Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 06:18:14
Message-Id: 52D77990.7060506@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: revisiting our stabilization policy by William Hubbs
1 15.01.2014 19:30, William Hubbs пишет:
2 > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 03:30:39PM +0400, Sergey Popov wrote:
3 >> 15.01.2014 01:37, William Hubbs пишет:
4 >>> All,
5 >>>
6 >>> It is becoming more and more obvious that we do not have enough manpower
7 >>> on the arch teams, even some of the ones we consider major arch's, to
8 >>> keep up with stabilization requests. For example, there is this bug [1],
9 >>> which is blocking the stabilization of several important packages.
10 >>
11 >> And by the way, the only arches left there are ppc and ppc64, which are
12 >> NOT major ones.
13 >
14 > Sparc is also still on that bug, and according to the council decision I
15 > sited, these arch's are still treated like major arch's.
16
17 Well, to be honest, personally i consider only amd64 and x86(and maybe
18 arm) as major arches, other are minor in my eyes. Council decision is
19 more about arches, that crucially lacks manpower.
20
21 > Wrt your comment about x86 and amd64 having agreements that maintainers
22 > can stabilize packages on those arch's, I thought amd64 did, but I
23 > didn't know about x86.
24
25 It's not mentioned, yeah, i was not aware about it for some time.
26 Probably it should be mentioned in Gentoo Development Guide.
27
28 > Formal policy says that all stabilizations must be done by arch teams
29 > unless you have special arrangements with them [1], so my questions
30 > still stand.
31 >
32 > 1. Should we make it policy that maintainers can stabilize packages on
33 > arch's they have access to?
34 >
35 > 2. See Rich's message in this thread for my other concern; he spells it
36 > out pretty well -- what should we do about architectures the maintainer
37 > does not have access to?
38 >
39 > 3. Also, another interesting question has come up in this thread, that of
40 > non-binary packages. Should we give maintainers the option of
41 > stabilizing them on all arch's themselves?
42
43 1. If you know how to test it properly, know arch-specific
44 problems(aligning, endianness, ABI breakage) and how to fix it - then,
45 probably yes. But usually maintainers are bored to do proper testing.
46 2. I think - no. You can not test it - you can not stabilize it, period.
47 3. If code is interpreted rather then compiled, it does not matter that
48 it is properly ported on minor arches. I knew dozens of examples with
49 Perl and Python packages(not sure about Ruby, but Hans said that it
50 happens with it too). So, i would not treat such packages differently.
51
52
53 --
54 Best regards, Sergey Popov
55 Gentoo developer
56 Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
57 Gentoo Qt project lead
58 Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead

Attachments

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

Replies