[gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Michael Orlitzky]

I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
arch teams.

Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3719 bytes --]

>>>>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2015, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their
> own packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off
> of the arch teams.

> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down
> anywhere?

Sure it is. :) For amd64 it is documented in an e-mail to gentoo-core
and a discussion in #gentoo-dev from 2007. I include both below.
(kingtaco was the amd64 team lead at the time.)

x86 has similar rules:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711

Ulrich


| Message-ID: <473A496C.4020405@gentoo.org>
| From: Mike Doty <kingtaco@gentoo.org>
| To: Gentoo Core <gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org>
| CC: amd64@gentoo.org
| Subject: [gentoo-core] AMD64 keywords
| Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:03:40 -0800
| 
| All-
| 
|   Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your
| help.  We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1] and [2].
|  It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release even more.
| 
| If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for amd64
| stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword
| your packages.
| 
| I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off.
| 
| Mike Doty
| 
| [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp
| [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56
| -- 
| gentoo-core@gentoo.org mailing list

<ulm> !herd amd64
<jeeves> ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox,
	 dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop,
	 rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2
<ulm> ^^ping
<kingtaco|work> yes?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages
      in app-emacs
<kingtaco|work> gah
<ulm> kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it
<kingtaco|work> well
<kingtaco|work> do you run stable amd64?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent anyway
<kingtaco|work> ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths.  you can file
		the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64
		root using portage, I would allow you to keyword
<kingtaco|work> I assume you're trying to make the snapshot?
<ulm> kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice
<ulm> it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86
<kingtaco|work> ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of stuff
		to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the
		emacs herd do the keywording
<ulm> kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;)
<ulm> kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway
<kingtaco|work> ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage as the
		pkg manager
<kingtaco|work> and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the alternatives
* phreak`` runs
<phreak``> better fast I take it
<phreak``> :P
<hparker> it's not like anyone uses emacs
* hparker runs
<kingtaco|work> phreak``, nope.  I don't care if other devs use is for
		whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage
<phreak``> hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;)
<hparker> phreak``: I know ;)
<kingtaco|work> and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-)
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs, too)
      to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume?
<kingtaco|work> ulm, jup
<kingtaco|work> ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than happy to
		let herds do the keywording

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Mikle Kolyada]

08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
> arch teams.
>
> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
>

amd64/x86 are major arches. They can be stabilized if package maintainer
has appropriate hardware. Even without arch teams membership.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> 
> 08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
>> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
>> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
>> arch teams.
>>
>> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
>>
> 
> amd64/x86 are major arches. They can be stabilized if package maintainer
> has appropriate hardware. Even without arch teams membership.
> 

What's a major arch? The devmanual still says[0],

  Moving a package from ~arch to arch is done only by the relevant arch
  teams.

According to [1] that section is no longer correct, but only x86 and
amd64 are exceptions to the rule that used to be exceptions but then
weren't anymore.

I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.


[0] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Matthias Maier]

>
> I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
>

Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
best practices would be nice to have. (Alternatively a link to the
respective arch team documentation - if such stuff exists.)

Best,
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Mikle Kolyada]

08.01.2015 21:12, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
> On 01/08/2015 12:57 PM, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
>> 08.01.2015 20:15, Michael Orlitzky пишет:
>>> I vaguely remember a discussion about maintainers stabilizing their own
>>> packages -- maybe just on x86 and amd64 -- to take the load off of the
>>> arch teams.
>>>
>>> Did that really happen or am I making it up? Is it written down anywhere?
>>>
>> amd64/x86 are major arches. They can be stabilized if package maintainer
>> has appropriate hardware. Even without arch teams membership.
>>
> What's a major arch? The devmanual still says[0],
>
>   Moving a package from ~arch to arch is done only by the relevant arch
>   teams.
>
> According to [1] that section is no longer correct, but only x86 and
> amd64 are exceptions to the rule that used to be exceptions but then
> weren't anymore.
>
> I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
>
>
> [0] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/index.html
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/89711
>
>

Major arches are amd64 and x86, nothing more. There is a bug for it
already [1]

[1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=510198

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 01/08/2015 01:42 PM, Matthias Maier wrote:
> 
>>
>> I'm going to write a devmanual patch but don't want to sound like a lunatic.
>>
> 
> Also, an informal definition on what is supposed to be appropriate
> hardware and userland (e.g. clean amd64 profile) and what are keywording
> best practices would be nice to have. (Alternatively a link to the
> respective arch team documentation - if such stuff exists.)
> 

I found this after writing the patch:

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=510198

We can move discussion there I think.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Maintainer stabilizations

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 239 bytes --]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:00:16 +0300
Mikle Kolyada <zlogene@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Major arches are amd64 and x86, nothing more. There is a bug for it
> already [1]

Isn't x86 basically a dead legacy arch by now?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]