1 |
On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Kumba wrote: |
2 |
> Well, I guess it's something that's been needing to be faced for some time |
3 |
> now, as difficult as it is to do. Regardless of the accusations and |
4 |
> counter-accusations flying around in this thread, I'll just go ahead and |
5 |
> state the fact that yes, we are a "slacker arch". |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Why? Because there's just no time anymore these days and no one left |
8 |
> really of the original team. And a lot of that really is my fault. Tuxus |
9 |
> may have laid the first keel of our ship, but I was the one who, so long |
10 |
> ago, made her seaworthy and crewed her. But now, she's largely a ghost |
11 |
> ship -- adrift in the seas, and a hazard to the other ships. |
12 |
|
13 |
thanks ... you've always been a straight shooter without any bs mixed in. |
14 |
|
15 |
> 1. It's been suggested that mips drop all stable keywords ('mips') leaving |
16 |
> unstable keywords as-is ('~mips'). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> That said, however, I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a patch |
19 |
> to portage that wipes out all our stable keywords in one go. I think it |
20 |
> would be more appropriate to phase such a change in gently, because as far |
21 |
> as I know, no one else has really done this. The other archs typically |
22 |
> maintain a stable/unstable set of keywords in the tree. So I think this |
23 |
> should be managed by the profiles. I've been needing to do some profile |
24 |
> cleanup anyways, so I can probably fiddle with a 2008.0-dev profile set to |
25 |
> only do ~arch, and then see how that goes. |
26 |
|
27 |
that certainly sounds reasonable to me. if the stable cant be maintained, let |
28 |
the common workflow of developers transition it back to ~arch until someone |
29 |
has the time to keep arch usable. changing profiles.desc accordingly should |
30 |
be done ahead of time. perhaps a new category for profiles.desc ? "exp" for |
31 |
such ports ? i could see all *-fbsd ports being moved there. tweak repoman |
32 |
to be less verbose about dep issues for such profiles and we're set. |
33 |
|
34 |
> 3. Should Gentoo even continue to support mips? |
35 |
|
36 |
i see dropping keywords as a very last resort. getting a port *back* into the |
37 |
tree is a *tremendous* amount of work (i went through it and it was hell), |
38 |
while keeping ~arch alive is a sliver of effort and generally not a blocker |
39 |
for package maintainers. |
40 |
|
41 |
> Do people even *use* mips? |
42 |
|
43 |
mips certainly sees use on the embedded side. there should be no doubt |
44 |
whatsoever about its usage. |
45 |
-mike |