| 1 |
On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 22:01 -0700, Yury German wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 5/10/17 12:40 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 5/10/17 3:29 PM, David Seifert wrote: |
| 5 |
> > So let's make sure we're on the same page -- here's my |
| 6 |
> > understanding. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > 1) For @system packages, we will have KEYWORDS="ppc" for the stable |
| 9 |
> > versions and KEYWORDS="~ppc" for the rest. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So is this only for PPC or PPC64 as well? |
| 12 |
> Both are security supported arches, but if you are going this route |
| 13 |
> they |
| 14 |
> will be dropped to non-secured arches leaving: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> alpha, amd64, hppa, x86. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > 2) For non @system packages we will remove both ppc and ~ppc |
| 20 |
> > keywords. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > 3) If for some reason I need to add back a package to |
| 23 |
> > build/maintain |
| 24 |
> > stage3/4, I will rekeyword myself, but other than that, we will |
| 25 |
> > *not* |
| 26 |
> > balloon the keywords. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > 4) I will take on the responsibility of stabilizing ppc @system |
| 29 |
> > packages |
| 30 |
> > if need be. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> So just to be clear, any developer can rekeyword a package to ~ppc? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
1. ppc(= 32 bit) will be massively dekeyworded, ppc64 will stay |
| 38 |
unchanged (also given that it is an active arch in general and gets CPU |
| 39 |
upgrades from IBM/OpenPOWER). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
2. In general, no. The proposal will be such that keywording should |
| 42 |
only be done to aid bootstrapping, not randomly add packages you think |
| 43 |
might be nice. The whole point of this exercise is to not have to |
| 44 |
repeat this whole thing again in 2 years, just because someone found a |
| 45 |
bunch of packages interesting. If there really is a dedicated team up |
| 46 |
to the task and demonstrably active in keywording/stablereq'ing, we can |
| 47 |
reconsider. |
Archives