Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/22/2013 07:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. I've seen lots of talk about stable being less reliable than ~arch, and ~arch applications on a stable core being unreliable, but I've never actually seen any real evidence that either is true. Granted, I'm not necessarily expecting a scientific study, but I haven't even heard anecdotes. I can't offer much personally - I only really use stable to any extent and I find it works just fine other than the occasional need to unmask something. I unmask/keyword things as needed for Pentoo and I can't say I've ever noticed a lack of stability due to it. I have a (mostly) stable base of @system packages and key things like DE's most of the time, but I also randomly mix in an ~arch package or two when I need to. Almost all of the security tools I put on Pentoo are ~arch, and many of them pull in some random ~arch libs, etc. I can't say I've never had an issue but as long as we all keep the deps are correct as possible it really isn't an issue. Just my $0.02 - -ZC -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSIpI3AAoJEKXdFCfdEflKbHUP/RIPo/Z28yv627LU52VlQ9aP +GkEcCEi8Ae55GHaTvLWQqc1Qn03jqffKKp383XN3CyOp1dpQAFsgygcP29FJWTk KwXQtoSrOPrdt2lXsm3CEqE+NFD1SpuycZ/7nu/W1bhEgML7XdmAKKOwdfX/5FpK WVU4pXoU7it2/hCkScOBTGyjb8ULOKUmX6JH9JG1D2vGk2PAulHpAyD1ovlQYZTL lBWkYh6q8Bwf4aTPksmBc6ADfp4EmNJdh018l4OEyrj9uCyaXFB6BmHlMZJMCvk9 jBJngTj5driIhlPjVmyHbZvRcjbfyJskpUAbeDhQ1R+XSyx2hGLRPCEl66XvYpcQ aCFfYCncyvqPRR7Hcfh+xlOsXZMQZFTJSsFriudByC9Q/5V0mpL7F4OWUDsmDqRD l4k1MERDlbXTBfBVEaPTYsS5KtHZD+mYlERO+hmmJCjCB2WDMfE6Y1ItnQjN4Khh qZzeTm9UyHg0iViGQ6Fezt+ahMhYVVLZKm8a9n3J10AOiDjtsCPhDR/itH/ndNL3 tFir2pG/7cWisLHAISPhKO/e34liU/+QC1RHLxxGpaHciBYJISATMnQzqfv59eHL 3WUEMSOo6kTTEdIdTerMo3k0mZiILALACrwKcoK7lBhNrmyoPQynjKUqsw+Ry4S+ oPPZD+G+GEjW2XKZTZFk =5WWm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Am Sonntag, 1. September 2013, 03:02:47 schrieb Rick Zero_Chaos Farina: On 08/22/2013 07:24 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. I've seen lots of talk about stable being less reliable than ~arch, and ~arch applications on a stable core being unreliable, but I've never actually seen any real evidence that either is true. Granted, I'm not necessarily expecting a scientific study, but I haven't even heard anecdotes. I can't offer much personally - I only really use stable to any extent and I find it works just fine other than the occasional need to unmask something. I unmask/keyword things as needed for Pentoo and I can't say I've ever noticed a lack of stability due to it. I have a (mostly) stable base of @system packages and key things like DE's most of the time, but I also randomly mix in an ~arch package or two when I need to. Almost all of the security tools I put on Pentoo are ~arch, and many of them pull in some random ~arch libs, etc. I can't say I've never had an issue but as long as we all keep the deps are correct as possible it really isn't an issue. As a sidenote, that is exactly what --autounmask-write does as well. Meaning whoever uses this very nifty portage feature will end up with such a mix of stable and testing as well. -- 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] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: Jeroen Roovers schrieb: Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch (before the platform changes too much). At least for x11 maintained packages, we don't support mixing of stable and unstable parts of X in the way that you suggest. We don't mind however whether the rest of the system is stable or not. Ideally such restrictions should be reflected in the dependencies - for many packages they are (for example mythtv and mythplugins require matching versions and this is set in the mythplugins dependencies). However, in general supporting a mixing stable and unstable doesn't mean doing so for what amounts to split packages. Nobody would really expect kwin 4.10 to work with plasma-runtime 4.11, and so on. I don't really think there are any real problems here with Gentoo. I think almost all maintainers evaluate individual bugs on their merits and don't use non-standard configs as a cop-out. If it breaks with reasonable but non-standard CFLAGS they should be filtered (again, within reason). If there is some missing version dep then it should be stated. As jer pointed out sometimes you get reverse dep issues that aren't straightforward to fix. In those cases the solution usually isn't to close as INVALID, but to start a tracker to fix the issue (since sooner or later it has to be fixed when the dep goes stable). Not all bugs can be fixed in 5 minutes, and I think users generally appreciate that. Likewise, some configs just aren't supportable and a brief comment and a close-out is perfectly fine. Like I said - take bugs on their merits. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. Mixing stable and testing is precisely what arch teams (hopefully) do in testing and stabilising: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform in order to merge the new software into the stable branch (or not). Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch (before the platform changes too much). Mixing stable and testing is what triggers users to file useful bug reports about incompatibilities between new software and stable (reverse) dependencies. Cases where reporting bugs about mixing stable and testing is (likely) invalid is when unmasking one package in the unstable branch causes (reverse) dependency resolution issues with another package in the stable branch (since users should know how to resolve those - there is generally no bug for maintainers to fix). There is a lot more to it than this, of course. I'm just pointing out some of the obvious scenarios in which mixing stable and testing should be encouraged. jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Jeroen Roovers schrieb: Mixing stable and testing is precisely what package maintainers (hopefully) do when committing new versions: building and running new software on a known to be stable platform on the premise that the new software is likely to be merged into the stable branch (before the platform changes too much). At least for x11 maintained packages, we don't support mixing of stable and unstable parts of X in the way that you suggest. We don't mind however whether the rest of the system is stable or not. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:28:24 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such configurations is definitely not desirable. It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell them that for everything else, please use ~arch. Really? So you’re telling me that if I want Drupal on my Web server, which if it breaks then takes a few minutes to revert to the previous version and has virtually zero chance of taking anything else down with it, then it’s “definitely not desirable…to encourage” me to use mixed keywords—instead I should be using ~arch versions of, say, glibc, iproute2, openssh, openrc, and the kernel, every single one of which, should it break, would be fixable only with a bus ride across the city, access to a locked room, wiring up a keyboard and monitor, and possibly booting from a live disk? There’s breakage of one package, and then there’s breakage of the *system*. Running mixed versions may increase the chance of breakage of the particular package that’s ~arch as compared to running a full ~arch system, but as long as that package isn’t part of or needed by the system boot process, I can’t see how mixed versions could do anything but decrease the chance of breakage of the system as a whole. Chris signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I like this way much more. Let's clarify stabilization policy for some minor arches, e.g. policy about stabilization requests for huge packages. Cause dropping entire arch to ~arch maybe sometimes a bit overkill. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I like this way much more. Let's clarify stabilization policy for some minor arches, e.g. policy about stabilization requests for huge packages. Cause dropping entire arch to ~arch maybe sometimes a bit overkill. And hard to revert. Sparc did drop a lot of keywords lately, by removing itself from STABLEREQ w/o stabling the mentioned package. - -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlIVt8cACgkQknrdDGLu8JCfxgD/X6HlUv7pPFuo75aOhs1bT9Cc PqF799Z9yYsPX+042yoA/RZ2xwKaNUEIlL6XbOKpC0SivlMFIHxBxlzYeRACcPJU =yu+s -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of Secondary Architectures. I think it would make sense if we could keep stable keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on them to stabilize other packages. I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree. Sort-of. You'd break it in that users would have to accept ~arch to keep that package, or remove it. It is really no different than dropping stable keywords which forces them to do the same thing, except that you're doing it one package at a time. You could impose a time limit to respond to the STABLEREQ prior to removal (30-60 days or something). I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. That might actually be the right balance - if the arch teams focus on just system or other important packages they might be able to find the time to keep up rather than trying to boil the ocean. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of Secondary Architectures. I think it would make sense if we could keep stable keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on them to stabilize other packages. I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree. Sort-of. You'd break it in that users would have to accept ~arch to keep that package, or remove it. It is really no different than dropping stable keywords which forces them to do the same thing, except that you're doing it one package at a time. You could impose a time limit to respond to the STABLEREQ prior to removal (30-60 days or something). I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. That might actually be the right balance - if the arch teams focus on just system or other important packages they might be able to find the time to keep up rather than trying to boil the ocean. Rich What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 22 August 2013 18:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of Secondary Architectures. I think it would make sense if we could keep stable keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on them to stabilize other packages. I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree. Sort-of. You'd break it in that users would have to accept ~arch to keep that package, or remove it. It is really no different than dropping stable keywords which forces them to do the same thing, except that you're doing it one package at a time. You could impose a time limit to respond to the STABLEREQ prior to removal (30-60 days or something). The problem is with reverse dependencies. We had this a while ago with Qt libraries, and I ended up needing to mask a whole list of packages on two slacker arches. That's more trouble than it's worth for me. In my opinion we should only bother with stabilization on the most widely used arches: amd64, x86, and arm. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. I've seen lots of talk about stable being less reliable than ~arch, and ~arch applications on a stable core being unreliable, but I've never actually seen any real evidence that either is true. Granted, I'm not necessarily expecting a scientific study, but I haven't even heard anecdotes. I can't offer much personally - I only really use stable to any extent and I find it works just fine other than the occasional need to unmask something. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages might still keep them. What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such configurations is definitely not desirable. It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell them that for everything else, please use ~arch. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 08/22/2013 01:28 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 22 August 2013 11:01, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the result of a policy like this would be that stable keywords
would get dropped on most peripheral packages, but system packages
might still keep them.
What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system
provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will
start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable
tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch.
Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had
problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not
running ~arch on most libs.
Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed
systems are totally
unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when
a mixed system is detected.
It may work on regular basis but encouraging and supporting such
configurations is definitely not desirable.
Actually this what Gentoo is all about - for me. Having the option of a
well tested stable system and just bleeding edge where wanted
(i have ~10% of my packages from arch and it works like a charm, and
like only one bug report of mine was closed due an mixed arch issue).
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
or anything.
Please stop dooming this possibility. Mixing together software versions
isn't that much of a magic as you make of it.
It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell
them that for everything else, please use ~arch.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't hurt in some places, but it's
manageable, as is living on arches with stable core and very few stable
leave packages, like I've been doing on sparc, ppc and arm.)
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
or anything.
Please stop dooming this possibility. Mixing together software versions
isn't that much of a magic as you make of it.
I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not encourage
this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
When did I say the opposite? However they should not expect much
support if they use a mixed system and they run into
troubles. Someone who does that, should know what he is doing and be
prepared to run into problems.
And I will stop here because this discussion is off-topic.
It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell
them that for everything else, please use ~arch.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't hurt in some places, but it's
manageable, as is living on arches with stable core and very few stable
leave packages, like I've been doing on sparc, ppc and arm.)
This is yet to be decided.
--
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
22.08.2013 16:26, Markos Chandras пишет:
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
or anything.
Please stop dooming this possibility. Mixing together software versions
isn't that much of a magic as you make of it.
I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not encourage
this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
When did I say the opposite? However they should not expect much
support if they use a mixed system and they run into
troubles. Someone who does that, should know what he is doing and be
prepared to run into problems.
And I will stop here because this discussion is off-topic.
It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell
them that for everything else, please use ~arch.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't hurt in some places, but it's
manageable, as is living on arches with stable core and very few stable
leave packages, like I've been doing on sparc, ppc and arm.)
This is yet to be decided.
I have mixed setup for years:
pinkbyte@oas1 ~ $ ls /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/ -1 | wc -l
19
At home this number is above 40, iirc.
And i do not think that refusing bugreports from such systems is a
proper way.
--
Best regards, Sergey Popov
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
Gentoo Qt project lead
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On 22 August 2013 13:17, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
Having a mixed setup isn't that absurd as you want it to be.
And forcing users to not use it renders all package.{accepted_,}keywords
granularity moot.
It's like nailing them to debian stable or debian testing w/o backports
or anything.
Please stop dooming this possibility. Mixing together software versions
isn't that much of a magic as you make of it.
I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not encourage
this. Users are free to do whatever they want.
Actually every other post is about keywording special versions or
running --autounmask-write. I'm saying that we do not encourage this
might not be the reality on forums/blogs/channels.
When did I say the opposite? However they should not expect much
support if they use a mixed system and they run into
troubles. Someone who does that, should know what he is doing and be
prepared to run into problems.
And I will stop here because this discussion is off-topic.
It's also a bit ehm, funny, to give them a stable stage3 and then tell
them that for everything else, please use ~arch.
(I'm not saying that it doesn't hurt in some places, but it's
manageable, as is living on arches with stable core and very few stable
leave packages, like I've been doing on sparc, ppc and arm.)
This is yet to be decided.
This is the established road that leads to user supplied KEYWORDREQ and
STABLEREQ bugs. And reality for sparc/ppc/arm, which lacks stable
keywords on lots of packages.
Imho, x86 should be added to the list too.
trollWhich environmental responsible persons runs these CPUs these
days./troll
--
Michael Weber
Gentoo Developer
web: https://xmw.de/
mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 22/08/13 06:19 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: What's the point of that? Most users need more than what @system provides so after they deploy the 'stable' stage3 they will start pulling ~arch packages that were never tested against the stable tree. It so much better if stage3 was also ~arch. Actually this brings up a good point in general -- we have enough problems auto-rolling stable stage3's half the time, is it likely that we'll be able to roll ~arch stage3's for these minor arches on a regular basis if we *DO* drop all stable keywords from them?? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlIWDzUACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBnXgD+OYOf0ygaaR8YnCUWZmTre07p 43NJKsUpkuWJrPTxMRcBAI4tqZRYbsyLV/W9YmuqC7As3MZRLI8X58KlGLUtI5Oa =epp1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:47:18 +0200 Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote: On 08/22/2013 02:26 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: I said that it is a combination not well tested so we do not encourage this. Users are free to do whatever they want. Actually every other post is about keywording special versions or running --autounmask-write. I'm saying that we do not encourage this might not be the reality on forums/blogs/channels. This might be a possible language barrier; please note that we do not encourage this can be interpreted as we encourage that you do not do this but also as we have no encouragement for this, whether it implies that we do or do not advice a choice depends on the context. Regardless, lots of people encourage others to not mix their system or use --autounmask-write in a careless way; in other words, they encourage them to only use it if they must and to be careful in how they do this. That's at least the impression that I get from our support places; in my personal opinion, I think that is the way it should be used. The goal should be for the file to be a sane solution for the user that needs it; it shouldn't become a file that is filled with all kinds of suggestions Portage can throw at you, some just aren't sane to do. Every other post shouldn't be the goal, it should be the exception... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 22 August 2013 12:24, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote: Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. So, this is what I was talking about - people say this but it really hasn't been borne out in reality as far as I can tell. I can certainly say that maintainers handle bugs from mixed systems all the time, if for no other reason than it is pretty hard to tell that a mixed system is in use. When bugs do crop up on mixed systems they're often the result of dependency errors - ones that are obscured by the fact that the package has only been tested on a ~arch system. The more subtle issue is if a stable package has an unstated cat/foo-ver dep and pulling in foo breaks some other stable package. Those really are still valid bugs, though it may not be so easily fixed except in the short term (unless slotted a version dep is hard to support). I've gotten caught by these on a few of my own packages, since I only testing them on ~arch very lightly (since I don't run ~arch in general) - when it happens the deps get fixed and things are just that much better off when they get to stable (and if ~arch breaks on rare occasion that is what it is for). I see the ability to run a mixed system as one of the big benefits of using Gentoo - few distros support this nearly as well. As far as it being unsupported on Gentoo goes - that all depends on your definition of support. We don't do a lot of handholding for ANY of our users. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013, 13:28:24 schrieb Markos Chandras: Do we actually have examples of this happening? I've never had problems with a mix of stable and ~arch keywords. Granted, I'm not running ~arch on most libs. Wow! That is something we actively encourage people to avoid. Mixed systems are totally unsupported and I am sure quite a few bugs are closed as invalid when a mixed system is detected. Markos, outdated information. I'd consider that standard and recommended procedure. Whoever closes bugs with combining stable and testing is unsupported needs a good kick . Cheers, A -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer (council, kde) dilfri...@gentoo.org http://www.akhuettel.de/
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:03:35AM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/22/2013 08:38 AM, Sergey Popov wrote: 21.08.2013 22:28, Alexis Ballier пишет: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I like this way much more. Let's clarify stabilization policy for some minor arches, e.g. policy about stabilization requests for huge packages. Cause dropping entire arch to ~arch maybe sometimes a bit overkill. And hard to revert. Sparc did drop a lot of keywords lately, by removing itself from STABLEREQ w/o stabling the mentioned package. Give maintainers some ability to take some action as well. Say I maintain package foo, and there is an old version that is stable on a minor arch. Say a stabilization request for a newer version has been opened for a while (30-60 days is probably sufficient) and the arch team hasn't responded. I want a path that would allow me to remove the older version of foo from the tree and close out the stable request. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc +many. ++many. If any of these arches considers themselves to be a major arch; they need to speak up and let us know if reasonable, but then we also need to ensure that we draw more manpower to such major arch. I think we are looking at this problem the wrong way. Why not define what is needed to be a major arch and a minor arch (~arch only). Then drop a marjor arch to a minor arch if they don't meet the requirement. For example, we could define a major as having an arch lead, 3 active devs (commited to the cvs tree in the last xyz number of days), etc I've been trying to get more involved with ia64, sparc, ppc, ppc64 so my vote is to keep those arch as a major arch. I'd be willing to help out ago mark ebuilds stable but as others have pointed out he does such a good job, its hard to compete with him ;) Cheers, -- Jack Morgan Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan jmor...@gentoo.org Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
[gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get rid of old versions of packages. I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to be doing stabilizations and keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of work on these arches. Consider what will happen if he ever goes MIA or decides to retire ;) We will probably end up with a pile of stabilization bugs like the good old days. In my opinion, having these arches be ~arch only, will improve the overall user experience since the arch teams will only have to test a single tree. It will also help developers get rid of old ebuilds and keep the portage tree healthy and reasonably updated. If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the next Council's agenda. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc +many. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get rid of old versions of packages. I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to be doing stabilizations and keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of work on these arches. Consider what will happen if he ever goes MIA or decides to retire ;) We will probably end up with a pile of stabilization bugs like the good old days. In my opinion, having these arches be ~arch only, will improve the overall user experience since the arch teams will only have to test a single tree. It will also help developers get rid of old ebuilds and keep the portage tree healthy and reasonably updated. If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the next Council's agenda. +1 Even if I'm not directly concerned by those arches, I agree with your point and can see its benefits for both devs and users. Cheers
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:09:55 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman d...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc +many. ++many. If any of these arches considers themselves to be a major arch; they need to speak up and let us know if reasonable, but then we also need to ensure that we draw more manpower to such major arch. There's maybe one or so important in the server world; but as I don't have a good enough clue about that, I'm not going to name any names. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 12:04 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió: [...] If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the next Council's agenda. + :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc +1 for that. Perl herd has *really* many work with stabilization, it's difficult because it's taking over a month in some cases.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org writes: I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc I support this proposal. I only have an old sparc box at hand. They are no longer major as time goes, IMHO.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 08/21/2013 07:04 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine with it. We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user. One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might emerge 5.16.3 only to hit a module later that insists on 5.12.4, thus requiring downgrading. There are other examples where dependencies track stable but not unstable. This is in addition to the usual breakage on the bleeding edge. If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the next Council's agenda. Or no serious negative feedback. I don't think you will. I can support this. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Mips, as you know, has been ~arch for a while and we've been doing just fine with it. We can't pretend, however, that this doesn't shift some burden to the user. One example is perl where some modules need 5.12.4 (the current stable) and cannot use 5.16.x (~arch). On mips you might emerge 5.16.3 only to hit a module later that insists on 5.12.4, thus requiring downgrading. There are other examples where dependencies track stable but not unstable. This is in addition to the usual breakage on the bleeding edge. There is a chance to be a bit off-topic here but I don't consider this being a problem for two reasons. First, mips profiles were marked 'experimental' so we missed a lot of repoman functionality :) Moreover, the problem you mentioned is a packaging issue which needs to be fixed. Having more people testing this as part of their regular testing can only improve the user experience in the end. For such arches, my personal opinion is that most people have been running ~arch all along because stable was lagging so far behind. Or no serious negative feedback. I don't think you will. I can support this. Thank you! -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 21 August 2013 19:04, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc ++ And consider adding ppc and ppc64 to that list. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
21.08.2013 15:04, Markos Chandras пишет: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get rid of old versions of packages. I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to be doing stabilizations and keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of work on these arches. Consider what will happen if he ever goes MIA or decides to retire ;) We will probably end up with a pile of stabilization bugs like the good old days. In my opinion, having these arches be ~arch only, will improve the overall user experience since the arch teams will only have to test a single tree. It will also help developers get rid of old ebuilds and keep the portage tree healthy and reasonably updated. If I get enough positive feedback on this, I will propose this in the next Council's agenda. +1 for that. Unless we have more manpower on them, their 'stable' state can bring false expectations to users. Do not get me wrong, i am all for choice, but if we can not bring quality stabilization on those arches(as we have no hardware, no manpower, etc.) - they should go to unstable. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop-effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc I want some level between stable and completely supported and loses all its stable keywords., at least for alpha. Is switching their profiles to dev the way to do that?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc I want some level between stable and completely supported and loses all its stable keywords., at least for alpha. Is switching their profiles to dev the way to do that? The proposal is to drop stable keywords on arches that cannot keep up. Do you feel this is not the case on alpha?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 21 August 2013 16:32, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Hi, It's time of year again to consider moving a few arches to dev-only status. I propose the following arches to lose their stable keywords - s390 - sh - ia64 - alpha - m68k - sparc I want some level between stable and completely supported and loses all its stable keywords., at least for alpha. Is switching their profiles to dev the way to do that? Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get rid of old versions of packages. I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to be doing stabilizations and keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of work on these arches. Maybe we should fix this situation (find more stabilization guys) rather than the usual twice a year small arches bashing. Imho the situation is that agos intensive work displaced all the other ones, or they at least rely on ago doing the work and loose focus. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Mike Gilbert flop...@gentoo.org wrote: The proposal is to drop stable keywords on arches that cannot keep up. Do you feel this is not the case on alpha? I'm not sure if that's my claim. I'm worried because I think it might be a disaster for alpha (and perhaps other architectures).
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of Secondary Architectures. I think it would make sense if we could keep stable keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on them to stabilize other packages. I've run into issues when I simply wanted to fix a mips-specific problem and wound up spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with general ~arch issues. I'm worried that dropping stable keywords, while it'll make it seem like the architectures are in better shape since there are fewer bugs, will actually make using or developing them significantly worse.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/21/2013 05:56 PM, Michael Weber wrote: On 08/21/2013 01:04 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: The manpower on these arches is below acceptable levels and they often block stabilizations for many months. This also causes troubles to developers trying to get rid of old versions of packages. I am CC'ing Mike and on this to draw his attention since he seems to be doing stabilizations and keywording on a few of them. Moreover, Agostino is also doing a lot of work on these arches. Maybe we should fix this situation (find more stabilization guys) rather than the usual twice a year small arches bashing. Imho the situation is that agos intensive work displaced all the other ones, or they at least rely on ago doing the work and loose focus. All in all, I'm in favor of dropping stable keywords for minor arches, if it is possible to keep up with the same quality. With regards to m68k armin76 blogged recently about an emulator[1]. Maybe if we don't want to drop stable keywords a keywording and stabilization timeout [2] would be sufficient (i.e. every dev can add a testing/stable keyword after testing it). Do we keep any statistics about the user base of each arch? There was a GSOC project called gentoostats [3], does anybody know anything about its current status? Kind regards Manuel [1] http://armin762.wordpress.com/2013/08/07/gentoom68k-in-the-aranym-emulator/ [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455872#c15 [3] http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoostats -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJSFPjSXxSAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci0uLi5Abm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ4MDA1RERERkM0ODM2QkE4MEY3NzY0N0M1 OEZCQTM2QzhEOUQ2MzVDAAoJEFj7o2yNnWNcp/IP/2xMQmZHg6dggIm8YdxQUtAn OHsUjEMHPSsoYhpw1Un0oz06OHSlU0XF3OZSb1Xge8G4ZRbxu1tlBFG9tsf7aI01 zuZRCyZkEvSl4DLaZcRNw7x6mDPc5fgk29Wj2PLtSFmIQh7g0ad1JZrEPCqrulVS w2bpvm9FBrPWBhdWVY+cXsGSy3PCYLw/pGkZFXipmykXMmqb2f7bZsQurKkPMeEJ z5SgnbYKGKFTVbDQrlhILOJKT0RFxDsxe6+kNnBnoqFKoqxb4jC95CjGpGvlqYD8 Q7A1kqAcyjI99NTXH8nU1k0H2IP9pPi5JGs9w9HYd5aT2hJHfpWNm18h2WH9/fEa 1+MJUWG3ajipB6Lkixd99GszdPDybQQ159q8J7TTvj7aCDgDQWto1F/iJON5Fb+J rDDL9HxrxFZirJ2MV45e/TkYJyxQlw4XxnBwI6q2ubCqH4P2fe/wjg9BJnWLbDLc uc/LGr6BaYwq2s9sim4Mcgm7rM4Y0CgSQD7QLAQ6utUV+vsnK4rD+UTLI0bDI5ZR 7s+eYFxoo7CUHpq3qqpsVzM699G5JIQ/rBYEBCKwDKJUkZmO/pHuQnaF3YVdbeuV z2smnIx98p9SgW7h5kKDRYjDgQA6KTdS7byMjknFPVTU3wjZW0eB/jjYBdWm1R9d rCGwIxwK5VOOogjnssHF =Tumh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable. Is there a good reason for that? -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable. Is there a good reason for that? Oh yes: Forbid broken deptree. x86-fbsd has always been dev profile + ~arch only. It is almost impossible to move it to stable profile since people (almost) never run 'repoman -d' and even less file bugs when they introduce broken deps. It is common to have portage bail out when updating your system because someone introduced a broken dep and didnt pay attention. amd64-fbsd is stable profile + ~arch only. People do it the correct way, which is: drop keywords, file a bug. Since we do not have a huge tree coverage here, I get about 5 such bugs a months, which are not hard to handle.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 21 August 2013 20:10, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 20:03:30 +0100 Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: On 21 August 2013 19:28, Alexis Ballier aball...@gentoo.org wrote: Instead of dropping them entirely to ~arch, maybe something in between could be done: Said arches could start moving to ~arch the leaf and less important packages. E.g. we have (had?) a lot of sparc keywords on sound packages or ppc keywords on ocaml ones because at some point (~10 years ago) some dev was interested in these on this architecture but I'm pretty sure nobody uses them. In short: Reduce stable coverage to reduce the workload. Also, from what I've seen in the thread, you are talking about keywords only, right ? Do these arches keep their stable mark in profiles.desc? I am not familiar with portage internals to understand what implications will an ~arch only architecture have if marked as stable. Is there a good reason for that? Oh yes: Forbid broken deptree. x86-fbsd has always been dev profile + ~arch only. It is almost impossible to move it to stable profile since people (almost) never run 'repoman -d' and even less file bugs when they introduce broken deps. It is common to have portage bail out when updating your system because someone introduced a broken dep and didnt pay attention. amd64-fbsd is stable profile + ~arch only. People do it the correct way, which is: drop keywords, file a bug. Since we do not have a huge tree coverage here, I get about 5 such bugs a months, which are not hard to handle. Ah, I have no strong preference then. -- Regards, Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving more arches to dev profiles
On 22 August 2013 01:19, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote: Is there an alternative? afaik a profile can be either stable,dev or exp. I can't see how we can implement something between stable and dev. And what would that represent? It may or may not be stable? If this is the case, then I believe ~arch is more preferred. I haven't read much into it, but Fedora has a concept of Secondary Architectures. I think it would make sense if we could keep stable keywords for them, but not prevent maintainers from needing to wait on them to stabilize other packages. I don't see how that would work. You can't remove older versions unless a newer one is stabilized, or you'd break the tree. One option I see is to limit the amount of packages with stable keywords to a select list, e.g. @system and closely related packages, and refuse stable keywords for GUI toolkits and their desktop reverse dependencies and the like. Ago is doing a fantastic job, but it would be good to lower his work-load and reduce the bus factor problem. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
