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

[Samuli Suominen]

On 26/07/14 13:22, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/26/14 04:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>>
>>
>
> 1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.

+1.   Only reason 'mips' was downgraded to 'exp' because there was
absolutely nobody working on it at the time. I tend
to regret that now. Also, aballier is using amd64-fbsd with 'stable' and
'dev', exactly to avoid breakage, since nobody
really checks for 'exp'

>
> 2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at
> once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.
>

+1