| 1 |
Dear developers, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
TL;DR: Unless arch teams decide to help us, the Python team will stop |
| 4 |
supporting non-x86 arches and start dropping non-x86 keywords from |
| 5 |
reverse dependencies. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Python team is struggling with a large number of keywordreqs |
| 9 |
and stablereqs. It is common for new versions of Python packages to |
| 10 |
bring new dependencies, and it is uncommon for arch teams to handle our |
| 11 |
requests in time. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The situation is particularly bad on arm64 which seems to have initially |
| 14 |
stabilized a lot of packages but afterwards can't manage to stabilize |
| 15 |
new versions. Even with the recent effort of NeddySeagoon, it is still |
| 16 |
common for me to open new stablereqs while the old ones are waiting for |
| 17 |
arm64. Overall, arm64 ends up staying behind with dependencies as well |
| 18 |
which makes each new stablereq more and more effort. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
However, all non-x86 arches are bad. Making keywordreqs takes |
| 21 |
tremendous effort, and keeping them up-to-date with frequent package |
| 22 |
releases is simply impossible. It is quite frustrating when a keyword |
| 23 |
request is open for a month, then some arch tester points out that |
| 24 |
the package list is outdated, you spend even more effort updating it, |
| 25 |
then you wait again and the same situation repeats. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
In the end, we've reached the point where very high profile packages |
| 28 |
such as dev-python/virtualenv are missing almost all keywords. To be |
| 29 |
honest, I don't want to spend another hour trying to update package |
| 30 |
list, so that *maybe* some arch team will finally consider helping us. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
For this reason, I propose that the Python team officially stops |
| 33 |
supporting non-x86 arches. For obvious reasons we will have to continue |
| 34 |
keeping Portage and the most basic packages work but we will not put any |
| 35 |
special effort to restore lost keywords, and we will drop keywords from |
| 36 |
low-profile packages as their dependencies are not keyworded. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I am thoroughly frustrated by this state of affairs, and I'm having |
| 39 |
a serious trouble motivating myself to do anything about it. FWICS |
| 40 |
others have abandoned the ship earlier. I will probably try to prepare |
| 41 |
some script to determine where we need to drop keywords, for a start. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
Archives