| 1 |
I'm replying here because I couldn't decide whether or not it made |
| 2 |
more sense to reply to your email, your blog post, your reply to |
| 3 |
flameeyes blog post, your radio commercial, your television |
| 4 |
advertisement, or your phone call. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The things that this doesn't do (Or if it does it isn't documented) is |
| 7 |
account for: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
*packages where there is no stable version on that arch. (Or does |
| 10 |
adjutrix still suggest keywording.. its unclear) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
* This doesn't address the initial claim that versions of packages are |
| 13 |
in the tree waiting on only a mips/lesser supported arch to keyword |
| 14 |
them. It only says that some arch has keyworded a package stable, and |
| 15 |
others havn't, this does not show that version N is only in the tree |
| 16 |
because of arch xyz (which is why I stated that adjutrix doesn't do |
| 17 |
this). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
* The numberes themselves could be considdered useless as it only |
| 20 |
shows packages which have been marked ~ on that arch in the past (not |
| 21 |
missing keywords)-- Therefore on an arch like x86/amd64 where more |
| 22 |
packages have been tested, there will be more to stabilize. (I realize |
| 23 |
that this doesn't really affect the initial claim any, just pointing |
| 24 |
out how the numbers are not that representative. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
On 2/19/07, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@×××××××.org> wrote: |
| 28 |
> It is widely perceived that Gentoo has a huge problem with slacker |
| 29 |
> archs cluttering up the tree and making maintainers' work harder. |
| 30 |
> Clearly, something needs to be done about this. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> I think the first step is to establish what all the problem |
| 33 |
> architectures are. We all know that mips is by far the worst offender, |
| 34 |
> but by how much? Rather than speculating wildly, I decided to make use |
| 35 |
> of adjutrix and wc to find out. So, here we have a table showing just |
| 36 |
> how much mips is a slacker arch: |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Arch Number of packages where this arch is slacking |
| 39 |
> ================ ============================================== |
| 40 |
> m68k 37 |
| 41 |
> ppc-macos 56 |
| 42 |
> sh 84 |
| 43 |
> s390 87 |
| 44 |
> arm 120 |
| 45 |
> sparc 155 |
| 46 |
> hppa 176 |
| 47 |
> ia64 221 |
| 48 |
> ppc64 278 |
| 49 |
> mips 292 |
| 50 |
> ppc 359 |
| 51 |
> alpha 361 |
| 52 |
> amd64 413 |
| 53 |
> x86 560 |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> As expected, supporting minority archs is leading to tree-wide bloat |
| 56 |
> and huge initial rsync times for users. Clearly something has to be |
| 57 |
> done to protect Gentoo from those useless minority archs! I mean, how |
| 58 |
> many users do we *really* have using amd64 or x86? |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Ciaran McCreesh |
| 62 |
> Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org |
| 63 |
> Web : http://ciaranm.org/ |
| 64 |
> Paludis, the secure package manager : http://paludis.pioto.org/ |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives