1 |
On 2018-10-12 01:38, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
2 |
>> Maybe it is time to destabilize ARM on Gentoo to stop the impression |
3 |
>> that we really support ARM. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> [ CC: arm@ ] |
6 |
> |
7 |
> A few points to think about: |
8 |
> |
9 |
> 1. I have read this as a direct statement that ARM is not maintained. |
10 |
> I don't think it is a fair (or constructive) assessment of team's work |
11 |
> on ARM front. |
12 |
|
13 |
See the ARM bug queue for stable requests. ARM is always last and behind |
14 |
since we dropped HPPA. |
15 |
|
16 |
|
17 |
> 2. The bug was created less than a week ago and was not communicated |
18 |
> explicitly as urgent on #gentoo-arm. I see failure to handle the bug |
19 |
> as a communication failure and not a team's death signal. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Were there any attempts to reach out to the teams or just arm users? |
22 |
|
23 |
Bug was assigned highest priority in bugzilla. But it looks like ARM arch |
24 |
team is ignoring set priority. |
25 |
|
26 |
*I* didn't asked in #gentoo-arm but I pinged project several times in |
27 |
#gentoo-dev channel. |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
> 3. I do not believe arm boxes (or most of users' boxes) update @world weekly |
31 |
> and restart unbound automatically. Deadline of a few days is not feasible |
32 |
> to propagate to users quickly. There is frequently no order-of-days response |
33 |
> from arch teams. It would be nice to have but it's not realistic (IMO). |
34 |
> |
35 |
> [...] |
36 |
> |
37 |
> 6. If this package is so important it needs to be stable months before keys expire. |
38 |
> Then users would have a chance to get the update during casual update. Or |
39 |
> net-dns/unbound DNSSEC functionality should not be marked stable anywhere |
40 |
> if package requires periodic manual intervention to just keep working. |
41 |
|
42 |
Disclaimer: I am not the maintainer of unbound nor dnssec-root package. I took |
43 |
action last week after I noticed that there was a time bomb ticking and |
44 |
nobody cared. I fully agree that an updated dnssec-root package could have been |
45 |
made available one year ago giving everyone enough time... |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
> 4. net-dns/dnssec-root is used by a single(ish) package in tree: net-dns/unbound |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Which is: not a system package, not a default package, not suggested by handbook |
51 |
> package, can operate without DNSSEC enabled. |
52 |
|
53 |
Unbound is a popular resolver and many Gentoo users are operating ARM-based |
54 |
routers. I don't get your point. Of course you could disable DNSSEC and DNS |
55 |
will resume working. But is this really your point? |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
> While annoying it's not going to lock users out or corrupt their data. |
59 |
|
60 |
Right, it doesn't cause data corruption. But when your Gentoo-based router |
61 |
will stop working this can be a problem. Don't forget about remote systems. |
62 |
Again, people who know how to deal with problems like that aren't the |
63 |
problem. But why do we care about stable packages if we assume that everyone |
64 |
knows what to do when experiencing problems? |
65 |
|
66 |
|
67 |
> 5. net-dns/dnssec-root is a plain-text file package. It should have been ALLARCHES |
68 |
> stablewithout involvement of arm@. |
69 |
|
70 |
It wasn't about dnssec-root package. Of course this could have been stabilized |
71 |
under ALLARCHES policy. It wasn't because package has a new dependency |
72 |
(>=dev-perl/XML-XPath-1.420.0 + deps) which was lacking stable keywords, too. |
73 |
|
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
If ARM can keep up I am quiet. But please, be honest. We don't need another |
77 |
HPPA. Nobody will win something if we tell world "ARM is a first class citizen |
78 |
in Gentoo" when it isn't (anymore). But if people would know it is ~ARCH, we |
79 |
would not disappoint expectations. |
80 |
|
81 |
|
82 |
-- |
83 |
Regards, |
84 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
85 |
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |