Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sam Jorna <wraeth@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 02:35:41
Message-Id: 20160521023529.GA10821@nemesis.wraeth.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] new developers' keyword requests by Ian Delaney
1 On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:09:04AM +0800, Ian Delaney wrote:
2 > On Fri, 20 May 2016 16:00:02 +0200
3 > Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > > On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:36:22 -0700
6 > > Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote:
7 > >
8 > > > To make sure I understand what you're getting at, are you saying
9 > > > some devs get on board and then request to add keywords to packages
10 > > > that they already maintain? If said arches are already supported in
11 > > > Gentoo I see little problem with that, especially if they intend on
12 > > > being part of the arch testing team for that arch or have access to
13 > > > the hardware.
14 > >
15 > > I am not talking about adding architecture keywords to profiles/.
16 > > I am talking about adding architecture keywords to ebuilds.
17 > >
18 > >
19 > > Regards,
20 > > jer
21 > >
22 >
23 > Firstly I think previous replies have been de-railed on talking about
24 > new alternate arches, which personally I think is the last thing we
25 > need. If there is any confusion it is because the term keyword, like
26 > most terms in I.T. gets pushed and pulled and stretched until it breaks.
27 > To my understanding, KEYWORDS are arches. But being told to 'keyword' a
28 > package could mean perhaps, well, Hu knows.
29
30 I don't know of any other usages of "KEYWORDS" within Gentoo - to my
31 knowledge the only definition is a list of which architectures a package
32 is known to work or not work on, and an indication of the level of
33 testing and expected usability on that architecture.
34
35 Is there some other definition that I'm missing?
36
37 > Supporting users doing just this lately, I have come across this a few
38 > times. Users and new devs are expected to be very ignorant of minor
39 > arches, and despite having docs already informing them that they are
40 > short staffed and have enough to do, the practicalities of how and why
41 > to keyword request or not are still veiled in mystery. Users want to
42 > keyword according to what they see supported upstream just because
43 > they can. They appear to need it made manually clear to them that there
44 > are qualifiers and conditions for putting something up for keywording.
45 > These also I believe are as much as mystery to users as they are to
46 > devs.
47
48 Appropriate use of KEYWORDS is actually covered in the Developer
49 quizzes, so I would have instead expected new developers to be more
50 acutely aware of the fact that keywording on minor arches should be
51 generally reserved for an as-needed basis.
52
53 > How to establish a level of desire form userland to have gentoo
54 > support the arch in the package??
55 > How to establish sane rationale for it being put up for stable??
56 > The last I heard was along the lines of, well, only put it up if it has
57 > already been put up in the past.(someone in the past had a check list?)
58 >
59 > If anyone, the members of the arch teams might have some insights based
60 > upon first hand dealing with packages and their categories. Frankly,
61 > how you can expect or achieve users and new devs to assess these is
62 > more the issue, and I do not see there is any obvious path of becoming
63 > informed of the interest of an invisible audience; userland
64
65 As far as I know, users (as in non-maintainers - those out "in the wild")
66 can file keyword request bugs and it's up to the maintainer to then
67 determine relevancy and CC appropriate arch teams; and Bugzilla has a
68 voting feature[0] allowing users to indicate the strength of community
69 demand by voting on those bugs (which I have seen done previously).
70
71 [0] https://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#votes
72
73 --
74 Sam Jorna
75 GnuPG Key: D6180C26

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature