Re: [gentoo-dev] [Proposal] Split arch keywords for ppc64 & riscv

[matoro <matoro_mailinglist_gentoo-dev@matoro.tk>]

On 2024-08-02 15:05, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> As continuation from previous arch changes and arch status [1], I want
> to propose the next arch change for the near council meeting:
> 
> a. Splitting ppc64 keyword into ppc64 and ppc64le
> 
> Currently the ppc64 arch keyword matches both big endian (ppc64ul) and
> little endian (ppc64le). While there are similarities, there is quite a
> big gap in support level across both of them. If I understand the
> history correctly, ppc64le is the "next gen" after ppc64ul, and it is
> seen across upstream support, and as a result in the masks.
> 
> We have many masks on the ppc64 profile, which are there for ppc64ul,
> and then unmasks for ppc64le. This split of keywords should make it
> easier for ppc64 maintainers (since less ugliness in profiles), package
> maintainers (simpler to mark ppc64le only), and for ppc64 users (easier
> to request keyword for only one side, so no need to handle issues on the
> other "arch").
> 
> I want both arches to be of same state (stable arches, with profiles
> remaining at current state).
> 
> 
> b. Splitting riscv keyword into riscv and riscv32
> 
> I'm not part of the riscv arch team, but I understood from dilfridge
> that riscv64 and riscv32 are very different, and having both behind the
> same keyword creates various issues. Since I already propose spliting
> ppc64, we can also split riscv on the same wave.
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/75654daa-c5fc-45c8-a104-fae43b9ca490@gentoo.org/T/

Agreed here, with the suggestion that riscv -> riscv64/riscv32 for 
consistency.