Re: [gentoo-dev] arches.desc & GLEP 72 (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Items for Council Agenda, May 14)

["Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1505 bytes --]

Am Samstag, 6. Mai 2017, 18:35:08 CEST schrieb Michał Górny:
>
> > An implementation is still missing though.
> 
> ...and a rationale section to describe why you did the things this way.

Well, that's more or less the Motivation section. Should I rename it?

> 1. I think your example is a bit misleading -- unless I'm missing
> something, mips would be 'unstable' right now, and m68k would be
> 'testing'.

Right. Fixed. 

> 2. I can't say I like using magical keywords like 'testing'
> and 'unstable'; they're going to be confusing long-term (compare:
> the mess with stable/exp/dev for profiles). But I don't have a very good
> idea how to it better right now.

Well, I pulled the two terms that are tradidionally used for ~arch... 
"testing" and "unstable". Testing implied to me that a transition is taking 
place, so that went to the "mixed state". 

There's also Kent's proposal where some more indirection is introduced (see 
the discussion threads). It more or less achives the same with even more 
flexibility. I dont like it so much because I want to keep things simple.

> 3. What is the use case for 'broken'? Are we ever going to use that?

None that I know of. I only added it because it was suggested on the list (and 
because it's simple to define and implement).

> 
> Plus, you have a few typos, you need to wikify it and other minor blah
> blah.


-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (council, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]