Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2017-09-10
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2017 18:08:14
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items -- council meeting 2017-09-10 by Michael Orlitzky
1 W dniu pon, 04.09.2017 o godzinie 13∶52 -0400, użytkownik Michael
2 Orlitzky napisał:
3 > On 09/04/2017 01:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
4 > >
5 > > I don't like marking profiles non-stable because it disables CI
6 > > checks on pull requests, so whatever people do with those keywords,
7 > > we no longer verify it.
8 >
9 > I think that's the idea: I could remove the ebuilds with two-year old
10 > security problems that are still waiting for a sparc stabilization and
11 > not be accused of breaking the tree.
12 >
14 I would really prefer if our priority would be making a good
15 distribution rather than making excuses for breaking stuff purposefully.
17 As far as I'm concerned, if you consider degrading an architecture to
18 non-stable profile, then it's pretty much equivalent to killing
19 the support for the architecture altogether. Especially when the sole
20 purpose is to let people break everything randomly.
22 I really do think that it'd be better to drop everything to ~arch first,
23 at least for sparc, and see how that works out. If arch teams still
24 can't cope with the requests, we can look into removing keywords from
25 individual packages along with fixing the dependency graph. Allowing
26 broken dependency graph should only be a last resort.
28 Compare this with arm64, and how much effort it takes for the arm64 team
29 to fix their completely broken dependency graph. And until they finish
30 that, we can't enable testing for arm64 depgraph by default, so people
31 may still commit breakage.
33 --
34 Best regards,
35 Michał Górny