1 |
Yet another thread that's getting horrificly long, here comes your summary |
2 |
folks: |
3 |
|
4 |
Introduction |
5 |
|
6 |
An email was sent by Grant Goodyear containing a GLEP for the official x86 |
7 |
arch team establishment [1]. |
8 |
|
9 |
Discussions |
10 |
|
11 |
Ciaran McCreesh requested more information on exactly what the line: |
12 |
|
13 |
There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a |
14 |
robust x86 arch team. |
15 |
|
16 |
Stated. Grant stated the following: |
17 |
|
18 |
* Although x86 arch recruitment is currently underway, I suspect that |
19 |
we will need notably more devs to be x86 arch devs than we currently |
20 |
have signed up. (I don't know how many arch devs amd64 have, but I |
21 |
assume a similar number would be needed.) I assume that the x86 will |
22 |
want non-dev arch-testers as well, and all of that will have to be |
23 |
set up. |
24 |
* Having bodies on x86 <at> gentoo.org is just the starting point. The |
25 |
more difficult part will be convincing people that it is in their |
26 |
best interests to do things this way. Similarly, what do we do with |
27 |
devs who refuse? All of those issues still remain to be worked out. |
28 |
|
29 |
Stuart Herbert states the glep really addresses what problems it will be to |
30 |
developers, but in actually it is what problems occur to the users. |
31 |
|
32 |
Joshua Baergen states that maintainers need to notify arch teams about going |
33 |
stable before a package meets its 30 day minimum stable requirement (without |
34 |
any outstanding bugs). |
35 |
|
36 |
Homer Parker states that some devs should have stable only system, some |
37 |
testing, and some with chroots for package.mask testing. |
38 |
|
39 |
bit o flames here |
40 |
|
41 |
Jason Stubbs recommends that an overlay for ebuild devs to work on be created, |
42 |
and arch team stuff goes to the main tree. Users could use gensync in order |
43 |
to decide how fast paced they want their software model to go. |
44 |
|
45 |
Mike Frysinger states that arch teams need contact with the maintainers before |
46 |
going stable. |
47 |
|
48 |
Grant Goodyear states that while this is true, arch teams need the final say, |
49 |
because they know deal with the architecture aspect (ie. while maintainers |
50 |
know the software, arch teams know the system). |
51 |
|
52 |
Jason Wever states that while this is true, arch teams may need to stablize |
53 |
something sooner if previous versions were broken. |
54 |
|
55 |
Stuart Herbert recommends that a main keyword be created to mark packages as |
56 |
ready for arch testing. This would increase communication between |
57 |
maintainers and arch teams. |
58 |
|
59 |
Ciaran McCreesh states that while it's a good idea for some packages, others |
60 |
need arch maintainers to override (toolchain, kernel). |
61 |
|
62 |
Stuart Herbert asks as to why maintainers need to be overrided instead of |
63 |
communicated to directly. |
64 |
|
65 |
Simon Stelling states that maintainers can vouch for their own arch, but it's |
66 |
hard to tell another arch team how to handle their own system. |
67 |
|
68 |
Grant Goodyear states that the arch teams need to intervine because they deal |
69 |
with the entire tree and how packages relate to each other, rather than the |
70 |
maintainer who deals with their own package. He also states the point of |
71 |
this whole discussion was to seperate arch teams from package maintainers. |
72 |
|
73 |
Diego Pettenò states that maintainers still need a way to suggest things be |
74 |
marked stable. |
75 |
|
76 |
Stuart Herbert states that the maint keyword is still needed for maintainers |
77 |
to suggest something be marked for stable. He also agrees with something |
78 |
similiar to what jstubbs requested regarding seperate packages and arch |
79 |
trees. |
80 |
|
81 |
Jason Wever states that he likes to keep the tree the way it is, but mentions |
82 |
that arch maintainers stating that something (such as a scripting language) |
83 |
may seem cross platform, but certain core elements of the language may have |
84 |
broken architecture dependant code that causes it to crash. This is the |
85 |
instance where arch maintainers would "know better". |
86 |
|
87 |
Ciaran McCreesh states that some package maintainers violate QA policies and |
88 |
need to be overriden by arch teams. He also brings up that candidates for |
89 |
stable are already marked ~arch and that something that shouldn't be |
90 |
considered for stable should be in package.mask. |
91 |
|
92 |
Stuart Herbert states that package.mask is generally diffult to get supported |
93 |
(ie. users won't readily file bug reports). |
94 |
|
95 |
Daniel Goller asks if this means we're dumping untested work onto our users. |
96 |
|
97 |
Stuart Herbert replies that this is not the case, and that users are the only |
98 |
resource we really have for testing (ie. we lack test guidelines and tools). |
99 |
He mentions PHP5 package.mask and seperate overlays, and that the seperate |
100 |
overlays got more feedback than did package.mask-ing (as with things such as |
101 |
Gentopia). |
102 |
|
103 |
R Hill confirms this and states that package.mask seems to bring an unwanted |
104 |
"we won't support this unless you provide patches" sort of approach, while |
105 |
overlays are specifically made for the purpose and welcome any sort of |
106 |
reporting. |
107 |
|
108 |
Kevin F. Quinn states a list of things that the x86 arch team should compose |
109 |
of (listed here [2] to keep this email shorter). |
110 |
|
111 |
Ciaran McCreesh states that the ebuild quiz (point in [2]) is not difficult |
112 |
and should still be kept that way. |
113 |
|
114 |
Kevin F. Quinn states that the ebuild quiz is mainly oriented towards |
115 |
developers as the audience, and is not recommended for users that are simply |
116 |
told to "test a package and note the USE flag configuration, seeing what |
117 |
happens". |
118 |
|
119 |
Nathan L. Adams states that users need to work with both an ebuild quiz and a |
120 |
qa testing quiz |
121 |
|
122 |
Homer Parker states that an arch testing quiz is a good idea and mentions the |
123 |
amd64 one centralized for QA and troubleshooting. He also notes that while |
124 |
some arch testers become devs, some are simply content with arch testing. |
125 |
|
126 |
Tom Martin mentions that the maintainer arch is valid, and that the current |
127 |
policy is that no arch team should go past a maintainer in stable marking. |
128 |
He also states that some packages are taken up by non-x86 maintainers and |
129 |
don't have x86 keywording because of that. He also mentions that the x86 |
130 |
team should be small considering the number of packages that will be changed |
131 |
as a result. |
132 |
|
133 |
Nathan L. Adams states a policy should be created whereas maintainers have a |
134 |
maint keyword, arch teams don't go past that, and they can optionally deal |
135 |
with their own maintainer arch. |
136 |
|
137 |
Ciaran McCreesh and Stuart Herbert agree that the x86 team needs to be |
138 |
coordinated and a full arch team. |
139 |
|
140 |
Daniel Goller mentions that if arch teams could not override some overly picky |
141 |
package maitnainers, their powers would be very limited. |
142 |
|
143 |
Stuart Herbert also states that arch maintainers can be somewhat overly picky |
144 |
as well and that the problem comes from both sides. He then goes to state |
145 |
that arch teams that override package maintainers should take on the burden |
146 |
of support. |
147 |
|
148 |
Ciaran McCreesh states that ~arch keywording is just for that purpose, and |
149 |
that a maintainer shouldn't put something in ~arch if it's not stable |
150 |
capable. |
151 |
|
152 |
Some more discussion follows asking that ~arch be used as the stable ready |
153 |
marker. It also is stated that ~arch is not about testing for a package |
154 |
readiness, but more ebuild readiness. |
155 |
|
156 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31060 |
157 |
[2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31100 |
158 |
|
159 |
Chris White |
160 |
|
161 |
-- |
162 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |