1 |
Hi all, |
2 |
|
3 |
I have two linked proposals: |
4 |
1) I propose we remove support for Gentoo on s390 and support only s390x instead; |
5 |
2) We drop the s390 arch (covering both s390 and s390x) keywords to ~s390 (unstable). |
6 |
|
7 |
Right now, we support both s390 and s390x with the same keyword (’s390’) but s390x has a subprofile. |
8 |
No separate keyword exists. |
9 |
|
10 |
In reality, this means all packages should be tested on s390 (lowest common denominator). |
11 |
|
12 |
This has some limitations: |
13 |
* upstreams aren’t particularly interested in the 31/32 bit platform that is the original s390; |
14 |
|
15 |
* Following on from That Cryptography Debacle, upstream Python and others may be looking |
16 |
to drop s390 support anyway; |
17 |
|
18 |
* s390 is not supported by e.g. libpcre for JIT. Ditto LaTeX which means we have to |
19 |
mask a lot of documentation. It’s not a huge deal but it shows how little attention folks pay to it, |
20 |
|
21 |
I’d like to make clear that this isn’t a knee-jerk response to recent events with the Python ecosystem; |
22 |
we have a limited amount of time and volunteers and I don’t recall seeing a bug report from an s390 user |
23 |
any time recently. Further, nobody other distros seem to be carrying s390 (only s390x). |
24 |
|
25 |
(On the recent dev-python/cryptography bug upstream, it was claimed s390 isn't supported by the kernel, |
26 |
but I can't find any evidence for this, so let's not base any decisions on that unless |
27 |
some evidence arises.) |
28 |
|
29 |
I tried to review old bugs and most were from Gentoo developers testing the platform, but I accept |
30 |
it may have had more relevance in the past. We’ve not even built stages for it in a year and nobody |
31 |
seems to have noticed. |
32 |
|
33 |
Motivation: |
34 |
* I'm the only person actively doing keywording and stabilisation for s390 and find it hard to keep up - |
35 |
reducing the workload would be helpful for me but also motivate me in terms of reporting issues when |
36 |
there's actually likelihood of it being fixed vs for a (thought to be) dead platform. |
37 |
|
38 |
* I’d prefer it if we only declared support for things we can support *well*. I’d say s390 isn’t currently |
39 |
in this category and at least having s390x as the target is a bit more realistic. |
40 |
|
41 |
* We’re not really consistent with what is/isn’t stable for s390 at present anyway, hence the profiles |
42 |
are dev/exp. |
43 |
|
44 |
* We’re going to have a headache with certain things like Rust and it’s an opportunity to assess |
45 |
what we’re supporting/not and ideally limiting our efforts to realistic & worthwhile targets. |
46 |
|
47 |
In any case, I’m not trying to kill off platforms people are using, so: |
48 |
1) If anybody is using this, please tell us! |
49 |
|
50 |
2) I’m quite happy (as well as others I’ve spoken with) to keep s390x which is more well-accepted as a platform and is |
51 |
still in circulation. |
52 |
|
53 |
Thanks, |
54 |
Sam |