirely. If there is no manual, no installation cd, no stages, and no supported way to install on an arch, why keep it? William pgpxKFHHJ_XFD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
Am Sonntag, 17. Februar 2013, 17:03:43 schrieb Agostino Sarubbo: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. Not having an ISO is not really an issue. After all CD drives are something fairly modern :D... Joking aside, I can imagine architectures where it's preferable to set up a stage directly from a running maintenance system (maybs s390???). Also, none of my arm gadgets comes with a CD drive, so I had to e.g. prepare the stage on a memory card with another box. That said, blindly stabilizing more and more stuff on dying arches certainly is a waste of time. -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Joking aside, I can imagine architectures where it's preferable to set up a stage directly from a running maintenance system (maybs s390???). Also, none of my arm gadgets comes with a CD drive, so I had to e.g. prepare the stage on a memory card with another box. I wonder if there is a market for selling pre-imaged core planes with Gentoo in ramfs? Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 04:03 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. The same thing is for S390/S390X/M68K/. So how I am able to install one of that _supported_ arches if there isn't any sort of guide? An interesting fact is that we have an handbook for MIPS[4], a declared unsupported architecture (does not make sense for me). Another example is that we have no stable keyword on GCC/glibc for m68k and I don't know if I need to use another compiler or another libc. Checking on bugzilla I saw no report for some of those arches, so for me that _partially_ means that probably there are very few users for those arches on gentoo. Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. What do you think about? Ref: [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml [2]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml [3]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/#doc_chap2 [4]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook- mips.xml?style=printablefull=1 First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable keywords for them. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRITEwAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCiiQP/2vpx4QuEgJqB3vYpcmmYcwa jLleJnWeat/IsVx3cH28Wy0fLra4MWe8sTGDjtbNBnZZ1z59Fep2Nk/8z3KpoBI0 gcKzRinBbqhDjUmoJDQGW16zvTrNWmkAfwkclPTM8v3mJKFl01pODcJUgAk7UrLM NVLyp3OpToF7ZTrJr+lFeHEUB88vcdfnMeV3bM3XZEfifL5cabzUjVibL08utaz2 zYL9Rn6UMmzZvYTSrnsOBTOt2uI8ptzp9Ih7mRI5zt8aKrQd5vCYZ/aLXvObF+64 ZTjxzMWAC8GbXqQxXAQ/VNKryFyDV8OKj39QsQwoxLNMIV4Pg4Yc1u+fJMqXTu+X nXyvHMM/lcHq6h37E2ua1BjL0tLZGq4kxsGgKuSCzt7gwNAoyCE7eY1V5qFk/uAL U4ATVsY2Q4mKFdu2FlHbn4LfY9D7Rn3OlJhbA2J7108g4BMm70Q++qrxSBAj1xGu VobIkvg5E73Jb3sbcdOS1QOk5cviev4LTh3HjWO6Ozc4HkhdpWk/NlqmQ9SN7J6b hz5sVyV1vPI5/19kfAjBaMotlmLjhq+WgAYRZfeeXJbV/hWXz96eigoxT5n7FbM6 aeZKG2Oj8CD0ndH+nf0bg/dACmGJwVnSRBV5iQSuEFO+kLnANRtYEBicjBR92WaJ LiRb4ul/HhURsWeCgIqU =SsrL -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable keywords for them. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/index.xml#doc_chap4 I don't see project page for: m68k, sh, s390 20:41 ago expn m68k 20:41 willikins m68k = vapier, 20:41 ago expn sh 20:42 willikins sh = vapier,matsuu,armin76,ago, 20:42 ago expn s390 20:42 willikins s390 = vapier,armin76,ago, -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 07:43 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable keywords for them. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/index.xml#doc_chap4 I don't see project page for: m68k, sh, s390 20:41 ago expn m68k 20:41 willikins m68k = vapier, 20:41 ago expn sh 20:42 willikins sh = vapier,matsuu,armin76,ago, 20:42 ago expn s390 20:42 willikins s390 = vapier,armin76,ago, I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. No project page does not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. Moreover, you see that there are devs in these arches. Did you try to talk to them? I also asked for a list of minor arches and you didn't provide one. I presume, you think that m68k, sh, and s390 are minor? What about ia64, ppc? Do we have enough manpower there? Because iirc there arches also lack in stabilization bugs as well. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRITvoAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC+rwQAL366SHQxH5Q//cR7HFmYTrE epB02TpQPNkwp25fn5eFqX3Y3xrvPyLKbIh2dnCV+Z+i4oRV49QDW5SXlGfF2HlW yvopL2wf5D9eaYri28pnAqW3SQxX/bdUun1k2erpR7YwNlP7pyeIKvlL9/62kXgR qkHYbRa8ZOwkM+kFU66ZwwjGFgMdKvoq7psU6Lj5bnscuFYbevWCGXfNMf10QaYf 6EhsEPt7N3jO+z0pk2DQdZ/L7eA4XXxcnRxBSKQIuN9bwf1hX1c8JP+puAmx69zr 34uNcS5K6AtvBoALcuIsSI5e2uU4GYEMPEmRNqsfR6z/pzs8um/Pp/UKEiqesK7W tqs3D6r+wiEL2/T9QByDUCNXouUUoAEtFlw/ugE2MTgx2AGAu0iMZBFDqZjn8Ptx 4pJpCrCONUPHVis1nfehlZZTwoQXB09C1yFP5qVN5i+pUKpfzINUeaICR5vLarbY ul158Wc9ps7pyZJkLlKrv3/Fz5wCnVgQ2NY1nUG++vmPtJMAaWUwoU465aMDb67z oyVvgfKvUA9t1jgLXMkg7NWqieI5YtTM8Qvx5U7X5weGCPZA8LF5DpJZG8OacAv6 6Qm2L4YuIMsT9YMZ1AxeSrlVZ/DNYkrtonQN6CMEhW0Dw/n9IF+ydHvzWqZPELYv L3HtIc+uEFQOe8/IrgPn =hsQ7 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. No project page does not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. For me this means that there is no enough support. Moreover, you see that there are devs in these arches. Did you try to talk to them? For what purpose? I'm asking a general opinion based on some facts. I also asked for a list of minor arches and you didn't provide one. I presume, you think that m68k, sh, and s390 are minor? Yes, they can be. Seriously, who has an m68k? do you see reports/requests on bugzilla? What about ia64, ppc? Do we have enough manpower there? Because iirc there arches also lack in stabilization bugs as well. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=STABLEREQ%2C%20keywords_type=allwordsf1=cco1=equalsquery_format=advancedbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=CONFIRMEDbug_status=IN_PROGRESSv1=ppc%40gentoo.orgproduct=Gentoo%20Linuxlist_id=1560890 https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=STABLEREQ%2C%20keywords_type=allwordsf1=cco1=equalsquery_format=advancedbug_status=UNCONFIRMEDbug_status=CONFIRMEDbug_status=IN_PROGRESSv1=ia64%40gentoo.orgproduct=Gentoo%20Linuxlist_id=1560892 I don't see big queue for those arches. -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Agostino Sarubbo a...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable keywords for them. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/index.xml#doc_chap4 I don't see project page for: m68k, sh, s390 20:41 ago expn m68k 20:41 willikins m68k = vapier, 20:41 ago expn sh 20:42 willikins sh = vapier,matsuu,armin76,ago, 20:42 ago expn s390 20:42 willikins s390 = vapier,armin76,ago, Afaik sh and s390 were both vapier-driven projects. I'd recommend chatting with him as to whether they are worth salvaging. It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. -A -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. I don't guess is a good idea have a private conversation and then drop an arch... -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 08:40 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. No manual does not mean no manpower. Moreover, you see that there are devs in these arches. Did you try to talk to them? For what purpose? I'm asking a general opinion based on some facts. The first step you need to do when you seek activity reports is to contact the teams/project members. I also asked for a list of minor arches and you didn't provide one. I presume, you think that m68k, sh, and s390 are minor? Yes, they can be. Seriously, who has an m68k? do you see reports/requests on bugzilla? I don't know who has or has not. What's the point of that question? - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRIU1IAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCTG0P/jivkqRVcE7P8vzEICpasSVa QmtTuRbORoEw5EANan+X3kEFNPmdZKpbvCXx1VIksgwUkJ2KNeVe37yGxPi99siF 267nqKOOcGYDidsfLkDLCnh2i1iFPRypT+D3ViaQUff5q4xEocI2WFYdZa1pJRCW fMP1gyirBRxYGOzmfZKzufbXrjh9I9F/w5wYQYx5tPG9DK5lDrBshlQOkIcIzmfQ NezWgKd5yAkdFtkVrGi2gZJPoInpOM7wGBLqr85JPj37jl448EvJsw7nyk7yHr3I lG0jsjKfyRSFk/ZSQ0KofPNGo8CO4NlcjzJWe9S73d8xocqtT1IG1C0Xv4yh/roW hv9q5S59i4OHBAtAb6GhGMLps61L4tBuHdRz48pMvMTGgoUzGCRe5EuuHx+nrTpd DulDjzrHhkcjkT2vOeO+cGneoKambEYkKpmgLVDBJGNrSBAfa7UJKq4YCTFQa3jx uf8ShsWjLQDph2hV2APaPHA3vkkI3jAmPimgxAhnRxbVzfrifvqcWmutDLGyVJoM 6YHEgnDQzogMVokmpv7p7GfQPptKhx0lZZxvuedGVFOaCNOcj6GQIwYSycR8/OLn lv+IiRLBSmDnlrf4lgnb4Y/i2fxE7ykF5OFGOmND0zmmkHzdagTzTkR7DWx14/yd N2mOXhpIq0O/pdiXJEwU =SO73 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 09:30 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. I don't guess is a good idea have a private conversation and then drop an arch... Drop an arch? Who said that? We are talking about moving arches to ~testing. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRIU10AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCf0AQAMVJMM1qXWaPkAM2fKSOJ7cJ bVXSHkdwEOLT1ubtHl1mI+WVldsmo6InZKEoWb/NmMz0bc0a3V3ppwpoUqr5afmG Z056nc6geXQE9ipj9FWAhluD9uCY8mlmw7NHzs/AAhWWyMqf9Vt0sS2so/qnVPrM VA/dkVzJHpKvwaIOBSZzL5cci6qMEKG5LjZkbkHdFmZMYrSftcsdVREdOCsWE3Az uYvS2kV5AUeZknZUPRhB63LYnJBU+QrQRUK+tz9UH59K3u8aeaxUjIvKGtD+xdZp h9yy6+4VbA7Ox2MQLi46SVIBD8ulOWyEAnT2v3bEHpyA31O3fYDivyyJ9SlnaFBc 74Rgr2mTyVOIZ1a58CTGJzRiZzND97of1dXTKap046ggVobf/ZFILzHKKGmKN1Ui lN1MKA2ODpgozA8jU1STPLY+VKP38fw2mbBIAMcWPftiNq3FUg4/AF6gO7IlX0SO rNH2k/bogb4oEy089vUW7jz+CUYORcGcDKLsZ76RnCx4GWun86fn6LTgwo9TlkNS koKpAYnCyXCMOC0WsiDxO6Xo29HhpAqJV0d4Y40onhm24UGo6HK9WAf24ATip5pG o9WI0kTWXkTdSVNtjzmtVSKh+GHg3Fbemv9p/IF4KO6hc+/6W3xbv/4tFRP3VFsF ThFGF+0qZ/3TIEMgxKy+ =A2Sr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
On 02/17/2013 11:03 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we have no ISO[2] available and there is no handbook[3] for it. The same thing is for S390/S390X/M68K/. So how I am able to install one of that _supported_ arches if there isn't any sort of guide? An interesting fact is that we have an handbook for MIPS[4], a declared unsupported architecture (does not make sense for me). I am supporting mips for the Lemote loongson2f and for the Atheros AR7161. I'm trying to get my hands on a godson and Stuart will be sending me two fulongs, which you can add to that list. Don't let the fact that MIPS is a ~arch fool you. I don't think we should make it a fully supported arch because of the number of ISA's and ABI's and endiannesses (if such a word exists). It is impossible to test for all combos which is what stable should mean. So don't even think of dropping MIPS! Just leave it ~arch and I'll give it love. As far as the other arches go, I'm interested in: amd64, arm, mips, ppc, ppc64 and x86. Another example is that we have no stable keyword on GCC/glibc for m68k and I don't know if I need to use another compiler or another libc. Checking on bugzilla I saw no report for some of those arches, so for me that _partially_ means that probably there are very few users for those arches on gentoo. Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook ISOs don't make sense on all hardware. Eg. I offer an netboot image for the lemotes. 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. I agree, but please keep at least the ones I mention above. Other devs may have different ideas. What do you think about? Ref: [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/infrastructure/dev-machines.xml [2]: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml [3]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/#doc_chap2 [4]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook- mips.xml?style=printablefull=1 -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
