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

[Manuel Rüger]

On 07/26/2014 11:09 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 10:44:26 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 10:36 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
>>> 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...)
>>
>> I was thinking in this plan:
>> - Get a list with all packages stable on ppc
>> - Drop from that list what ppc teams want
>> - Run on all that packages ekeyword ~ppc*
>> - Run repoman to the full tree to fix the dependencies, use.stable.mask
>> some, tune the list of stable packages...
>
> ++ from Gentoo kde point of view
>

+1 from ruby.

How do we solve keyword requests?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477648 is ~ 12 months and hasn't
seen any reply from the ppc* teams.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497396 ~ 6 months
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487206 ~ 9 months
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487178 ~ 9 months

We can start dropping ppc* from dev-ruby/* if that eases maintenance and
gives you more time for core packages?

Cheers
Manuel