[gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2001 bytes --]

Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
concerned about if the other maintainer is also very busy or not
available.

Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to work,
they could use a bit more attention than they get presently (you might
only hear about them when they break and never when they work). 

They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are just
lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream bugs or
feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of people that
cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just expected to
work.

General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not be
a bad outcome from this email either ;-).

Some of this is from stuff I know needs eyeballs, and others are where
the package seems to have more than a few old bugs open.

Packages in need of review & tweaks or just more eyeballs
----------------------------------------------------------
app-admin/sudo (upstream?)
app-admin/sysklogd- (upstream?)
app-shells/bash (upstream?)
dev-util/strace (upstream?)
net-dialup/ppp
net-firewall/iptables
net-fs/nfs-utils (upstream?)
net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
net-misc/dhcp (upstream?)
net-misc/ntp (upstream?)
net-misc/openssh 
net-nds/rpcbind
sys-apps/baselayout
sys-apps/coreutils (upstream?)
sys-apps/kbd (upstream?)
sys-block/aoetools
sys-block/iscsitarget
sys-block/open-iscsi
sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools
sys-block/vblade
sys-fs/lvm2 (mostly in regards to genkernel interaction)
sys-fs/multipath-tools
sys-fs/quota

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 445 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 8/23/16 7:17 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today

I've been doing some base-system related stuff because of uclibc/-ng and
musl on minor arches, building stage3's for those.  My involvement has
been marginal because my emphasis is not mainstream, but I can start
giving some of those packages love.  I'm spread a bit thin, but I'm
going to give away some of my less important packages.

-- 
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] base-system needs developers who care

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2467 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:17:58 +0000 Robin H. Johnson wrote:

>Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
>it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
>maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
>concerned about if the other maintainer is also very busy or not
>available.
>
>Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to work,
>they could use a bit more attention than they get presently (you might
>only hear about them when they break and never when they work). 
>
>They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are
>just lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream
>bugs or feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of
>people that cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just
>expected to work.
>
>General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not
>be a bad outcome from this email either ;-).
>
>Some of this is from stuff I know needs eyeballs, and others are where
>the package seems to have more than a few old bugs open.
>
>Packages in need of review & tweaks or just more eyeballs
>----------------------------------------------------------
>app-admin/sudo (upstream?)
>app-admin/sysklogd- (upstream?)
>app-shells/bash (upstream?)
>dev-util/strace (upstream?)
>net-dialup/ppp
>net-firewall/iptables
>net-fs/nfs-utils (upstream?)
>net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
>net-misc/dhcp (upstream?)
>net-misc/ntp (upstream?)
>net-misc/openssh 
>net-nds/rpcbind
>sys-apps/baselayout
>sys-apps/coreutils (upstream?)
>sys-apps/kbd (upstream?)
>sys-block/aoetools
>sys-block/iscsitarget
>sys-block/open-iscsi
>sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools
>sys-block/vblade
>sys-fs/lvm2 (mostly in regards to genkernel interaction)
>sys-fs/multipath-tools
>sys-fs/quota
>

I have some kind of interest for these packages:

app-admin/sudo
app-admin/sysklogd
app-shells/bash
net-dialup/ppp
net-firewall/iptables
net-misc/dhcpcd
net-misc/dhcp
net-misc/ntp
net-misc/openssh 
sys-apps/coreutils
sys-apps/kbd

But I think I cannot maintain all of them alone. So yeah, fresh
(active!) blood in base-system would be nice.

Kind regards
Lars

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93  9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39

Attention! New gpg key! See
https://www.gentoofan.org/blog/index.php?/archives/9-New-gpg-keys.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> I have some kind of interest for these packages:

Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
base-system together and coordinate our efforts.  In particular, I
mostly have interest in those packages that make up @system for the
stages I build.

-- 
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] base-system needs developers who care

[Benda Xu]

Hi,

"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@gentoo.org> writes:

> maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
> base-system together and coordinate our efforts.

I am interested in keeping the base packages working on Prefix,
especially bash and baselayout.  Please count me in.

Benda

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 339 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)

I maintain dhcpcd; I'm not sure why it is on this list.
In fact, there is a stablereq still pending on 6.11.1-r1.

Upstream is reachable on the #openrc chat channel.

> sys-apps/baselayout

I can become a second maintainer for this.

William

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Patrick McLean]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:17:58 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to
> work, they could use a bit more attention than they get presently
> (you might only hear about them when they break and never when they
> work). 
> 
> They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are
> just lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream
> bugs or feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of
> people that cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just
> expected to work.
> 
> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not
> be a bad outcome from this email either ;-).

I have some (both day job and personal) interest in keeping most of the
packages on that list working and moving forward, and would not be
opposed to joining base-system to help out (if you will have me). As it
is, I have been helping out with openssh X509 support for awhile now.

> 
> Some of this is from stuff I know needs eyeballs, and others are where
> the package seems to have more than a few old bugs open.
> 
> Packages in need of review & tweaks or just more eyeballs
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> app-admin/sudo (upstream?)
> app-admin/sysklogd- (upstream?)
> app-shells/bash (upstream?)
> dev-util/strace (upstream?)
> net-dialup/ppp
> net-firewall/iptables
> net-fs/nfs-utils (upstream?)
> net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
> net-misc/dhcp (upstream?)
> net-misc/ntp (upstream?)
> net-misc/openssh 
> net-nds/rpcbind
> sys-apps/baselayout
> sys-apps/coreutils (upstream?)
> sys-apps/kbd (upstream?)
> sys-block/aoetools
> sys-block/iscsitarget
> sys-block/open-iscsi
> sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools
> sys-block/vblade
> sys-fs/lvm2 (mostly in regards to genkernel interaction)
> sys-fs/multipath-tools
> sys-fs/quota
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Jason Zaman]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
> it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
> maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
> concerned about if the other maintainer is also very busy or not
> available.
> 
> Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to work,
> they could use a bit more attention than they get presently (you might
> only hear about them when they break and never when they work). 
> 
> They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are just
> lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream bugs or
> feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of people that
> cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just expected to
> work.
> 
> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not be
> a bad outcome from this email either ;-).
> 
> Some of this is from stuff I know needs eyeballs, and others are where
> the package seems to have more than a few old bugs open.

I'll join too. I use a fair few of them and there is SELinux integration
in most of the core packages so at the very least i'll help there.

-- Jason
> 
> Packages in need of review & tweaks or just more eyeballs
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> app-admin/sudo (upstream?)
> app-admin/sysklogd- (upstream?)
> app-shells/bash (upstream?)
> dev-util/strace (upstream?)
> net-dialup/ppp
> net-firewall/iptables
> net-fs/nfs-utils (upstream?)
> net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
> net-misc/dhcp (upstream?)
> net-misc/ntp (upstream?)
> net-misc/openssh 
> net-nds/rpcbind
> sys-apps/baselayout
> sys-apps/coreutils (upstream?)
> sys-apps/kbd (upstream?)
> sys-block/aoetools
> sys-block/iscsitarget
> sys-block/open-iscsi
> sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools
> sys-block/vblade
> sys-fs/lvm2 (mostly in regards to genkernel interaction)
> sys-fs/multipath-tools
> sys-fs/quota
> 
> -- 
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1210 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:08:30 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:

>On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
>> I have some kind of interest for these packages:  
>
>Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
>base-system together and coordinate our efforts.  In particular, I
>mostly have interest in those packages that make up @system for the
>stages I build.
>

Guys, I'd like to take the opportunity to "revive" the #gentoo-base IRC
channel for coordination between base-system developers. 
Perhaps "revive" is not the appropriate word considering that the
channel never stopped to exist but rather became extinct.

Opinions?

Furthermore what about the devs currently being listed in base-system
team but stopped taking care of the team's packages for years?

Oh, and to all new team members:
Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.


Kind regards
Lars
-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93  9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39

Attention! New gpg key! See
https://www.gentoofan.org/blog/index.php?/archives/9-New-gpg-keys.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Pacho Ramos]

El mié, 24-08-2016 a las 16:05 +0200, Lars Wendler escribió:
> 
[...]
> Oh, and to all new team members:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet,
> so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old
> systems.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Lars

This reminds me a question I have for some time: is it documented in
some place what are the steps to follow for updating old systems? I
remember posts like:
http://blog.siphos.be/2013/12/upgrading-old-gentoo-installations/

but I don't know if that is "official" or a workaround or... :/

Thanks a lot for the info!

Upgrading Old Gentoo - Was Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 840 bytes --]

On 24/08/16 15:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> This reminds me a question I have for some time: is it documented in
> some place what are the steps to follow for updating old systems? I
> remember posts like:
> http://blog.siphos.be/2013/12/upgrading-old-gentoo-installations/
>
> but I don't know if that is "official" or a workaround or... :/
>
> Thanks a lot for the info!
>
I'll confess I've often resorted back to a stage3, and simply installed
packages from /var/lib/portage/world .. or you can be bold and copy it
over, and see what breaks. But I am interested in the process you linked
.. its just not very accessible without the older snapshots. Dunno
whether there is a convenient way to "roll-back" gentoo, besides doing a
git checkout of the tree, and progressively working back from a suitable
snapshot ....

MJE


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.

What's the time frame for lifting that restriction?

There are some key packages that base-system does not maintain, and it
would be good to have a documented guideline for it.

For example, I maintain the dev-lang/python ebuilds, and I will
probably be jumping to EAPI 6 whenever Python 3.6 is released.

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not be
> a bad outcome from this email either ;-).

I am considering joining, if only to have some input and greater
transparency on decision making.

For example, I have no idea when the last time a leader for the
base-system project was selected. If that has happened recently,
please update the project page on the wiki.

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 08/24/2016 11:32 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Lars Wendler <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
>> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.
> 
> What's the time frame for lifting that restriction?
> 
> There are some key packages that base-system does not maintain, and it
> would be good to have a documented guideline for it.
> 
> For example, I maintain the dev-lang/python ebuilds, and I will
> probably be jumping to EAPI 6 whenever Python 3.6 is released.
> 

The EAPI=6 upgrade is probably already hosed; there was recently a
thread on -user where a guy tried to update after 1.5 years and some
dependency required EAPI=6 and his portage couldn't do it.

The simple solution appears to be to download a new copy of portage and
run it right out of the source tree until your system can do EAPI=6.

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1483 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:05:05PM +0200, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:08:30 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> 
> >On 8/23/16 8:03 PM, Lars Wendler wrote:
> >> I have some kind of interest for these packages:  
> >
> >Lars, maybe once we get some names we should get a meeting of
> >base-system together and coordinate our efforts.  In particular, I
> >mostly have interest in those packages that make up @system for the
> >stages I build.
> >
> 
> Guys, I'd like to take the opportunity to "revive" the #gentoo-base IRC
> channel for coordination between base-system developers. 
> Perhaps "revive" is not the appropriate word considering that the
> channel never stopped to exist but rather became extinct.
> 
> Opinions?

Sure, I'm fine with using it; I'm there anyway.

> Furthermore what about the devs currently being listed in base-system
> team but stopped taking care of the team's packages for years?
 
I would say contact them individually and ask them if they want to stay
on the team.

> Oh, and to all new team members:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.

This was always a huge mistery that never really made sense.
Once the pm is upgraded on a system to eapi 6, I don't see the reason to
hold back any base system packages to older eapis, especially once eapi
6 has been stable for a year.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:11:38PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:17:58PM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > net-misc/dhcpcd (upstream?)
> 
> I maintain dhcpcd; I'm not sure why it is on this list.
> In fact, there is a stablereq still pending on 6.11.1-r1.
> 
> Upstream is reachable on the #openrc chat channel.
The rough criterion I used (included if any were true):
- any major bug/improvement known to me
- 3 bugs w/ last-change >=1 year
- 6 bugs w/ last-change >=6 months
- 10 bugs total

The "(upstream?)" note was based on a cursory glance of the summary
lines.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Trustee & Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Andreas K. Huettel]

Am Mittwoch, 24. August 2016, 16:05:05 schrieb Lars Wendler:
>
> Oh, and to all new team members:
> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet, so
> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old systems.
> 

That won't help anyone with upgrading. 

Large parts of Perl are already EAPI=6.

Such an old portage will not see these ebuilds and therefore think that 2/3 of 
all Perl packages have been removed from the tree, with corresponding 
hilarity.

-- 

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Alexis Ballier]

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:32:55 -0400
Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Lars Wendler
> <polynomial-c@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages
> > yet, so we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very
> > old systems.  
> 
> What's the time frame for lifting that restriction?
> 
> There are some key packages that base-system does not maintain, and it
> would be good to have a documented guideline for it.
> 
> For example, I maintain the dev-lang/python ebuilds, and I will
> probably be jumping to EAPI 6 whenever Python 3.6 is released.


If you only update python 3.6, I think eapi6 will be long accepted
when that'll be the only available version or even the default :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:17:58 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
> it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
> maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
> concerned about if the other maintainer is also very busy or not
> available.
> 
> Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to
> work, they could use a bit more attention than they get presently
> (you might only hear about them when they break and never when they
> work). 
> 
> They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are
> just lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream
> bugs or feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of
> people that cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just
> expected to work.
> 
> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not
> be a bad outcome from this email either ;-).


Count me in then.

What's the "official" way of joining these days ?

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Daniel Campbell]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]

On 08/25/2016 01:01 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 23:17:58 +0000
> "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> Over the years, the base-system package herd has grown in size. Today
>> it comprises 320 packages, of which 61 of those have more than one
>> maintainer. The packages with more than one maintainer I'm only
>> concerned about if the other maintainer is also very busy or not
>> available.
>>
>> Some of these packages are very niche, and while they continue to
>> work, they could use a bit more attention than they get presently
>> (you might only hear about them when they break and never when they
>> work). 
>>
>> They are generally NOT broken and in need of tree-cleaning, but are
>> just lacking forward momentum (not a few bugs are reasonable upstream
>> bugs or feature improvements). Many were once shiny and had lots of
>> people that cared, but that dwindled as they become mundane and just
>> expected to work.
>>
>> General increase in the number of developers in base-system would not
>> be a bad outcome from this email either ;-).
> 
> 
> Count me in then.
> 
> What's the "official" way of joining these days ?
> 
afaict add yourself to the project on the wiki and then the usual mail
alias deal.

-- 
Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C  1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] base-system needs developers who care

[Joshua Kinard]

On 08/24/2016 10:08, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 24-08-2016 a las 16:05 +0200, Lars Wendler escribió:
>>
> [...]
>> Oh, and to all new team members:
>> Please keep in mind to *not* use EAPI-6 for base-system packages yet,
>> so
>> we can retain a somewhat stable upgrade path even for very old
>> systems.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Lars
> 
> This reminds me a question I have for some time: is it documented in
> some place what are the steps to follow for updating old systems? I
> remember posts like:
> http://blog.siphos.be/2013/12/upgrading-old-gentoo-installations/
> 
> but I don't know if that is "official" or a workaround or... :/
> 
> Thanks a lot for the info!

When I got SGI Octane booting Linux again in 2014, I had a dormant ~2009-era
system still installed on that machine.  Upgrading was...interesting.  Entirely
doable -- I think I hand-jammed a modern Portage into it to get started, then
incrementally step-upgraded the thing over a period of 2-3 weeks until the
system packages were fully working.

Then I got torched by gcc's PR61538, where someone's upstream change tripped up
an atomic fault on the R10000 CPUs these things use, which left me stuck at
gcc-4.8.x.  That went on for 8 months until someone else upstream accidentally
fixed it.  Now, I've just got to figure out this irritating 2GB memory DMA bug...

But still, depending on the age of the install, it's a task that only the
dedicated and OCD should try to tackle.  Everyone else is better off salvaging
config files by mounting the disks in another system, then nuking the old
install from orbit.

I'll let you guys now how the next attempt works out, whenever I get my Indigo2
R10000 to boot again.  I think the Gentoo install on that machine hasn't seen
the light of the Kernel since ~2006.  Probably earlier.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
6144R/F5C6C943 2015-04-27
177C 1972 1FB8 F254 BAD0 3E72 5C63 F4E3 F5C6 C943

"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