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 TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93DE3159C9B for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:09:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40A0BE2A3A; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:09:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from matoro.tk (matoro.tk [104.188.251.153]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D50CCE299E; Fri, 2 Aug 2024 19:09:29 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=eGtUotoG61goByjufbY0lzg3VOyF9Kqc1WcF6Kmk3Bg=; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=matoro.tk; h=Subject:Subject:Sender:To:To:Cc:Cc:From:From:Date:Date:MIME-Version:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Message-Id:References:References:Autocrypt:Openpgp; i=@matoro.tk; s=20240626; t=1722625767; v=1; x=1723057767; b=kA4UYHNSk5S1x9CdSrnmKGimgO/1AlPFg6tc3n9OtzYgezw8WhbXbmYwWaWCDfxinpsTRYJi VxYEZxvjv/hi+a4js3EJqTBjcBkP+32s3KNXm5lTOMvDMwBQuc4hlUt2JsqBPVanMdsbV5gS+et LOFJ5qD2DPlqTn3Wr9EGnwbXxw61wfHxLNDBS/7lWTiCaeVCxg7bgkPtAtwZaGUCUCf05iSjZ5+ 143kBMFEIwQdfS6EWxbuVd/30HV18tVk8d2naCx9KoPc2xjqWtefaoPtkOw6mzDVL6tK9sfqr/V jnYQntH3YPae3ApxNURSMz5z6h1T5cGrk4GzCu5tX/HFZCRiOKu99W/e1wk7N0W66wYA05cThs5 95xZYfvjMRbIYd8b6hfccfNOy/gXD7rMVWwWHSnMGmRHmCjd2Tt+nOkFtndZI3U1rTVywMWiDb4 gzd9uNSvUSZSbfsXDfFZI+hubZfxNTbiddw/yEtWdmtumkIfPNHI7j69xlfiGPXOncRreSAV6aP /0Fp6koSx/ZSJOmGwRVCE2J/pQi/iXObGJf8LsJ6Q+Xu3PcF6EgA2vdVKU0VHddCPdNoWP7/TEn FzEovtra5Yf3KisaE1mdP9WhI7TmDkOJs8Sl+tUOWbEsNk3qh7+sljeZZhjMcHYyvIh0/l2nn2z nveZlPPfA4k= Received: by matoro.tk (envelope-sender ) with ESMTPS id 0e5f0b57; Fri, 02 Aug 2024 15:09:27 -0400 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2024 15:09:27 -0400 From: matoro To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [Proposal] Split arch keywords for ppc64 & riscv In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <97e51c89631a186b2be28ee063e90d85@matoro.tk> X-Sender: matoro_mailinglist_gentoo-dev@matoro.tk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: a8c92190-5b81-4b90-9736-a37d51df24b2 X-Archives-Hash: 91db91cd4f0893546f6947f6055be494 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.