Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Johannes Huber <johu@gentoo.org>]

Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 10:44:26 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 10:36 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió:
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:07 -0500, William Hubbs escribió:
> > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> > > > On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> > > > >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > > > >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would
> > > > >>> be to
> > > > >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be
> > > > >>> accomplished
> > > > >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would
> > > > >>> solve
> > > > >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in
> > > > >>> the
> > > > >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary,
> > > > >>> have a
> > > > >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help
> > > > >>> people in
> > > > >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of
> > > > >>> being
> > > > >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as
> > > > >>> opposed
> > > > >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with
> > > > >>> tons
> > > > >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords
> > > > >>> years ago
> > > > >>> and are currently no so important.
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable.  I've been randomly
> > > > >> taking
> > > > >> care of ppc but nothing systematic.  Its pretty spotty.  But at the
> > > > >> same
> > > > >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization
> > > > >> effort
> > > > >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think
> > > > >> about
> > > > >> for mips too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base
> > > > > system :/
> > > > > 
> > > > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and...
> > > > > xorg-server
> > > > > and co... what more
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*,
> > > > > once
> > > > > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they
> > > > > want
> > > > > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you
> > > > > think
> > > > > about that?
> > > > 
> > > > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with
> > > > catalyst.
> > > > I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to
> > > > limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and
> > > > maintaining.  Where should we start to compile such a list?
> > > 
> > > If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's
> > > to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering
> > > the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about
> > > filing stable requests on them.
> > > 
> > > That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages.
> > > 
> > > William
> > 
> > But, moving ppc* to exp wouldn't lead us to likely break their tree?
> > (because we wouldn't get any dependency issue even with "base"
> > packages...)
> 
> I was thinking in this plan:
> - Get a list with all packages stable on ppc
> - Drop from that list what ppc teams want
> - Run on all that packages ekeyword ~ppc*
> - Run repoman to the full tree to fix the dependencies, use.stable.mask
> some, tune the list of stable packages...

++ from Gentoo kde point of view