Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests

[Daniel Campbell]

On 05/20/2016 05:38 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 05/20/2016 03:36 AM, Daniel Campbell wrote:
>> On 05/19/2016 07:51 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
>
> ..
>
>>>
>> To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying some
>> devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages that they
>> already maintain? If said arches are already supported in Gentoo I see
>> little problem with that, especially if they intend on being part of the
>> arch testing team for that arch or have access to the hardware.
>
> Can you elaborate on your definition of supported in this case? does it
> deviate from stable arches (alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, ia64, ppc, ppc64,
> sparc, x86)?

I would say yes, if Gentoo has the manpower to maintain a stable branch
for an arch, it's supported. How *well* it's supported is a separate
concern and equally important.
>
>>
>> But if this is a case of developers asking for arch keywords to be added
>> for arches that aren't (yet) supported in Gentoo, I agree that we need
>> some sort of formal requirements, much like we do for stabilization (30
>> days no bugs, etc). Covering it in the devmanual is a great idea.
>
> keywording for a new arch should normally only be done when necessary,
> mainly if it is a direct dependency of another package. There is no need
> to keywor it for an arch until it has been tested on that arch by some
> user / developer ... certainly not because some committing developer
> think it is nice to have all arches listed just in case.
>
> It is actually already [covered in the devmanual]; " It's important to
> note that alternative arches (like alpha, ia64, s390, sh, sparc, hppa,
> ppc*) are mainly undermanned arches, some of them are slow, they have
> more basic problems and have a small userbase. Just file bugs for these
> architectures when a package is going to be a dependency of a package
> already keyworded. "

Nice citation, I remember reading that last year. :) I agree: a new arch
should have users and testing backing it up so it doesn't get added and
later disappears or is left to sit and rot. As far as I understand, we
have the arches that we do because there are developers and users
willing to build it, submit bugs, and maintain it. New arches should be
held to the same standard.
>
>>
>> But adding keywords, as we know, comes with maintenance burden. New
>
> Indeed, more people should think of this. Adding packages in itself adds
> maintenance burdens for other teams and the usefulness should be
> considered accordingly before doing so
>
>> arches can't get supported without people active in the community and
>> actually using the hardware. If that interest isn't there, why should we
>> add the keywords to the main repo? Overlays may be a fine alternative.
>>
>> Just my 2¢. Thanks for bringing this up, it's a topic I didn't know was
>> a concern.
>>
>
> References:
> [covered in the devmanual]
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6