Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:07 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> > >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to
> > >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and
> > >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished
> > >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve
> > >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the
> > >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a
> > >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in
> > >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being
> > >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed
> > >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons
> > >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago
> > >>> and are currently no so important.
> > >>>
> > >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable.  I've been randomly taking
> > >> care of ppc but nothing systematic.  Its pretty spotty.  But at the same
> > >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort
> > >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about
> > >> for mips too.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base
> > > system :/
> > >
> > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server
> > > and co... what more
> > >
> > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once
> > > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want
> > > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think
> > > about that?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst.
> > I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to
> > limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and
> > maintaining.  Where should we start to compile such a list?
>
> If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's
> to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering
> the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about
> filing stable requests on them.
>
> That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages.
>
> William
>

But, moving ppc* to exp wouldn't lead us to likely break their tree?
(because we wouldn't get any dependency issue even with "base"
packages...)