• On the value (or not?) of stable keywords (Re: [gentoo-dev] Arch Status

    From Sam James@21:1/5 to Arthur Zamarin on Wed Jun 26 02:20:01 2024
    Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> writes:

    Hi all, this will be a long mail, and might be confusing, I'll try to organize it, but this is a mess, so bear with me.

    [...]
    ======== 32-bit arches ========

    This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various
    fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example
    qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage to compile on a
    real-hardware, and not 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host. Arch Team want to minimize our work on those arches, meaning mass-destable and even mass-dekeyword, with potentially full drop of stable status.

    On stable keywords, there's a few thoughts I have:
    * Stable keywords help keep a platform sustainable because you can keep
    it up to date and not be buried under heavy updates (e.g. I sometimes
    get asked to not keyword new GCC versions for the benefit of ~arch-only
    arches)

    * For arches without stable keywords, we don't have any reason to
    regularly run the testsuite, so issues which might even be trivially
    solvable go unnoticed. It goes from "running tests whenever there's a
    regular stablereq" -> "once in a blue moon if rekeywording is
    required".

    This part is a shame, but it's also precisely why there's pressure to
    destable things. It's tricky :(

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iOUEARYKAI0WIQQlpruI3Zt2TGtVQcJzhAn1IN+RkAUCZnteFV8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0MjVB NkJCODhERDlCNzY0QzZCNTU0MUMyNzM4NDA5RjUyMERGOTE5MA8cc2FtQGdlbnRv by5vcmcACgkQc4QJ9SDfkZBkOwEAwlKRu/62+i/vOYVHSlUHG0A86UGQF+lO4Rrw AFZuM5oA/01NusUsx/36RjkJnTeynZqHFlYrWrQRmF9LQz3KMzAL
    =Qb1B
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)