Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sam James <sam@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: s390@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Dropping s390 (but not s390x) entirely and s390, s390x to ~arch.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 23:55:39
1 Hi all,
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).
7 Right now, we support both s390 and s390x with the same keyword (’s390’) but s390x has a subprofile.
8 No separate keyword exists.
10 In reality, this means all packages should be tested on s390 (lowest common denominator).
12 This has some limitations:
13 * upstreams aren’t particularly interested in the 31/32 bit platform that is the original s390;
15 * Following on from That Cryptography Debacle, upstream Python and others may be looking
16 to drop s390 support anyway;
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,
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
41 * We’re not really consistent with what is/isn’t stable for s390 at present anyway, hence the profiles
42 are dev/exp.
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.
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!
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.
53 Thanks,
54 Sam


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