From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64471138BF3 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:43:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 126C6E0B0A; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C486E0B01 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.33] (85.red-80-28-180.adsl.static.ccgg.telefonica.net [80.28.180.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9D6A33FABF for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 13:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1392471813.18051.77.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: Assigning keyword/stable bugs to arch teams (WAS: [gentoo-dev] dropping redundant stable keywords) From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:43:33 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> References: <52E7DBC1.5020102@gentoo.org> <20140128182304.7d458a17@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140203062524.GA7467@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140203104341.2add2760@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140204210319.GA1935@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140205010833.1bcf8dca@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140213212818.GA2199@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> <20140214195958.5aea85f0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215012855.417f1caa@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20140215114157.6abe3da5@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20140215143021.231bab3f@marga.jer-c2.orkz.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 13760102-32ba-4024-8072-565675d8a180 X-Archives-Hash: 150b5f5055a8d9c70b88c4f44f7543f4 El sáb, 15-02-2014 a las 14:30 +0100, Jeroen Roovers escribió: [...] > The only reasonable course of action is to start dropping stable > keywords for $ARCH, after a reasonable timeout. It gets tricky if this > involves removing many keywords on dependencies, but if that's what you > have to do to keep cat/pkg (and eclasses and profiles) in shape, then > by all means _help_ _out_ $ARCH by doing it for them. If that means > removing stable/unstable support for an entire DM or scripting > framework, then so be it. I agree with this... but, if I don't misremember, there are others that don't want to do this :/ From the big Gnome 3.8 bug, I have noticed that we can only handle easily amd64 and x86. Probably arm in the future (at least Steev if putting lots of effort to trying to test it at runtime on his ARM devices... but it looks to be pretty hard). With ia64 I was able to find an arch tester that is helping really a lot, but for the rest of arches... (ppc, ppc64, alpha, sparc), I have been unable to even find arch testers that could help. Personally, I think that, before starting to discuss what to do with "uncommon" arches we would need to decide how to test things on this arches: - Compile test only -> if we agree on this, probably the current situation can be kept a bit more - Runtime test required -> this will for sure need to start to dropping lots of packages to "testing only". I am not strongly in favor of any of them but I think we need to agree on what to do. Current situation is like a ugly mix: bugs are piled for a long long time until some people goes ahead and does the compile test only. And I think they do what probably is the current only way to do until we decide what kind of testing we want for this more "exotic" arches.