| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Given I received no comments on the mailing list [0] post from 16th Feb and affirmative comments via IRC, I’ve |
| 4 |
dropped all s390 keywords to ~s390 (testing/unstable). We’ll keep the s390 arch in addition to s390x as a subprofile |
| 5 |
for now as this reduces the hassle of maintaining s390. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
This is actually a net improvement to any users of s390 if they’re out there, as stable s390 was completely unusable |
| 8 |
in terms of consistency given it was marked ‘exp'. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The aim is to restore s390 and s390x to being a ‘dev’ profile rather than ‘exp’ when possible, i.e. consistency |
| 11 |
within ~s390 keywords - which does not yet exist. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I’ve started looking at what work would be needed here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/20270. I intend |
| 14 |
to work on it every so often rather than it being a priority. Help welcome to file keywording bugs as indicated |
| 15 |
by CI results in that PR! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I’ve updated all stabilisation bugs with s390@ CCed. I (ab)used NATTkA to do this so that the nuance of arch bugs |
| 18 |
was respected (e.g. not closing bugs when s390@ wasn’t the last arch), hence the ’s390 done’ comments, which may |
| 19 |
be slightly misleading. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
TL;DR: s390 is now pure ~arch but this should be an improvement as we aim for consistency in the keywords in future. Help is |
| 22 |
welcome. All existing stable bugs for s390 should have been updated - let me know if you find one which hasn’t been. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[0] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/69834962ec55a31908544793eb2dea05 |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[Originally forgot reply-to]. |
Archives