[gentoo-dev] arches.desc & GLEP 72 (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14)

[gentoo-dev] arches.desc & GLEP 72 (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14)

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 848 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 29. April 2017, 19:00:34 CEST schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> The Gentoo Council will be meeting in two weeks.  If anyone has any
> issues we need to discuss, please let me know and I'll put it on the
> agenda.  Thanks.

I've converted the arches.desc proposal into a GLEP, taking (some of) the 
mailing list comments into account.

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:72
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/GLEP:72

(the texts are identical at the moment, but if there are additional comments I 
can more easily adapt the version in my user space).

I would like the council to talk about it and potentially give it a go-ahead. 

An implementation is still missing though.

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] arches.desc & GLEP 72 (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1495 bytes --]

On sob, 2017-05-06 at 16:34 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 29. April 2017, 19:00:34 CEST schrieb Anthony G. Basile:
> > Hi everyone,
> > 
> > The Gentoo Council will be meeting in two weeks.  If anyone has any
> > issues we need to discuss, please let me know and I'll put it on the
> > agenda.  Thanks.
> 
> I've converted the arches.desc proposal into a GLEP, taking (some of) the 
> mailing list comments into account.
> 
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:72
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/GLEP:72
> 
> (the texts are identical at the moment, but if there are additional comments I 
> can more easily adapt the version in my user space).
> 
> I would like the council to talk about it and potentially give it a go-ahead. 
> 
> An implementation is still missing though.
> 

...and a rationale section to describe why you did the things this way.

Few notes:

1. I think your example is a bit misleading -- unless I'm missing
something, mips would be 'unstable' right now, and m68k would be
'testing'.

2. I can't say I like using magical keywords like 'testing'
and 'unstable'; they're going to be confusing long-term (compare:
the mess with stable/exp/dev for profiles). But I don't have a very good
idea how to it better right now.

3. What is the use case for 'broken'? Are we ever going to use that?

Plus, you have a few typos, you need to wikify it and other minor blah
blah.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 963 bytes --]