1 |
On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:54:35 PM EDT Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 10:22 AM, David Seifert <soap@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Hi William, |
4 |
> > |
5 |
> > given the massive inactivity of the sparc and hppa arches, I would like |
6 |
> > to request dropping their profiles to 'dev'. I would like two votes: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > 1) Should sparc be dropped to a 'dev' profile? |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > 2) Should hppa be dropped to a 'dev' profile? |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > I hope this can clear a lot of the STABLEREQ and KEYWORDREQ backlog |
13 |
> > that is making maintenance in Gentoo cumbersome. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I am against moving these to dev profiles for all the reasons MichaĆ gives. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> For everyone's information, sparc is in its current state because |
18 |
> bender, our sparc development system hosted at OSUOSL died in April |
19 |
> and Infra has not fixed it for whatever reason. I have contacted |
20 |
> Oracle about donating modern hardware to the Gentoo Foundation and |
21 |
> they expressed interest, but nothing concrete has happened yet. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Jack Morgan also decided to retire about the same time because of the |
24 |
> apparent crusade to drop support for architectures like sparc. |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
So all we had was one system and a couple of testers on sparc? No one seems |
28 |
to have complained others than those folks who were impacted by the lack of |
29 |
response and time from sparc. |
30 |
|
31 |
> As an arch tester, I can tell you that it's horribly boring and |
32 |
> tedious work. I'd be happy to drop most keywords to ~arch (and Tobias |
33 |
> and I have agreed to do exactly this for alpha). In my experience as a |
34 |
> member of the MIPS team I can also tell you that fully ~arch is |
35 |
> terrible for stage building -- you're constantly dealing with generic |
36 |
> unstable problems and not with anything specific to the architecture |
37 |
> or stage building. Dropping profiles to dev/exp only exacerbate this |
38 |
> problem. |
39 |
> |
40 |
|
41 |
I don't think alpha is the problem here. Alpha is actually pretty good IIRC. |
42 |
Why change anything on alpha? |
43 |
|
44 |
> As such, I suggest that instead we consider dropping everything |
45 |
> outside of the @system set (and its dependencies) to ~arch for select |
46 |
> architectures. This will ensure that the core system remains stable |
47 |
> and stage building goes as smoothly as possible. With the |
48 |
> significantly reduced stabilization work load, I suspect that the arch |
49 |
> testers can keep up with keyword requests and stabilization requests |
50 |
> for @system packages. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> I don't think we need council to be involved in this case. Please have |
53 |
> a little more patience until this can be done. |
54 |
|
55 |
Council definitely needs to be involved. Everytime this conversation has been |
56 |
brought up nothing changes. The only thing *sure* to change is the |
57 |
involvement of the respective arch testers. It is an almost "strike" like |
58 |
mentality when someone debates the relevancy of said architectures. |
59 |
|
60 |
Letting the broader user base suffer at the behest of a few minor arch teams |
61 |
is not useful for anyone. |
62 |
|
63 |
-Aaron |