[gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

Hello

With last gnome maintained packages stabilization round I noticed some
pending stabilizations/keywordings for really a long time waiting for
ppc* teams. For example:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470768 -> it's waiting for more
than a year and it's blocking from dropping old versions for so long
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508006 -> the same case, and we
cannot drop that stable keywords because looks like ppc team still wants
to keep kde in stable

Then, I finally needed to ask Agostino for help because of that and I
wondered if there are some kind of issue in this teams, if they are
still able to keep ppc* as stable arches or... :/

I see two options:
- Move ppc* to testing only -> I guess some people will disagree as this
architecture is not so old and probably it's still used by enough people
- Clarify what packages do they really want in stable. 

The problem of all this is that, as it is shown in this concrete
example, if they want to keep, for example, KDE in stable, they will
need to also be fast enough for other dependencies. If not, we could go
with the "package-per-package" proposal that was approved one year ago
by the Council for alpha/ia64. 

But the problem of "package-per-package" proposal is shown in:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=470768#c9

Once we start dropping stable keyword in one package, we need to do the
same in reverse-deps, that will also have other reverse-deps... and that
it ends up being a lot of work arch teams cannot accomplish (as they are
the same teams that are so overloaded that cannot keep stabilizing fast
enough) and things get blocked forever :(

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.

Thanks a lot

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

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.


-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

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?

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

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?

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2566 bytes --]

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


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

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

[Pacho Ramos]

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...)

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

[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...

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

[Johannes Huber]

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

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 04:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 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...
>
>
>

1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.

2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at 
once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 06:22 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
[...]
> 1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.
> 
> 2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at 
> once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.
> 

Looks like we can get the full list of packages with stable versions
with:
EIX_LIMIT=0 eix --stable -#

But I don't find how to make eix show me the output for ppc* (I have
amd64 and uses that as arch)

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

[Samuli Suominen]

On 26/07/14 13:22, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/26/14 04:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>>
>>
>
> 1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.

+1.   Only reason 'mips' was downgraded to 'exp' because there was
absolutely nobody working on it at the time. I tend
to regret that now. Also, aballier is using amd64-fbsd with 'stable' and
'dev', exactly to avoid breakage, since nobody
really checks for 'exp'

>
> 2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at
> once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.
>

+1

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 07:36, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 06:22 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> [...]
>> 1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.
>>
>> 2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at
>> once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.
>>
> Looks like we can get the full list of packages with stable versions
> with:
> EIX_LIMIT=0 eix --stable -#
>
> But I don't find how to make eix show me the output for ppc* (I have
> amd64 and uses that as arch)
>
>

The following python script will list all ebuilds and their keywords.  
I'm busy as all hell right now, but I can hack it up to give us what we 
need.  You can in the mean time play with it.  It is slow because python 
is slow and the tree is big.


#!/usr/bin/env python

import portage, re

portdb = portage.db[portage.root]["porttree"].dbapi

for pkg in portdb.cpv_all():
     keywords = portdb.aux_get(pkg, ["KEYWORDS"])[0]
     print("%s %s" % (pkg, keywords))


-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 07:47 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 07/26/14 07:36, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 06:22 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> > [...]
> >> 1) I don't think we need to drop to exp if we do this right.
> >>
> >> 2) I like this plan.  Its not that we'll drop the whole arch to ~ at
> >> once but trim at our discretion.  Less chance of breaking everything.
> >>
> > Looks like we can get the full list of packages with stable versions
> > with:
> > EIX_LIMIT=0 eix --stable -#
> >
> > But I don't find how to make eix show me the output for ppc* (I have
> > amd64 and uses that as arch)
> >
> >
> 
> The following python script will list all ebuilds and their keywords.  
> I'm busy as all hell right now, but I can hack it up to give us what we 
> need.  You can in the mean time play with it.  It is slow because python 
> is slow and the tree is big.
> 
> 
> #!/usr/bin/env python
> 
> import portage, re
> 
> portdb = portage.db[portage.root]["porttree"].dbapi
> 
> for pkg in portdb.cpv_all():
>      keywords = portdb.aux_get(pkg, ["KEYWORDS"])[0]
>      print("%s %s" % (pkg, keywords))
> 
> 

Nice. Well, eix is really fast for this... but I need to see how to make
it think I have a ppc setup ;)

I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
"package-by-package" proposal for others)

Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))

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

[Manuel Rüger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4115 bytes --]

On 07/26/2014 11:09 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
> 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
> 

+1 from ruby.

How do we solve keyword requests?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477648 is ~ 12 months and hasn't
seen any reply from the ppc* teams.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497396 ~ 6 months
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487206 ~ 9 months
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487178 ~ 9 months

We can start dropping ppc* from dev-ruby/* if that eases maintenance and
gives you more time for core packages?

Cheers
Manuel


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1016 bytes --]

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

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 13:57 +0200, Manuel Rüger escribió:
[...]
> +1 from ruby.
> 
> How do we solve keyword requests?
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477648 is ~ 12 months and hasn't
> seen any reply from the ppc* teams.
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497396 ~ 6 months
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487206 ~ 9 months
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487178 ~ 9 months
> 
> We can start dropping ppc* from dev-ruby/* if that eases maintenance and
> gives you more time for core packages?
> 
> Cheers
> Manuel
> 

I guess once we free ppc* teams from all the load from stabilizations
they will likely fix much sooner keyword requests. What I would do is to
fix the stabilizations first and, if still unable to handle keyword
requests, try to resolve that one :)

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 07:59, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 13:57 +0200, Manuel Rüger escribió:
> [...]
>> +1 from ruby.
>>
>> How do we solve keyword requests?
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477648 is ~ 12 months and hasn't
>> seen any reply from the ppc* teams.
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497396 ~ 6 months
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487206 ~ 9 months
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487178 ~ 9 months
>>
>> We can start dropping ppc* from dev-ruby/* if that eases maintenance and
>> gives you more time for core packages?
>>
>> Cheers
>> Manuel
>>
> I guess once we free ppc* teams from all the load from stabilizations
> they will likely fix much sooner keyword requests. What I would do is to
> fix the stabilizations first and, if still unable to handle keyword
> requests, try to resolve that one :)
>
>
Yes, I've said somewhere on this list that I'm willing to help 
stabilizatoin on ppc/ppc64 but only for core packages.  Again because I 
do create ppc stages3 for uclibc and soon musl and its a pain to have to 
do what I do for mips.

Let's do this right and make it the model for all minor arches.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>

Honestly, it is best if the arch teams take the initiative on these
sorts of things.  They're in the best place to figure out what their
users' needs are.

The Council tends to get involved when the issue escalates to the
point where it becomes a burden on maintainers.  It is always better
for the arch teams to manage their own problems.

So, by all means put it on the Council agenda, but I'd strongly
encourage the ppc arch team to weigh in with their opinion - if we can
form a consensus on the list you don't even need the Council to vote.
Not that we mind - it is just better to solve things collaboratively.

Rich

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

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 756 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 10:44:26 schrieb Pacho Ramos:

> > 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...

Much better. 

Moving the profile to exp is only a last resort. If you can reasonably keep a 
smaller stable set consistent, do it!

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

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

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 725 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:

> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> 
> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))

At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.

(Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

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

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 08:23 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> > to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> > their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> > "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> >
> 
> Honestly, it is best if the arch teams take the initiative on these
> sorts of things.  They're in the best place to figure out what their
> users' needs are.
> 
> The Council tends to get involved when the issue escalates to the
> point where it becomes a burden on maintainers.  It is always better
> for the arch teams to manage their own problems.
> 
> So, by all means put it on the Council agenda, but I'd strongly
> encourage the ppc arch team to weigh in with their opinion - if we can
> form a consensus on the list you don't even need the Council to vote.
> Not that we mind - it is just better to solve things collaboratively.
> 
> Rich
> 

Sure, at least for ppc teams I guess we could get it discussed by the
Council as blueness is in ppc teams per:
https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/herds.xml#doc_chap89

Not sure about the other team members :/, I also see no one listed as
lead:
https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/ppc/

For the other arch teams I guess I can start a new thread for them (in
summary, pointing them to this thread for the idea but suggesting them
to create the lists of packages to keep stable as they prefer). You are
probably not seeing so much escalation because we end up relying on ago
and zlogene to fix that... but that is not a long term solution. I am
mostly thinking on ia64 and sparc. Alpha looks to have recently fixed
lots of bugs (by klausman I think) and I am unsure about ARM as I guess
his problem is different (it's due they needing to test on many
different machines to get things stabilized, and that probably needs a
different discussion before :/)

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

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> 
> > I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> > to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> > their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> > "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> > 
> > Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
> > get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
> 
> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
> 
> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
> 
> -- 
> 
> Andreas K. Huettel
> Gentoo Linux developer 
> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> 

The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
things).

I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
blueness was also the only one replying.

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>
>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>
>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>
>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Andreas K. Huettel
>> Gentoo Linux developer
>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>
> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
> things).
>
> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
> blueness was also the only one replying.
>
>

Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a 
big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on 
board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both 
teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step 
forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work 
yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to 
write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> >> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> >>
> >>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> >>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> >>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> >>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> >>>
> >>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
> >>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
> >> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
> >>
> >> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
> >>
> >> -- 
> >>
> >> Andreas K. Huettel
> >> Gentoo Linux developer
> >> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> >> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> >>
> > The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
> > replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
> > similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
> > prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
> > things).
> >
> > I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
> > blueness was also the only one replying.
> >
> >
> 
> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a 
> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on 
> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both 
> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step 
> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work 
> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to 
> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
> 

I don't even know about timberdoodle :(

I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
hopefully they will review it :/

Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
the full thread:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151

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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4015 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> 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...

That sounds reasonable, but, my point still stands. It would be up to
you to maintain that list and stabilize new versions of those packages.
I'm sure that's what the other architectures are doing that are marked exp.

To answer Pacho's question about breaking their tree, well, if they know
which packages they want stable, and we move the arch to exp, it is up
to them to make sure their tree stays valid. I'm sure the other exp
architectures do the same.

William

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

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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 633 bytes --]

I know I'm replying to my own message,  but I do have a concern about
this that I want to ask about.

When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all
architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are
marked stable or dev in profiles.desc.

If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a
subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's
keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the
keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable
requests on that package for that arch.

What does everyone else think?

William


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

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

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1060 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 18:20:11 schrieb William Hubbs:
> I know I'm replying to my own message,  but I do have a concern about
> this that I want to ask about.
> 
> When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all
> architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are
> marked stable or dev in profiles.desc.
> 
> If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a
> subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's
> keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the
> keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable
> requests on that package for that arch.

I'd say the decision should be made by the arch team, not by the package 
maintainer. 

Means, arch teams can drop keywors in packages, but normally stabilization 
goes ahead as usual and requests are filed. Whether they are then honoured is 
another question.

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 951 bytes --]

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

[Michael Palimaka]

On 07/27/2014 02:20 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> I know I'm replying to my own message,  but I do have a concern about
> this that I want to ask about.
> 
> When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all
> architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are
> marked stable or dev in profiles.desc.

I normally only target archs that are already stable for that package.
There's a lot of packages in the tree stable for eg. amd64/x86 and
testing for all others.

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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1329 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 06:31:50PM +0200, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 18:20:11 schrieb William Hubbs:
> > I know I'm replying to my own message,  but I do have a concern about
> > this that I want to ask about.
> > 
> > When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all
> > architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are
> > marked stable or dev in profiles.desc.
> > 
> > If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a
> > subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's
> > keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the
> > keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable
> > requests on that package for that arch.
> 
> I'd say the decision should be made by the arch team, not by the package 
> maintainer. 
> 
> Means, arch teams can drop keywors in packages, but normally stabilization 
> goes ahead as usual and requests are filed. Whether they are then honoured is 
> another question.

If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they
remove themselves from it and say so?

Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file
stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package?

William


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

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

[Michael Palimaka]

On 07/27/2014 03:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they
> remove themselves from it and say so?
> 
> Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file
> stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package?

When armin did stabilisation for minor archs in the past, he took the
opportunity to evaluate whether it was still useful to have the package
stable. In many cases for small random packages, stable keywords were
dropped to reduce future workload. I always thought it was a pretty good
strategy.

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>>>
>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>>>
>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>>>
>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
>>> things).
>>>
>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a
>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
>>
> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
>
> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
> hopefully they will review it :/
>
> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
> the full thread:
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
>
>
>

I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no 
objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan 
through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns.  Then I'll 
start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and 
ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the 
ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we 
have a concise plan and we're all on board.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Pacho Ramos]

El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 16:29 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> >> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> >>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> >>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> >>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> >>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
> >>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
> >>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
> >>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas K. Huettel
> >>>> Gentoo Linux developer
> >>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> >>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> >>>>
> >>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
> >>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
> >>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
> >>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
> >>> things).
> >>>
> >>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
> >>> blueness was also the only one replying.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a
> >> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
> >> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
> >> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
> >> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
> >> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
> >> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
> >>
> > I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
> >
> > I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
> > hopefully they will review it :/
> >
> > Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
> > the full thread:
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
> >
> >
> >
> 
> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no 
> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan 
> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns.  Then I'll 
> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and 
> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the 
> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we 
> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
> 

OK, please feel free to contact me whenever you want. Usually via mail.
I will have restricted internet access during most August but should be
ok again in September :)

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/26/14 18:01, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 16:29 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
>>>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
>>>>> things).
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a
>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
>>>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
>>>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
>>>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
>>>>
>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
>>>
>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
>>> hopefully they will review it :/
>>>
>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
>>> the full thread:
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no
>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
>> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns.  Then I'll
>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and
>> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
>> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we
>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
>>
> OK, please feel free to contact me whenever you want. Usually via mail.
> I will have restricted internet access during most August but should be
> ok again in September :)
>

Okay step 1.  Get a list with all packages stable on ppc.  Please see: 
http://dev.gentoo.org/~blueness/ppc/

We need to decide which of the packages in ppc-stable.txt and 
ppc64-stable.txt we want to *keep* stable.  While people look over that 
list, I'll write a script to drop whatever is in those two files from 
ppc to ~ppc and ppc64 to ~ppc64.  I'll wait a week or so and the poke 
people.

I'm still not sure how to do such a massive commit safely.  Does one 
just run repoman full on the entire tree and then repoman commit -m 
"OMG! Huge commit." ?  I think I may want infra around just in case. 
When I did this for selinux, I did one package at a time, but there were 
no complex dependencies.

Also, I think a news item is prudent.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Jack Morgan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3307 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> >> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> >>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> >>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> >>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> >>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
> >>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
> >>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
> >>>>
> >>>> -- 
> >>>>
> >>>> Andreas K. Huettel
> >>>> Gentoo Linux developer
> >>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> >>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> >>>>
> >>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
> >>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
> >>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
> >>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
> >>> things).
> >>>
> >>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
> >>> blueness was also the only one replying.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a
> >> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
> >> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
> >> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
> >> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
> >> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
> >> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
> >>
> > I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
> >
> > I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
> > hopefully they will review it :/
> >
> > Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
> > the full thread:
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
> >
> >
> >
> 
> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no 
> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan 
> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns.  Then I'll 
> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and 
> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the 
> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we 
> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
 
I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an arch.
Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
are proposing such a big change.  


Thanks,

-- 
Jack Morgan
Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@gentoo.org>>
Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/29/14 22:16, Jack Morgan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
>>>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
>>>>> things).
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just make a
>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
>>>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
>>>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
>>>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
>>>>
>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
>>>
>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
>>> hopefully they will review it :/
>>>
>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
>>> the full thread:
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no
>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
>> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns.  Then I'll
>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and
>> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
>> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we
>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
>   
> I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an arch.
> Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
> are proposing such a big change.
>
>
> Thanks,
>

Okay, any members of the ppc team please speak up.   I'll wait a week.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Joseph Jezak]

On 07/30/2014 06:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/29/14 22:16, Jack Morgan wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially 
>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I 
>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches 
>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) 
>>>>>>>> would want to
>>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable 
>>>>>>> arch team...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
>>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
>>>>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
>>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
>>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not 
>>>>>> :| (to
>>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing 
>>>>>> all the
>>>>>> things).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev 
>>>>>> stabilization), that
>>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just 
>>>>> make a
>>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
>>>>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
>>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
>>>>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
>>>>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
>>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
>>>>
>>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
>>>> hopefully they will review it :/
>>>>
>>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to 
>>>> read
>>>> the full thread:
>>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no
>>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
>>> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns. Then I'll
>>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc 
>>> and
>>> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
>>> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we
>>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
>>   I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an arch.
>> Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
>> are proposing such a big change.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>
> Okay, any members of the ppc team please speak up.   I'll wait a week.
>
I'm still trying to escape from grad school and getting married this 
fall, so my contributions have been limited at best, which is why I've 
been shying away from throwing in my two cents. That said, while I'd 
rather not just remove stable keywords until there's a reason, I have no 
problem with dropping keywords for stuff that is holding up 
stabilization bugs if that's what it takes for things to move forward. 
If you'd like to have a meeting about it, that's fine too.

-Joe

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

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 07/30/14 17:18, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 06:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> On 07/29/14 22:16, Jack Morgan wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>>>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
>>>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
>>>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
>>>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to 
>>>>>>>>> officially decide
>>>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I 
>>>>>>>>> remember
>>>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches 
>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) 
>>>>>>>>> would want to
>>>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
>>>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable 
>>>>>>>> arch team...)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
>>>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
>>>>>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
>>>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
>>>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not 
>>>>>>> :| (to
>>>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing 
>>>>>>> all the
>>>>>>> things).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev 
>>>>>>> stabilization), that
>>>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just 
>>>>>> make a
>>>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone 
>>>>>> is on
>>>>>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
>>>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" 
>>>>>> step
>>>>>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
>>>>>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
>>>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
>>>>>
>>>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
>>>>> hopefully they will review it :/
>>>>>
>>>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to 
>>>>> read
>>>>> the full thread:
>>>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no
>>>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
>>>> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns. Then I'll
>>>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on 
>>>> ppc and
>>>> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
>>>> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ 
>>>> until we
>>>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
>>>   I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an 
>>> arch.
>>> Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
>>> are proposing such a big change.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>
>> Okay, any members of the ppc team please speak up.   I'll wait a week.
>>
> I'm still trying to escape from grad school and getting married this 
> fall, so my contributions have been limited at best, which is why I've 
> been shying away from throwing in my two cents. That said, while I'd 
> rather not just remove stable keywords until there's a reason, I have 
> no problem with dropping keywords for stuff that is holding up 
> stabilization bugs if that's what it takes for things to move forward. 
> If you'd like to have a meeting about it, that's fine too.
>
> -Joe
>

Sure, let's meet.  I'd like to have jmorgan come too and any other 
ppc/ppc64 members.  How does Monday Aug 4 at 20:00 UTC sound to people.  
If not please counter propose a time.

-- 
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] About current ppc/ppc64 status

[Jack Morgan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5104 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:44:57PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 07/30/14 17:18, Joseph Jezak wrote:
> > On 07/30/2014 06:26 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >> On 07/29/14 22:16, Jack Morgan wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 04:29:51PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> >>>> On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
> >>>>>> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >>>>>>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
> >>>>>>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to 
> >>>>>>>>> officially decide
> >>>>>>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I 
> >>>>>>>>> remember
> >>>>>>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches 
> >>>>>>>>> and the
> >>>>>>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) 
> >>>>>>>>> would want to
> >>>>>>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
> >>>>>>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable 
> >>>>>>>> arch team...)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Andreas K. Huettel
> >>>>>>>> Gentoo Linux developer
> >>>>>>>> dilfridge@gentoo.org
> >>>>>>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
> >>>>>>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
> >>>>>>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not 
> >>>>>>> :| (to
> >>>>>>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing 
> >>>>>>> all the
> >>>>>>> things).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev 
> >>>>>>> stabilization), that
> >>>>>>> blueness was also the only one replying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem.  No one wants to just 
> >>>>>> make a
> >>>>>> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone 
> >>>>>> is on
> >>>>>> board.  Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
> >>>>>> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" 
> >>>>>> step
> >>>>>> forward now.  BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
> >>>>>> yourself.  I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape.  I'll be happy to
> >>>>>> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
> >>>>> hopefully they will review it :/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to 
> >>>>> read
> >>>>> the full thread:
> >>>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64.  If there are no
> >>>> objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
> >>>> through.  I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns. Then I'll
> >>>> start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on 
> >>>> ppc and
> >>>> ppc64.  I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
> >>>> ppc and ppc64 lists.  Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ 
> >>>> until we
> >>>> have a concise plan and we're all on board.
> >>>   I don't think you can/should just take over the leadership of an 
> >>> arch.
> >>> Why not have meeting/discussion for team members. Especially since you
> >>> are proposing such a big change.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Okay, any members of the ppc team please speak up.   I'll wait a week.
> >>
> > I'm still trying to escape from grad school and getting married this 
> > fall, so my contributions have been limited at best, which is why I've 
> > been shying away from throwing in my two cents. That said, while I'd 
> > rather not just remove stable keywords until there's a reason, I have 
> > no problem with dropping keywords for stuff that is holding up 
> > stabilization bugs if that's what it takes for things to move forward. 
> > If you'd like to have a meeting about it, that's fine too.
> >
> > -Joe
> >
> 
> Sure, let's meet.  I'd like to have jmorgan come too and any other 
> ppc/ppc64 members.  How does Monday Aug 4 at 20:00 UTC sound to people.  
> If not please counter propose a time.
 
This sounds fine for me. I'll be there. I've been away for a few months
but getting back to helping out. If the current lead isn't active, then
we should have a vote as to who should take over that role. Then discuss
how to proceed with the topics in this thread. 

Thanks for organizing this.



Cheers,`

-- 
Jack Morgan
Pub 4096R/761D8E0A 2010-09-13 Jack Morgan <jmorgan@gentoo.org>>
Fingerprint = DD42 EA48 D701 D520 C2CD 55BE BF53 C69B 761D 8E0A

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

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

[Raúl Porcel]

On 07/26/14 19:33, Michael Palimaka wrote:
> On 07/27/2014 03:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>> If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they
>> remove themselves from it and say so?
>>
>> Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file
>> stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package?
> 
> When armin did stabilisation for minor archs in the past, he took the
> opportunity to evaluate whether it was still useful to have the package
> stable. In many cases for small random packages, stable keywords were
> dropped to reduce future workload. I always thought it was a pretty good
> strategy.
> 
> 

Indeed! The thing was that a lot of the packages were keyworded and
marked stable back in the day where the arch was more popular.

But almost all arches except amd64/x86/arm are getting less and less
popular:

alpha: no new hardware in more than 8+ years
hppa: being phased out IIRC, and no new workstations(ie, graphics/sound)
in 5+ years
ia64: no new workstations in 10 years, new servers are expensive
ppc*: new workstations are expensive
sparc: no new workstations in 7+ years, new servers expensive

One of the reasons they are being killed, IMHO, its that the power
consumption isn't worth, and an amd64 machine is pretty much more
powerful, has more cores, and cheaper and has a lot less power consumption.

My Sun Blade 1000 (workstation) uses 225W idling, my amd64 workstation
uses 100W at full power or so. And the amd64 has way more cores and more
performance. And let's not talk about the heat...

Besides there's software like firefox and gnome3 that doesn't work in
sparc due to unaligned accesses.

Debian announced some months ago that they're dropping sparc support as
well. Right now debian doesn't support, officially, alpha, hppa and sparc.

Obviously ppc* has a lot of work because its the most keyworded arch
behind amd64 and x86.

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

[Joshua Kinard]

On 08/01/2014 04:52, Raúl Porcel wrote:
> On 07/26/14 19:33, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>> On 07/27/2014 03:19 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> If an arch team isn't going to honor a stable request, shouldn't they
>>> remove themselves from it and say so?
>>>
>>> Also, if an arch team does that, does that mean we don't have to file
>>> stable requests for that arch on future versions of the package?
>>
>> When armin did stabilisation for minor archs in the past, he took the
>> opportunity to evaluate whether it was still useful to have the package
>> stable. In many cases for small random packages, stable keywords were
>> dropped to reduce future workload. I always thought it was a pretty good
>> strategy.
> 
> Indeed! The thing was that a lot of the packages were keyworded and
> marked stable back in the day where the arch was more popular.
> 
> But almost all arches except amd64/x86/arm are getting less and less
> popular:
> 
> alpha: no new hardware in more than 8+ years
> hppa: being phased out IIRC, and no new workstations(ie, graphics/sound)
> in 5+ years
> ia64: no new workstations in 10 years, new servers are expensive
> ppc*: new workstations are expensive
> sparc: no new workstations in 7+ years, new servers expensive

Who says they have to be new?  Sometimes, the fun is in the old hardware of
yore.  I found out last week that sparc32 is still quasi-alive, though it
doesn't appear to have any mainstream kernel maintainers.

ia64, go search on eBay for old SGI Altix/Prism gear.  There's a metric ton
of Altix units being offloaded lately.  There was one listing a few weeks
ago that had 10-20 Altix 350 servers, dual or quad CPU, for ~$90 per server.
 Even saw an SGI Prism a few days ago (which is just an ia64 variant of the
Tezro).


> One of the reasons they are being killed, IMHO, its that the power
> consumption isn't worth, and an amd64 machine is pretty much more
> powerful, has more cores, and cheaper and has a lot less power consumption.

This is always a concern.  I used to run equipment 24/7, but that took
chunks out of my electric bill each month.  Now, I sleep both of my Intel
systems and power down the SGI machines when they're not in use.  I
eventually need to test out hibernation on the SGIs and see if that can be
of any use.  Ctrl+Z in the middle of a compile, then hibernate...in theory,
I should be able to resume and then 'fg' the compile back into action.


> My Sun Blade 1000 (workstation) uses 225W idling, my amd64 workstation
> uses 100W at full power or so. And the amd64 has way more cores and more
> performance. And let's not talk about the heat...

SGI O2, 1x CPU, 512MB RAM, 2x HDDs - ~80W
SGI Octane, 1x CPU, 2GB RAM, 3x HDDs - ~303-330W
SGI Onyx2, 4x CPUs, 8GB RAM, 5 HDDs - ~720W

I ran some very quick calculations on running those three systems full time,
24/7 for a month, along with my two Intel Linux systems (~160W and ~140W),
about ~$0.10/kWh (distribution charge only, did not factor in transmission
rates nor taxes), and it should only add an extra ~$120 to my bill per
month, which isn't that bad (but then again, I am serviced by a co-op that
has low rates).  So running them less often should be easily manageable.
Probably moreso in winter, as rates are bit lower then (gas isn't, though,
but SGIs make great space heaters).


> Besides there's software like firefox and gnome3 that doesn't work in
> sparc due to unaligned accesses.

Pft, if people want those shinies, run them on a standard PC.  If the only
point of having an alternate arch is so you can surf the web...then I don't
see much of a point.  The direction that most of the large projects are
going in is not conducive to old equipment anyways.  There is, however,
always going to be the smaller projects that might be tickled pink on having
their software run on old hardware.  Like maybe someone taking fvwm and
tailoring it to look like IRIX's 4dwm.  Something I've thought about if I
ever get bored enough, and can fix all the other bugs I keep running into on
these systems.


> Debian announced some months ago that they're dropping sparc support as
> well. Right now debian doesn't support, officially, alpha, hppa and sparc.

Their loss :)

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

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

[Duncan]

Raúl Porcel posted on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:52:21 +0200 as excerpted:

> But almost all arches except amd64/x86/arm are getting less and less
> popular:
> 
> alpha: no new hardware in more than 8+ years
> hppa: being phased out IIRC, and no new workstations
> (ie, graphics/sound) in 5+ years
> ia64: no new workstations in 10 years, new servers are expensive
> ppc*: new workstations are expensive
> sparc: no new workstations in 7+ years, new servers expensive
> 
> One of the reasons they are being killed, IMHO, its that the power
> consumption isn't worth, and an amd64 machine is pretty much more
> powerful, has more cores, and cheaper and has a lot less power
> consumption.

While to nowhere near the same degree, I'd suggest x86 (32-bit) is 
getting less popular now too, at least for gentoo with our focus on end-
user software building.  It'll certainly be awhile before it's in the 
minor-arch camp, but amd64 definitely has the mainline focus now and if 
x86 installs are keeping up with retirements I'd be very surprised.

Amd64 is probably maintaining but I doubt it's increasing much.

In terms of usage, tho for different reasons I guess arm is about where 
amd64 was when I switched to it in 2003, and to gentoo a few months later 
in early 2004 -- in gentoo they could be challenging x86 for #2 in a few 
years tho I'm not ready to predict they'll challenge amd64 any time soon.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

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

[Joshua Kinard]

On 08/01/2014 05:35, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 08/01/2014 04:52, Raúl Porcel wrote:
>>
>> Indeed! The thing was that a lot of the packages were keyworded and
>> marked stable back in the day where the arch was more popular.
>>
>> But almost all arches except amd64/x86/arm are getting less and less
>> popular:
>>
>> alpha: no new hardware in more than 8+ years
>> hppa: being phased out IIRC, and no new workstations(ie, graphics/sound)
>> in 5+ years
>> ia64: no new workstations in 10 years, new servers are expensive
>> ppc*: new workstations are expensive
>> sparc: no new workstations in 7+ years, new servers expensive
> 
> Who says they have to be new?  Sometimes, the fun is in the old hardware of
> yore.  I found out last week that sparc32 is still quasi-alive, though it
> doesn't appear to have any mainstream kernel maintainers.
> 
> ia64, go search on eBay for old SGI Altix/Prism gear.  There's a metric ton
> of Altix units being offloaded lately.  There was one listing a few weeks
> ago that had 10-20 Altix 350 servers, dual or quad CPU, for ~$90 per server.
>  Even saw an SGI Prism a few days ago (which is just an ia64 variant of the
> Tezro).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/SGI-ALTIX350-with-Dual-1-5GHZ-SL7ED-2GB-Memory-No-Drives-/161373099998

Up to six SGI Altix 350's available, 2x 1.5GHz ia64 CPUs and 2GB memory.  I
believe these can be NUMA-linked, too, if anyone can find the cables.  $85 +
$35 s&h apiece.  If my shelf wasn't already crowded with a tape autolibrary,
SGI Origin 300, and a SunFire V240, I'd probably consider grabbing one.  For
anyone in the US, that's a hard price to beat.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic