Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Notion of stable depgraph vs stable keywords (Re: Arch Status and Future Plans)

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> writes:

> Sam James posted on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 01:06:12 +0100 as excerpted:
>
>> Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> writes:
>> 
>>> As you all know, Gentoo supports many various arches, in various
>>> degrees (stable, dev, exp). Let me explain those 3 statuses fast:
>>>
>>> * stable arch - meaning we have stable profile for this arch, and
>>> stable keywords across base-system + varying degree of seriousness. We
>>> stable stuff after ~30 days in tree, and are mostly happy. For example
>>> the well known and common amd64 arch.
>> 
>> This mixes the notion of keywords vs profiles.
>> 
>> You can have a stable profile in profiles.desc without any stable
>> keywords at all.
>> 
>> 'stable' in profiles.desc means we require CI to pass for its depgraph
>> consistency. 'dev' means we warn on it. 'exp' means it doesn't even show
>> up unless you opt-in with pkgcheck etc.
>
> While that may clear things up from a developer perspective,

The discussion we're currently having *is* from a developer perspective
where I'm trying to clarify something Arthur said for the purposes of
further discussion.

>
> How would it differ if they're already running ~x86 vs stable x86 
> (keywording), assuming the same currently stable x86 profile?
>
> And (again from a user perspective) how does dropping x86 to dev differ 
> from the mentioned apparently worse alternative, mass dekeywording?

An inconsistent depgraph is a very poor experience for users because
there's no guarantee emerge can resolve things.