On 07/26/2014 11:09 AM, Johannes Huber wrote: > Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 10:44:26 schrieb Pacho Ramos: >> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 10:36 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: >>> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:07 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: >>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: >>>>> On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>>>> El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: >>>>>>> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>>>>>>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would >>>>>>>> be to >>>>>>>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be >>>>>>>> accomplished >>>>>>>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would >>>>>>>> solve >>>>>>>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, >>>>>>>> have a >>>>>>>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help >>>>>>>> people in >>>>>>>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as >>>>>>>> opposed >>>>>>>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with >>>>>>>> tons >>>>>>>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords >>>>>>>> years ago >>>>>>>> and are currently no so important. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly >>>>>>> taking >>>>>>> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization >>>>>>> effort >>>>>>> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> for mips too. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base >>>>>> system :/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... >>>>>> xorg-server >>>>>> and co... what more >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, >>>>>> once >>>>>> do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they >>>>>> want >>>>>> and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you >>>>>> think >>>>>> about that? >>>>> >>>>> At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with >>>>> catalyst. >>>>> I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to >>>>> limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and >>>>> maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? >>>> >>>> If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's >>>> to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering >>>> the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about >>>> filing stable requests on them. >>>> >>>> That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages. >>>> >>>> William >>> >>> But, moving ppc* to exp wouldn't lead us to likely break their tree? >>> (because we wouldn't get any dependency issue even with "base" >>> packages...) >> >> I was thinking in this plan: >> - Get a list with all packages stable on ppc >> - Drop from that list what ppc teams want >> - Run on all that packages ekeyword ~ppc* >> - Run repoman to the full tree to fix the dependencies, use.stable.mask >> some, tune the list of stable packages... > > ++ from Gentoo kde point of view >
+1 from ruby. How do we solve keyword requests? https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477648 is ~ 12 months and hasn't seen any reply from the ppc* teams. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=497396 ~ 6 months https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487206 ~ 9 months https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487178 ~ 9 months We can start dropping ppc* from dev-ruby/* if that eases maintenance and gives you more time for core packages? Cheers Manuel
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
