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

[Anthony G. Basile]

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.

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.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA