| 1 |
Dnia 2013-09-15, o godz. 11:03:28 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > At least from a gnome perspective, we are having some important delays |
| 6 |
> > with some arches: |
| 7 |
> > - Pending keyword requests: |
| 8 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351931 -> sh and sparc |
| 9 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478254 -> alpha,arm, ia64, ppc*, |
| 10 |
> > sparc |
| 11 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478256 -> the same |
| 12 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387959 -> sh, sparc |
| 13 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469722 -> s390 (this is probably |
| 14 |
> > the worst case as they are then having a buggy old version) |
| 15 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469982 -> s390 |
| 16 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471752 -> alpha, ia64, ppc*, |
| 17 |
> > sparc |
| 18 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472510 -> s390 |
| 19 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476710 -> alpha, arm, ia64, |
| 20 |
> > ppc*, sh, sparc, x86 |
| 21 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478082 -> alpha, sparc |
| 22 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466560 -> s390 |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So, s390 and m68k seem to be the biggest problems in this thread in |
| 26 |
> general as far as specific examples go, but the list above has some |
| 27 |
> very stale bugs from a number of the other minor archs. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I really don't think this is a case of one-offs. Maybe gnome is |
| 30 |
> especially problematic, but the problem seems to be larger than that. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> As I see it we really only have two sustainable options: |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> 1. Drop stable keywords on these arches wholesale. |
| 35 |
> 2. Allow maintainers to be more aggressive about dropping stable |
| 36 |
> packages when bugs are not closed in a reasonable timeframe (say, 90 |
| 37 |
> days). |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> I suspect that #1 may be inevitable for some of these archs, but I'm |
| 40 |
> certainly willing to try #2 first and see where that leaves us. I |
| 41 |
> don't like the idea of maintainers having to maintain old versions of |
| 42 |
> things like gnome because arch teams put in some time in years past |
| 43 |
> but aren't interested in the newer version/etc. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
What about their reverse dependencies? Are we dropping them from stable |
| 46 |
as well? I'm afraid this will quickly end up quite equivalent to |
| 47 |
dropping stable completely, since most of the system won't be stable |
| 48 |
anymore. It may also be close to dropping the support for arch |
| 49 |
completely. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
For example, m68k still didn't handle keywordreq for python-exec or |
| 52 |
stablereq on new Python versions. Which means that in some time, we |
| 53 |
will be dropping Python from stable m68k (is there a point for stable |
| 54 |
m68k at all then?), and then -- due to inability to use new Python |
| 55 |
eclasses -- dropping Python from ~m68k as well. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
Best regards, |
| 59 |
Michał Górny |
Archives