From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82058139694 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 12:20:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F129521C04E; Tue, 9 May 2017 12:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A840EE0CB6 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 12:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chrome.dite (cpe-67-247-195-186.buffalo.res.rr.com [67.247.195.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A6C3340988 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 12:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1494185038.1333.2.camel@gentoo.org> <52ce2db1-6553-c720-8408-27bdc024e432@gentoo.org> <891aaaa8-e75f-9e84-96f2-cb65490a4a3f@gentoo.org> <31716672-f22e-8770-12df-0accfd4d5b62@gentoo.org> From: "Anthony G. Basile" Message-ID: <92e119f5-6de3-fe77-e95e-c2d3aa6c521b@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 08:20:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <31716672-f22e-8770-12df-0accfd4d5b62@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 32f0fbfe-4b73-425d-9a1d-b391247626e1 X-Archives-Hash: 6a21bc8858f693438bc959caf1bf6622 On 5/9/17 8:01 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2017-05-09 10:12, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Why not? If an arch is considered a non-security-supported arch >> then you would just ignore it in a security bug. > > We dropped security coverage already for ia64 and are in the process to > drop it for sparc as well. > > So how do you want to cleanup a package which is the last ebuild of the > package and still marked stabled for ia64/sparc? You cannot. If you are > lucky you would only remove a package without any rdeps. But in most > cases you are breaking the tree. > > >> Otherwise a revbump could break stage3 on those arches. > > Is this really a problem? What could happen: > > Worst case: Existing stage3 for this specific dev/exp architecture will > be very old because any attempt to refresh the stage3 image will fail > with a build error. However, the last working stage3 image won't go away > until it was replaced by a newer working one... > I maintain quite a few ppc stage3's for uclibc and musl. I would appreciate keeping ppc as is. It is still a useful arch for many devices today, eg. some high end Mikrotik routers. -- 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