[gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Samuli Suominen]

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
the new virtuals,
and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
pending for 3 months already

thanks,
samuli

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
> the new virtuals,
> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
> already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
> pending for 3 months already
> 
> thanks,
> samuli
> 

This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches. I
know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and does all
the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work trying to keep this
arches in shape), but also makes me thing if makes sense to keep this
agostino-dependency for this arches more and more time. What will occur
if he is not around sometime? :/

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
>> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and
>> also blocking stabilization of the already converted packages
>> (gnome seems to have some) pending for 3 months already
>> 
>> thanks, samuli
>> 
> 
> This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches.
> I know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and
> does all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work
> trying to keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if
> makes sense to keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more
> and more time. What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/
> 
> 

We have been through the same discussion not so long ago and the
result was to start dropping the ~m68k, s390 and sh to ~testing[1]. In
the thread that started it all[2] there has been no resistance about
dropping the keywords of these arches on $subject and here we are
again discussing the problem. Here[3] you can see council's decision.
I quote here just for fyi:

"In summary:
- - m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally.
- - alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according
  to the "package-by-package" proposal.
- - sparc: No action.
"
So unless I make a mistake, you are free to start dropping alpha, ia64
to ~arch. For ppc,ppc64 and sparc it's probably best to resurrect the
old thread and possible have add it to the agenda for the next meeting.

[1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88183
[2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/277054
[3]
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=
=uPfn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
> >> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and
> >> also blocking stabilization of the already converted packages
> >> (gnome seems to have some) pending for 3 months already
> >> 
> >> thanks, samuli
> >> 
> > 
> > This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches.
> > I know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and
> > does all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work
> > trying to keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if
> > makes sense to keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more
> > and more time. What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/
> > 
> > 
> 
> We have been through the same discussion not so long ago and the
> result was to start dropping the ~m68k, s390 and sh to ~testing[1]. In
> the thread that started it all[2] there has been no resistance about
> dropping the keywords of these arches on $subject and here we are
> again discussing the problem. Here[3] you can see council's decision.
> I quote here just for fyi:
> 
> "In summary:
> - m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally.
> - alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according
>   to the "package-by-package" proposal.
> - sparc: No action.
> "
> So unless I make a mistake, you are free to start dropping alpha, ia64
> to ~arch. For ppc,ppc64 and sparc it's probably best to resurrect the
> old thread and possible have add it to the agenda for the next meeting.
> 
> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88183
> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/277054
> [3]
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
> 

The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to
be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't
have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a
stabilization bug that affects me I cross my fingers expecting ago has
enough time to handle them ;))

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Markos Chandras]

On 06/01/2014 01:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
>> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
>>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
>>>> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and
>>>> also blocking stabilization of the already converted packages
>>>> (gnome seems to have some) pending for 3 months already
>>>>
>>>> thanks, samuli
>>>>
>>>
>>> This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches.
>>> I know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and
>>> does all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work
>>> trying to keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if
>>> makes sense to keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more
>>> and more time. What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We have been through the same discussion not so long ago and the
>> result was to start dropping the ~m68k, s390 and sh to ~testing[1]. In
>> the thread that started it all[2] there has been no resistance about
>> dropping the keywords of these arches on $subject and here we are
>> again discussing the problem. Here[3] you can see council's decision.
>> I quote here just for fyi:
>>
>> "In summary:
>> - m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally.
>> - alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according
>>   to the "package-by-package" proposal.
>> - sparc: No action.
>> "
>> So unless I make a mistake, you are free to start dropping alpha, ia64
>> to ~arch. For ppc,ppc64 and sparc it's probably best to resurrect the
>> old thread and possible have add it to the agenda for the next meeting.
>>
>> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88183
>> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/277054
>> [3]
>> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
>>
> 
> The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to
> be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't
> have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a
> stabilization bug that affects me I cross my fingers expecting ago has
> enough time to handle them ;))
> 
> 

Relying on a single developer handling all architectures clearly does
not scale and it is dangerous. We really need to be realistic and
consider how many stable alpha/sparc/ia64/ppc* users are out there. In
my mind the number is rather small, so does it really worth the effort
trying to keep them stable hurting the remaining stable architectures
and causing significant delays in publishing GLSAs?
The reason I suggested to move the discussion back to the old thread is
that some of these things have already been discussed in the past so I
would like to avoid restarting the discussion from scratch.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Pacho Ramos]

El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:59 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> On 06/01/2014 01:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió:
> >> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió:
> >>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking
> >>>> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and
> >>>> also blocking stabilization of the already converted packages
> >>>> (gnome seems to have some) pending for 3 months already
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks, samuli
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches.
> >>> I know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and
> >>> does all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work
> >>> trying to keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if
> >>> makes sense to keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more
> >>> and more time. What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> We have been through the same discussion not so long ago and the
> >> result was to start dropping the ~m68k, s390 and sh to ~testing[1]. In
> >> the thread that started it all[2] there has been no resistance about
> >> dropping the keywords of these arches on $subject and here we are
> >> again discussing the problem. Here[3] you can see council's decision.
> >> I quote here just for fyi:
> >>
> >> "In summary:
> >> - m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally.
> >> - alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according
> >>   to the "package-by-package" proposal.
> >> - sparc: No action.
> >> "
> >> So unless I make a mistake, you are free to start dropping alpha, ia64
> >> to ~arch. For ppc,ppc64 and sparc it's probably best to resurrect the
> >> old thread and possible have add it to the agenda for the next meeting.
> >>
> >> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88183
> >> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/277054
> >> [3]
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt
> >>
> > 
> > The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to
> > be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't
> > have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a
> > stabilization bug that affects me I cross my fingers expecting ago has
> > enough time to handle them ;))
> > 
> > 
> 
> Relying on a single developer handling all architectures clearly does
> not scale and it is dangerous. We really need to be realistic and
> consider how many stable alpha/sparc/ia64/ppc* users are out there. In
> my mind the number is rather small, so does it really worth the effort
> trying to keep them stable hurting the remaining stable architectures
> and causing significant delays in publishing GLSAs?
> The reason I suggested to move the discussion back to the old thread is
> that some of these things have already been discussed in the past so I
> would like to avoid restarting the discussion from scratch.
> 

Yes, I agree. What I am trying to say is that this discussions usually
ends when some people reports that "statistically" they don't take so
long to stabilize and don't have so many opened bugs... but that
statistics depends on ago being able to do the work recently and, then,
it's a chicken-egg problem: we want and need him to stabilize on that
arches... but that makes other think the arches are ok in that area
while they are really relying on one man work :(

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 06/01/14 08:07, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to
> be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't
> have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a
> stabilization bug that affects me I cross my fingers expecting ago has
> enough time to handle them ;))
I'll help out with the ppc32/64.  Ping me for important packages. I'd 
like to ignore low level ones.

I'm taking care of udev as I type this.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 13:33:22 +0200
Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:

> This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches. I
> know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and does
> all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work trying to
> keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if makes sense to
> keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more and more time.
> What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/

As I've said many times before, having a single person handle much of
the work most of the time causes coordinated volunteering for the work
to fail as it takes more time to coordinate stuff than to do the actual
work for fear of duplicating the work or because of duplicating the
work.

On top of these problems you get the technical issues of having a
single point of failure in doing the actual testing and the bias that a
successful test on one arch might cause in testing on the next one. On
top of that, the automation of setting up the test targets, testing and
keywording with a single implementation is more prone to errors and
omissions.

I could point out many examples of bug reports where this went wrong.
It happens at least once a week. Forcing more eyeballs on
keywording and stabilisation would greatly help in both preventing and
solving such issues.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Mikle Kolyada]

01.06.2014 15:18, Samuli Suominen пишет:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
> the new virtuals,
> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
> already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
> pending for 3 months already
>
> thanks,
> samuli
>
Is compile only test enough for you? If so, i can take care about it
right now.

Re: [gentoo-dev] alpha, ia64, ppc, ppc64, sparc developers, need your attention

[Samuli Suominen]

On 01/06/14 18:48, Mikle Kolyada wrote:
> 01.06.2014 15:18, Samuli Suominen пишет:
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking stabilizing
>> the new virtuals,
>> and thus, converting the tree, and also blocking stabilization of the
>> already converted packages (gnome seems to have some)
>> pending for 3 months already
>>
>> thanks,
>> samuli
>>
> Is compile only test enough for you? If so, i can take care about it
> right now.
>

yes, compile test is enough, because the changes are not that large
compared to current stable