Hi Arthur,

thanks for taking the time to write this mail.

On 25/06/2024 19.33, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> ======== x86 ========
> 
> Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should
> be stable arch anymore.

I have the impression as well. The time to drop stable keywords for x86 
probably has come. But I always wonder if there is a x86 use-case we are 
not aware of. Therefore, if there is a group of x86 Gentoo users out 
there, then they should speak now and ideally elaborate a bit on their 
use case.


> ======== hppa ========
> 
> Sigh. Stable 64-bit arch. Out main Gentoo devbox died, and the second
> one is always stuck compiling gcc for stage3 (a compilation takes 7
> days). Here we have a fight in Arch Team. I prefer to destable it, Sam
> prefers to stable it. This one is tough.

It's not a fight, just a disagreement, or is it? ;)

Probably time would be better invested in other architectures. However, 
I remember sam saying that he has a special interested in hppa and there 
is nothing better than working on stuff that you care about. So maybe 
just give stable hppa a try and re-evaluate the situation in a year or so?


> ======== riscv ========
> 
> Dev arch. I don't have much info on it, but I heard some mess with
> riscv32 and riscv64, so maybe time to split it? I leave it to riscv arch
> team, which works quite well, but I'll be happy to open discussion for it.

IMHO should be split into 32- and 64-bit keywords. Ideally we would also 
consider renaming the 'riscv' keyword to 'riscv64', but maybe this ship 
has sailed?

What about (64-bit) RISC-V becoming stable? Not sure if they time for it 
has already come, but it certainly will come. I might gain access to a 
64-core RISC-V system (Milk-V Pioneer), so I could probably help with 
riscv stabilization.

- Flow