From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-102046-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0D415802E for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:56:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6EDA32BC05D; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:55:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from matoro.tk (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:4b10:9d80::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 627B8E2A84 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 21:55:38 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=dHbNBYHDitaifHvN+y4xQMUuN4BMUcWoXpL3yJi7OMY=; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=matoro.tk; h=Subject:Subject:Sender:To:To:Cc:Cc:From:From:Date:Date:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Message-Id:References:References:Autocrypt:Openpgp; i=@matoro.tk; s=20240416; t=1719351632; v=1; x=1719783632; b=TgxNXAowJ2owEW4dBeS502vE4gxBb6vZrq6hp0MoUdW7qISv7l7VLdWcx9j4z2ZYgADSxCR1 aVci8hVWdHDdI6avEqqUqs97cmuueS+zhhCxwofJurZY9K1mrqpectwol4+T/2SI6bEX14lahcX TRsLl8U44EArZhpJJwH3uM3Mf33CNogSNCCtZmFkDdzqYuo5JsNz6IPiTBNpt7f6xXP2Ro68ble GRRDMwhz+/VgovI/RAaaIa6kKt+BvUZUnyHuNEaw/bINVWaz/XOwOr83s52mZsbcqN4eKYSqaWP wyPYVX2XCD5eg9mnFZTfuIagK8KOWeu7YbAQoFcVs6DpPiUr3UfSbwNGWtSdCrvlJH3Q5UCuRFm w3t/kh1l2BlVMRm/XD25v0mQfqARqCWlBMxEb/X9zgSh418NtgMqFFI6fOmJysDKbbto+gX5kB6 p6c0cAqa15nNhj7AeImf3zVtyd5GMIHxI6N6afWPyDjwvQ7ZHYjuAlvowUxhcWYVdmRTgv/ZvMq adOeRouSMqz4XjfUsuRnlqab23mCCYoGN76GONQHFIurKhOhWJPGr86f+LyXWjYPwDFckUtpcpW qRN2hFwjU09hZY89mT6yo3VpaeZmiqLy3kRb/r5BWt4DfjWynVrOf/9BThJ5+u2hx5u+3LNm5iZ HPsTdvQeh28= Received: by matoro.tk (envelope-sender <matoro_mailinglist_gentoo-dev@matoro.tk>) with ESMTPS id 4fb80283; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:40:32 -0400 Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 17:40:32 -0400 From: matoro <matoro_mailinglist_gentoo-dev@matoro.tk> To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status and Future Plans In-Reply-To: <75654daa-c5fc-45c8-a104-fae43b9ca490@gentoo.org> References: <75654daa-c5fc-45c8-a104-fae43b9ca490@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <fc1736c140092fa9ce41e12c2cd0da3f@matoro.tk> X-Sender: matoro_mailinglist_gentoo-dev@matoro.tk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: eaa7adba-9ba0-493e-a62e-3e2b24d7917e X-Archives-Hash: d618d6ad71bc0b49e7c4720ec4180df3 On 2024-06-25 13:33, Arthur Zamarin wrote: > So, are you ready for seeing the mess? Here we go. Thanks Arthur, I can add some input as another AT. > ======== 32-bit arches ======== > > This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and > maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various > fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example > qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage to compile on a > real-hardware, and not 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host. Arch Team want to > minimize our work on those arches, meaning mass-destable and even > mass-dekeyword, with potentially full drop of stable status. I think all of these need to be moved to dev. Particular attention on ppc because somebody seems to have gone on a rampage throwing keywords at it and so I frequently see packages with things like KEYWORDS="amd64 ppc" which makes no sense. Also, hppa is 32-bit as well. The hardware is 64-bit, and so is the kernel, but the userspace is 32-bit. sparc32 and s390 I think need to be dropped or exp at least. For the former we need to get sys-boot/silo out of tree. Also, in https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:Main_Page#SPARC_Handbook we specifically call out: > In Gentoo, only SPARC64-compatible CPUs are supported. > ======== ppc64 ======== > > Stable 64-bit arch. So, this is a mess of an arch. Consists of both > ppc64ul (big-endian) and ppc64le (little-endian). The latter is much > better supported by upstream. The profiles inheritance inside is a mess > (we even added running 32 userspace on 64 bit kernel, called ppc64/32ul > - just why?). We have devboxes for both BE and LE, so mostly fine. The > profile inheritance is the messiest I've even seen. > > I would hope to split this arch into the two endianness, but I suspect > nobody has the energy to do it. Oh well. > > Next proposal is to cleanup profiles: remove the ppc64/32ul, cleanup > profile inheritance, cleanup the masks and unmasks, and continue with > both ppc64ul & ppc64le supported. Agree that this needs to be split. I could do the profile reorganization, but would need a developer who would be able to in one shot replace all KEYWORDS with both entries. > ======== hppa ======== > > Sigh. Stable 64-bit arch. Out main Gentoo devbox died, and the second > one is always stuck compiling gcc for stage3 (a compilation takes 7 > days). Here we have a fight in Arch Team. I prefer to destable it, Sam > prefers to stable it. This one is tough. FWIW as the one handling these for now I also would prefer destable. I would say that any wd40 profiles should be ineligible for stable. > ======== ia64 ======== > > Dev 64-bit arch. Kernel dropped support, glibc dropped support, devbox > died - days are short before full exp status or full removal of arch. I would prefer to see this go straight from dev to removed. Also, a timeline on removal with respect to kernel/glibc EOL would be nice so that it doesn't just stay up in the air indefinitely. Our python deprecation schedule is a model of clarity. > ======== alpha ======== > > Exp arch, with nearly (or maybe already) full correct dep-tree. matoro > did a lot of great work here, so I think we should promote it to dev > arch, so dep-tree remains unbroken. We dekeyworded a lot of stuff, > cleaned it up, so a nice "completion bonus". Yes, this has been basically fully-correct for months now and it's very annoying to play catch-up constantly. Please make this dev at the soonest opportunity. Also, current tree correctness is stuck on this: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/36711 > ======== mips ======== > > Exp arch, with mostly good dep-tree. Does mips team want to make it dev > arch? Unfortunately this is in much worse state than alpha. For a long while it was stuck on rust but luckily we now have rust and llvm, so I should be able to make more progress on it, but it's slow going. Dekeywording efforts would be hugely appreciated here.