1 |
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 02:40:38 +0200 |
2 |
Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 2018-10-12 01:38, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
5 |
> >> Maybe it is time to destabilize ARM on Gentoo to stop the impression |
6 |
> >> that we really support ARM. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > [ CC: arm@ ] |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > A few points to think about: |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > 1. I have read this as a direct statement that ARM is not maintained. |
13 |
> > I don't think it is a fair (or constructive) assessment of team's work |
14 |
> > on ARM front. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> See the ARM bug queue for stable requests. ARM is always last and behind |
17 |
> since we dropped HPPA. |
18 |
|
19 |
I agree it lags. I disagree it's not maintained (I disagree HPPA is not |
20 |
maintained either but let's leave it for another day). Let's wait for arm@ input. |
21 |
|
22 |
I'm CCing all members as listed in https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ARM directly: |
23 |
zerochaos@ |
24 |
[skip alicef@ (kernel stabilization)] |
25 |
blueness@ |
26 |
dilfridge@ |
27 |
dlan@ |
28 |
maekke@ |
29 |
nerdboy@ |
30 |
vapier@ |
31 |
xmw@ |
32 |
zlogene@ |
33 |
|
34 |
And asking a few the questions directly (zerochaos@ as a lead and the arm@ team): |
35 |
|
36 |
a) If you are not planning to do any arm@ work in short term can you remove |
37 |
yourself from project's wiki page? |
38 |
|
39 |
b) Can you update your status in arm project to mention if you are |
40 |
doing any stabilization work so people could contact you occasionally? |
41 |
|
42 |
c) Is it in your opinion worth keeping arm@ stable? (Do you use stable, do you |
43 |
expect people to use stable, etc.) |
44 |
|
45 |
Thanks! |
46 |
|
47 |
> > 2. The bug was created less than a week ago and was not communicated |
48 |
> > explicitly as urgent on #gentoo-arm. I see failure to handle the bug |
49 |
> > as a communication failure and not a team's death signal. |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > Were there any attempts to reach out to the teams or just arm users? |
52 |
> |
53 |
> Bug was assigned highest priority in bugzilla. But it looks like ARM arch |
54 |
> team is ignoring set priority. |
55 |
|
56 |
I personally don't filter emails by priority either. I guess I should now :) |
57 |
|
58 |
> *I* didn't asked in #gentoo-arm but I pinged project several times in |
59 |
> #gentoo-dev channel. |
60 |
|
61 |
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:ARM explicitly lists #gentoo-arm. |
62 |
In my experience there are quite a few active users of arm. |
63 |
|
64 |
> Disclaimer: I am not the maintainer of unbound nor dnssec-root package. I took |
65 |
> action last week after I noticed that there was a time bomb ticking and |
66 |
> nobody cared. I fully agree that an updated dnssec-root package could have been |
67 |
> made available one year ago giving everyone enough time... |
68 |
|
69 |
Do we do anything about it? Post GLSA, news item, gento-users@, anything to get |
70 |
users notified? Or just leave them uninformed? |
71 |
|
72 |
> > 4. net-dns/dnssec-root is used by a single(ish) package in tree: net-dns/unbound |
73 |
> > |
74 |
> > Which is: not a system package, not a default package, not suggested by handbook |
75 |
> > package, can operate without DNSSEC enabled. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> Unbound is a popular resolver and many Gentoo users are operating ARM-based |
78 |
> routers. I don't get your point. Of course you could disable DNSSEC and DNS |
79 |
> will resume working. But is this really your point? |
80 |
> |
81 |
> > While annoying it's not going to lock users out or corrupt their data. |
82 |
> |
83 |
> Right, it doesn't cause data corruption. But when your Gentoo-based router |
84 |
> will stop working this can be a problem. Don't forget about remote systems. |
85 |
> Again, people who know how to deal with problems like that aren't the |
86 |
> problem. But why do we care about stable packages if we assume that everyone |
87 |
> knows what to do when experiencing problems? |
88 |
|
89 |
My point that this bug is not critical. Broken software happens all the time. |
90 |
I can understand why you think otherwise. |
91 |
|
92 |
> > 5. net-dns/dnssec-root is a plain-text file package. It should have been ALLARCHES |
93 |
> > stablewithout involvement of arm@. |
94 |
> |
95 |
> It wasn't about dnssec-root package. Of course this could have been stabilized |
96 |
> under ALLARCHES policy. It wasn't because package has a new dependency |
97 |
> (>=dev-perl/XML-XPath-1.420.0 + deps) which was lacking stable keywords, too. |
98 |
|
99 |
Thank you! That was not clear from the bug. |
100 |
|
101 |
> If ARM can keep up I am quiet. But please, be honest. We don't need another |
102 |
> HPPA. Nobody will win something if we tell world "ARM is a first class citizen |
103 |
> in Gentoo" when it isn't (anymore). But if people would know it is ~ARCH, we |
104 |
> would not disappoint expectations. |
105 |
|
106 |
I think arm@ is the best decider here. |
107 |
|
108 |
-- |
109 |
|
110 |
Sergei |