| 1 |
07.05.2017 22:23, David Seifert пишет: |
| 2 |
> TL;DR |
| 3 |
> ia64/ppc/sparc teams are pretty much dead. They have been for a long |
| 4 |
> time and this won't change any time soon. Gentoo should focus its |
| 5 |
> resources on archs that are important and has the manpower to support. |
| 6 |
> Let us please drop these 3 archs to dev profiles to ease maintenance. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Dear all, |
| 9 |
> I'd like to request Council to consider my motion to drop the |
| 10 |
> ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev (or exp). These arches are pretty much |
| 11 |
> dead, minus the automated workflows of ago. Two months ago I have |
| 12 |
> written to these 3 archs, and only received one reply from ppc agreeing |
| 13 |
> with my sentiment, with no response from ia64 or sparc, which in itself |
| 14 |
> is pretty telling. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Currently, architecture projects think adding their keywords is a |
| 17 |
> right, which I strongly disagree with. I believe being able to add (and |
| 18 |
> stable) your keywords is a privilege - namely it carries with it the |
| 19 |
> duty to react to keywording and stabilization requests in a timely |
| 20 |
> manner. Let's compare the state of ia64/ppc/sparc to, say alpha: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=605278 |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> alpha was keyworded within 6 hours. To date ia64/ppc/sparc are still |
| 25 |
> not keyworded (the bot had some breakages due to jer again shifting |
| 26 |
> around all the bugs). Within 4 months these arches have not managed to |
| 27 |
> keyword those 4 packages. This is I believe the most striking example |
| 28 |
> of how the only work done for these archs are ago's automated stablereq |
| 29 |
> scripts. Why do I saw that keywording+stabling your arch is a |
| 30 |
> privilege? Maintenance of packages is hampered by archs not stabling, |
| 31 |
> because we cannot clean up broken packages. Adding keywords is a two- |
| 32 |
> way street - if you don't act speedily, you're breaking part of the |
| 33 |
> maintainer-arch social contract. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> Please don't turn this into a massive bikeshedding contest and just |
| 36 |
> admit that it is extremely unlikely that these archs will see more |
| 37 |
> activity in the near future. We should focus our resources on more |
| 38 |
> important archs (arm64 maybe?) instead of these. I know you have that |
| 39 |
> old Mac G4 or UltraSPARC sitting in your closet that you're 2 days away |
| 40 |
> from installing Gentoo on, but the pain for maintainers and the rest of |
| 41 |
> the community is just too great. If someone steps up to do the work, we |
| 42 |
> can then move archs back to a stable profile, but so long as they |
| 43 |
> linger in their present state, let's call a spade a spade. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Anyhow, I formally request the Council to vote on dropping these archs |
| 46 |
> to unstable/exp profiles for the next Council meeting, explicitly |
| 47 |
> overriding any arch concerns that are likely to awake now and going to |
| 48 |
> be running around like headless chicken. |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> David |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
Against. Do not touch things you are not working on, council has already |
| 53 |
dropped m68k s390 and sh to exp few years ago. Now we have a big mess |
| 54 |
there and only, while ia64 sparc and co have slow but progress and |
| 55 |
mature enough stable profiles. |
Archives