Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 01:37:00
Message-Id: e2cc6cca-878e-86f0-2576-555f64f454c2@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests by Jeroen Roovers
1 On 05/19/2016 07:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
2 > Perhaps it's a good idea to add a section to the devmanual about adding
3 > new keywords to packages.
4 >
5 > Recruits in particular might benefit from some background on what
6 > keywording means and when it should be done, especially before they
7 > start maintaining packages and then realise their packages are so
8 > beautiful that they positively *deserve* to have some random keywords
9 > added. This is not productive.
10 >
11 > The way it works is that users of
12 > specific architectures find that a package works for them on their
13 > systems (which have enough resources and have the correct interfaces for
14 > that particular program to be used conveniently, and so on), and that
15 > they then request that their architecture keyword be added. What
16 > doesn't work is having a handful of keywords on a package that nobody
17 > cares about who actually uses the architectures in question.
18 >
19 > Since over the years the Random Keyword Requests happen a *lot* right
20 > after recruitment, it might even be useful to ask about this in the
21 > quizzes. (The answer: your time is better spent fixing actual bugs.
22 > bumping versions, adding features and maintaining a stable branch,
23 > rather than raising the architecture count for your packages for no
24 > adequately explored reason.)
25 >
26 >
27 > Kind regards,
28 > jer
29 >
30 To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some
31 devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they
32 already maintain? If said arches are already supported in Gentoo I see
33 little problem with that, especially if they intend on being part of the
34 arch testing team for that arch or have access to the hardware.
35
36 But if this is a case of developers asking for arch keywords to be added
37 for arches that aren't (yet) supported in Gentoo, I agree that we need
38 some sort of formal requirements, much like we do for stabilization (30
39 days no bugs, etc). Covering it in the devmanual is a great idea.
40
41 How many packages do you think is necessary before 'critical mass' is
42 reached and Gentoo should support it? I'm thinking it's less about the
43 number of packages, and more about the community around that arch as
44 well as whether or not a stage3 can be built for that arch in a
45 reasonable timeframe. If it can get coreutils up and going, a stage3 can
46 be built, and the handbook can be followed for that arch without issues
47 (say, with an overlay), it seems like that would be a case for adding
48 the keyword.
49
50 But adding keywords, as we know, comes with maintenance burden. New
51 arches can't get supported without people active in the community and
52 actually using the hardware. If that interest isn't there, why should we
53 add the keywords to the main repo? Overlays may be a fine alternative.
54
55 Just my 2ยข. Thanks for bringing this up, it's a topic I didn't know was
56 a concern.
57
58 --
59 Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
60 OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
61 fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>