[gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[orbea]

Hi,

Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of minimal
emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf frontend with a
focus on accuracy.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201

Upstream is very interested in any portability issues and distro
integration. Any issues that are found will be fixed if possible. If
any of the Gentoo testers would like to help out it would be greatly
appreciated.

Thanks!

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[Sam James]

orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of minimal
> emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf frontend with a
> focus on accuracy.
>

You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but we
don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche arches.

Please select a reasonable set of architectures.

> https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[orbea]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of minimal
> > emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf frontend with a
> > focus on accuracy.
> >  
> 
> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but we
> don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche arches.
> 
> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
> 
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201  
> 
> 

Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect I
should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an issue for
each issue and then use them as blockers for the games-emulation/jgemu
issue?

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[Sam James]

orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
> Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
>> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of minimal
>> > emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf frontend with a
>> > focus on accuracy.
>> >  
>> 
>> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but we
>> don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche arches.
>> 
>> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
>> 
>> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201  
>> 
>> 
>
> Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect I
> should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an issue for
> each issue and then use them as blockers for the games-emulation/jgemu
> issue?

No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in Bugzilla.

Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI either
and we generally want to only keyword on arches where someone is likely
to use it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[orbea]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
> > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> >>   
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of
> >> > minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf
> >> > frontend with a focus on accuracy.
> >> >    
> >> 
> >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but
> >> we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche
> >> arches.
> >> 
> >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
> >>   
> >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201    
> >> 
> >>   
> >
> > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect I
> > should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an issue for
> > each issue and then use them as blockers for the
> > games-emulation/jgemu issue?  
> 
> No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
> Bugzilla.
> 
> Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI
> either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where someone
> is likely to use it.
> 

Apologies, I now understand what you meant...

The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that
jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to
accomplish.

Do I want independent issues for the dependencies?

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[Mike Gilbert]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
> Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
> > > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi,
> > >> >
> > >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> > >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of
> > >> > minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf
> > >> > frontend with a focus on accuracy.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd, but
> > >> we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very) niche
> > >> arches.
> > >>
> > >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
> > >>
> > >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect I
> > > should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an issue for
> > > each issue and then use them as blockers for the
> > > games-emulation/jgemu issue?
> >
> > No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
> > Bugzilla.
> >
> > Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI
> > either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where someone
> > is likely to use it.
> >
>
> Apologies, I now understand what you meant...
>
> The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that
> jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to
> accomplish.

This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword
things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream
developers.

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[orbea]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:21:43 -0400
Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
> > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >  
> > > orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> > >  
> > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
> > > > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > >> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> > > >>  
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> > > >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of
> > > >> > minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf
> > > >> > frontend with a focus on accuracy.
> > > >> >  
> > > >>
> > > >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd,
> > > >> but we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very)
> > > >> niche arches.
> > > >>
> > > >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
> > > >>  
> > > >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201  
> > > >>
> > > >>  
> > > >
> > > > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect
> > > > I should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an
> > > > issue for each issue and then use them as blockers for the
> > > > games-emulation/jgemu issue?  
> > >
> > > No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
> > > Bugzilla.
> > >
> > > Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI
> > > either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where
> > > someone is likely to use it.
> > >  
> >
> > Apologies, I now understand what you meant...
> >
> > The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that
> > jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to
> > accomplish.  
> 
> This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword
> things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream
> developers.
> 

Its a common occurrence that upstreams refuse to consider distros and
leave them hanging, but I honestly did not expect the inverse where the
distro is unwilling while the upstream is....

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[Sam James]

orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:21:43 -0400
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
>> > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> >  
>> > > orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
>> > >  
>> > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
>> > > > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > > >  
>> > > >> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
>> > > >>  
>> > > >> > Hi,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
>> > > >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of
>> > > >> > minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf
>> > > >> > frontend with a focus on accuracy.
>> > > >> >  
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd,
>> > > >> but we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very)
>> > > >> niche arches.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
>> > > >>  
>> > > >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201  
>> > > >>
>> > > >>  
>> > > >
>> > > > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect
>> > > > I should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an
>> > > > issue for each issue and then use them as blockers for the
>> > > > games-emulation/jgemu issue?  
>> > >
>> > > No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
>> > > Bugzilla.
>> > >
>> > > Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI
>> > > either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where
>> > > someone is likely to use it.
>> > >  
>> >
>> > Apologies, I now understand what you meant...
>> >
>> > The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that
>> > jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to
>> > accomplish.  
>> 
>> This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword
>> things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream
>> developers.
>> 
>
> Its a common occurrence that upstreams refuse to consider distros and
> leave them hanging, but I honestly did not expect the inverse where the
> distro is unwilling while the upstream is....

That doesn't mean we're able to start acting as CI. We already have
enough test failures and build failures to handle for packages
where people want to use them on alt-arches.

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[Alexey Sokolov]

11.09.2023 21:31, orbea пишет:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:21:43 -0400
> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
>>> Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
>>>>   
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
>>>>> Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>   
>>>>>> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
>>>>>>> games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection of
>>>>>>> minimal emulators for the command-line games-emulation/jgrf
>>>>>>> frontend with a focus on accuracy.
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've not populated the package list and no arches are CC'd,
>>>>>> but we don't keyword things for no reason either on (very)
>>>>>> niche arches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
>>>>>>   
>>>>>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in retrospect
>>>>> I should of thought of it. Just to be clear you mean add an
>>>>> issue for each issue and then use them as blockers for the
>>>>> games-emulation/jgemu issue?
>>>>
>>>> No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
>>>> Bugzilla.
>>>>
>>>> Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam CI
>>>> either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where
>>>> someone is likely to use it.
>>>>   
>>>
>>> Apologies, I now understand what you meant...
>>>
>>> The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems that
>>> jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able to
>>> accomplish.
>>
>> This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword
>> things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream
>> developers.
>>
> 
> Its a common occurrence that upstreams refuse to consider distros and
> leave them hanging, but I honestly did not expect the inverse where the
> distro is unwilling while the upstream is....
> 

End users are already able to attempt building any package on any 
architecture by adding that package and its deps to 
/etc/portage/package.accept_keywords as **

Users who wish to contribute as CI to jgemu can do so already. Users who 
do not wish, won't do that even with the keyword.

-- 
Best regards,
Alexey "DarthGandalf" Sokolov

Re: [gentoo-dev] games-emulation/jgemu keywording request

[orbea]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:40:27 +0100
Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:

> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:21:43 -0400
> > Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >  
> >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <orbea@riseup.net> wrote:  
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100
> >> > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> >    
> >> > > orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> >> > >    
> >> > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100
> >> > > > Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> > > >    
> >> > > >> orbea <orbea@riseup.net> writes:
> >> > > >>    
> >> > > >> > Hi,
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Several months ago I made this issue for keywording the
> >> > > >> > games-emulation/jgemu meta package which is a collection
> >> > > >> > of minimal emulators for the command-line
> >> > > >> > games-emulation/jgrf frontend with a focus on accuracy.
> >> > > >> >    
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> You've not populated the package list and no arches are
> >> > > >> CC'd, but we don't keyword things for no reason either on
> >> > > >> (very) niche arches.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Please select a reasonable set of architectures.
> >> > > >>    
> >> > > >> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/891201    
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>    
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Apologies, I wasn't aware I needed to do that and in
> >> > > > retrospect I should of thought of it. Just to be clear you
> >> > > > mean add an issue for each issue and then use them as
> >> > > > blockers for the games-emulation/jgemu issue?    
> >> > >
> >> > > No, one bug is okay if you populate the package list field in
> >> > > Bugzilla.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just keep in mind that keywording isn't the same as upstreaam
> >> > > CI either and we generally want to only keyword on arches where
> >> > > someone is likely to use it.
> >> > >    
> >> >
> >> > Apologies, I now understand what you meant...
> >> >
> >> > The goal is to hopefully entice real world testers on systems
> >> > that jgemu may be used. This is not something a CI would be able
> >> > to accomplish.    
> >> 
> >> This is not an appropriate use of Gentoo arch testing. We keyword
> >> things based on user demand, not to satisfy the urges of upstream
> >> developers.
> >>   
> >
> > Its a common occurrence that upstreams refuse to consider distros
> > and leave them hanging, but I honestly did not expect the inverse
> > where the distro is unwilling while the upstream is....  
> 
> That doesn't mean we're able to start acting as CI. We already have
> enough test failures and build failures to handle for packages
> where people want to use them on alt-arches.
> 

The goal was to expose these issues so that people can use them, but if
no one is at all interested then close the issue.