en/glep/glep-0040.txt

GLEP: 40
Title: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs.
Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/09/15 21:02:11 $
Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
Status: Approved
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/x-rst
Created: 3-Sep-2005
Post-History: 6-Sep-2005 15-Sep-2005

Status
======

Approved by the Gentoo Council on 15 September 2005.

Credits
=======

This GLEP originated from a rather contentious discussion_ on gentoo-dev
about combining the x86 and amd64 keywords.  This GLEP attempts to get at the
heart of that discontent.  The proposed stable-keyword guidelines have been
lifted verbatim from `The Doc`_.

.. _discussion: http://tinyurl.com/bp859
.. _The Doc: http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual

Abstract
========

It is time for x86 to no longer be an exception to the standard
keywording guidelines.  Thus, an x86 arch team should be responsible 
for moving packages from ~x86 to x86.

Motivation
==========

The original, informal x86 keywording policy, where almost any x86 dev (which
were the vast majority of devs) who used a package could mark it stable, arose
from a time when there were relatively few Gentoo devs.  Adding packages to
the tree was the principal concern, as opposed to maintaining existing
packages. QA considerations have since modified that policy slightly, and now
it is the package maintainers who should mark an x86 package stable.  Of
course, that policy presumes that package maintainers are generally x86 devs,
which is slowly becoming less and less true.

This policy for x86 is quite different from how every other arch marks
packages stable.  For the non-x86 archs, each arch has a specific "arch team"
which is responsible for moving packages from ``~arch`` to ``arch``, although
vapier notes that "arch teams generally defer to maintainers (and rightly so)
as to *when* newer versions should go stable."  This approach has worked quite
well for the non-x86 archs, and this GLEP asserts that the same approach would
benefit x86 as well.

Specification
=============

Stabling guidelines for all archs
---------------------------------

For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met:

*  The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ``~arch`` first.
   Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline.
   For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected.  For small
   packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period
   is sometimes appropriate.
*  The package must not have any non-``arch`` dependencies.
*  The package must not have any severe outstanding bugs or issues.
*  The package must be widely tested.
*  If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any package
   which depends upon it.
*  The relevant ``arch`` team must agree to it.

x86 arch team
-------------

A robust x86 arch team needs to be created.  The x86@gentoo.org alias already
exists, and it merely needs to be used.  This team, with the aid of potential
non-dev ``arch testers``, has the responsibility of stabling all x86 packages.
Current x86 devs who wish to mark their own packages stable must therefore
either be members of or make individual arrangements with the x86 arch team.


Rationale
=========

There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a robust
x86 arch team--a good number of bodies (the amd64 arch team has 19 active devs
and 12 active non-dev arch testers) need to be recruited to be part of the
new arch team, and convincing devs that it is in their best interests to work
in a new fashion is likely to be even harder.  Certainly the benefit of
consistency between the various archs is obvious, but is it worth the cost
involved?  Here are the arguments for enduring the pain involved:

*  Over time, x86 is likely to become a minority arch as 64-bit systems
   become the norm.  The implicit assumptions that underly the current
   system (that most devs, users, and package maintainers use x86)
   will become increasingly less valid.
*  Markedly improved QA for x86.  Assuming that the author's own  is
   behavior is representative, most x86 devs run ``~x86`` systems. 
   Thus, the assumption that devs are good ``x86`` testers is not really
   valid.  One obvious consequence is that packages tend to languish in
   ``~x86`` for a very long time, since x86 devs running ``~x86`` have little
   cause to notice that a package has not been marked stable.  The much larger
   effect, though, is that it is rare for ``x86`` packages to be stabled in
   the context of a full ``x86`` tree, so the big picture of a stable
   *system*, not just a stable package, is lost.  This approach of stabling
   in the context of a full stable ``arch`` tree, it has been argued_, is
   the fundamental reason why the non-x86 archs have notably better QA
   than does the x86 arch.

.. _argued: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/30369

Implementation
==============

Creation of a robust x86 team is already underway.  The more vital step 
is the official change in policy, along with a sustained effort to get
existing x86 devs to go along with it.

Alternative Ideas
=================

Stuart_ has suggested the creation of a new arch keyword: "[-]maint", which 
would exist in tandem with the normal arch keywords, thereby making the
package maintainer's intention explicit.  Ciaranm has responded that by
definition a package in ``~arch`` is a candidate for ``arch``, so a package's
mere presence in the tree (without being in ``package.mask``) should indicate
the package maintainer's intention.  There was a fair bit of discussion about
whether the idea should be a "maint" keyword, or named something else, or an
entirely different variable, etcetera, but the basic gist didn't change much.

Jstubbs notes that it could be a very good idea if all non-arch devs worked in
overlays, but that new portage (gensync) support would be needed to make it
truly viable.  Stuart pointed out that php5 support was handled just that way.
One author's view is that this approach would make the "package in ``~arch``
means that it's a de-facto candidate for ``arch``" interpretation even more 
valid.

Ciaranm and weeve have noted that it is occasionally necessary for arch teams
to override a package maintainer when it comes to stabling a package.  Stuart
has asserted that in those cases the arch team should be willing to take on
the support burden for that package.

.. _Stuart: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31060

Backwards Compatibility
=======================

Not really an issue here.


Copyright
=========

This document has been placed in the public domain.
1	g2boojum	1.1	GLEP: 40
2			Title: Standardizing "arch" keywording across all archs.
3	g2boojum	1.3	Version: $Revision: 1.2 $
4			Last-Modified: $Date: 2005/09/15 21:02:11 $
5	g2boojum	1.1	Author: Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
6	g2boojum	1.2	Status: Approved
7	g2boojum	1.1	Type: Standards Track
8			Content-Type: text/x-rst
9			Created: 3-Sep-2005
10	g2boojum	1.2	Post-History: 6-Sep-2005 15-Sep-2005
11
12			Status
13			======
14
15			Approved by the Gentoo Council on 15 September 2005.
16	g2boojum	1.1
17			Credits
18			=======
19
20			This GLEP originated from a rather contentious discussion_ on gentoo-dev
21			about combining the x86 and amd64 keywords. This GLEP attempts to get at the
22			heart of that discontent. The proposed stable-keyword guidelines have been
23			lifted verbatim from `The Doc`_.
24
25			.. _discussion: http://tinyurl.com/bp859
26			.. _The Doc: http://dev.gentoo.org/~plasmaroo/devmanual
27
28			Abstract
29			========
30
31			It is time for x86 to no longer be an exception to the standard
32			keywording guidelines. Thus, an x86 arch team should be responsible
33			for moving packages from ~x86 to x86.
34
35			Motivation
36			==========
37
38			The original, informal x86 keywording policy, where almost any x86 dev (which
39			were the vast majority of devs) who used a package could mark it stable, arose
40			from a time when there were relatively few Gentoo devs. Adding packages to
41			the tree was the principal concern, as opposed to maintaining existing
42			packages. QA considerations have since modified that policy slightly, and now
43			it is the package maintainers who should mark an x86 package stable. Of
44			course, that policy presumes that package maintainers are generally x86 devs,
45			which is slowly becoming less and less true.
46
47			This policy for x86 is quite different from how every other arch marks
48			packages stable. For the non-x86 archs, each arch has a specific "arch team"
49			which is responsible for moving packages from ``~arch`` to ``arch``, although
50			vapier notes that "arch teams generally defer to maintainers (and rightly so)
51			as to when newer versions should go stable." This approach has worked quite
52			well for the non-x86 archs, and this GLEP asserts that the same approach would
53			benefit x86 as well.
54
55			Specification
56			=============
57
58			Stabling guidelines for all archs
59			---------------------------------
60
61			For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met:
62
63			* The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ``~arch`` first.
64			Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline.
65			For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. For small
66			packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period
67			is sometimes appropriate.
68			* The package must not have any non-``arch`` dependencies.
69			* The package must not have any severe outstanding bugs or issues.
70			* The package must be widely tested.
71			* If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any package
72			which depends upon it.
73			* The relevant ``arch`` team must agree to it.
74
75			x86 arch team
76			-------------
77
78			A robust x86 arch team needs to be created. The x86@gentoo.org alias already
79			exists, and it merely needs to be used. This team, with the aid of potential
80			non-dev ``arch testers``, has the responsibility of stabling all x86 packages.
81			Current x86 devs who wish to mark their own packages stable must therefore
82			either be members of or make individual arrangements with the x86 arch team.
83
84
85			Rationale
86			=========
87
88			There will be a considerable one-time cost involved in establishing a robust
89	g2boojum	1.3	x86 arch team--a good number of bodies (the amd64 arch team has 19 active devs
90	g2boojum	1.1	and 12 active non-dev arch testers) need to be recruited to be part of the
91			new arch team, and convincing devs that it is in their best interests to work
92			in a new fashion is likely to be even harder. Certainly the benefit of
93			consistency between the various archs is obvious, but is it worth the cost
94			involved? Here are the arguments for enduring the pain involved:
95
96			* Over time, x86 is likely to become a minority arch as 64-bit systems
97			become the norm. The implicit assumptions that underly the current
98			system (that most devs, users, and package maintainers use x86)
99			will become increasingly less valid.
100			* Markedly improved QA for x86. Assuming that the author's own is
101			behavior is representative, most x86 devs run ``~x86`` systems.
102			Thus, the assumption that devs are good ``x86`` testers is not really
103			valid. One obvious consequence is that packages tend to languish in
104			``~x86`` for a very long time, since x86 devs running ``~x86`` have little
105			cause to notice that a package has not been marked stable. The much larger
106			effect, though, is that it is rare for ``x86`` packages to be stabled in
107			the context of a full ``x86`` tree, so the big picture of a stable
108			system, not just a stable package, is lost. This approach of stabling
109			in the context of a full stable ``arch`` tree, it has been argued_, is
110			the fundamental reason why the non-x86 archs have notably better QA
111			than does the x86 arch.
112
113			.. _argued: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/30369
114
115			Implementation
116			==============
117
118			Creation of a robust x86 team is already underway. The more vital step
119			is the official change in policy, along with a sustained effort to get
120			existing x86 devs to go along with it.
121
122			Alternative Ideas
123			=================
124
125			Stuart_ has suggested the creation of a new arch keyword: "[-]maint", which
126			would exist in tandem with the normal arch keywords, thereby making the
127			package maintainer's intention explicit. Ciaranm has responded that by
128			definition a package in ``~arch`` is a candidate for ``arch``, so a package's
129			mere presence in the tree (without being in ``package.mask``) should indicate
130			the package maintainer's intention. There was a fair bit of discussion about
131			whether the idea should be a "maint" keyword, or named something else, or an
132			entirely different variable, etcetera, but the basic gist didn't change much.
133
134			Jstubbs notes that it could be a very good idea if all non-arch devs worked in
135			overlays, but that new portage (gensync) support would be needed to make it
136			truly viable. Stuart pointed out that php5 support was handled just that way.
137			One author's view is that this approach would make the "package in ``~arch``
138			means that it's a de-facto candidate for ``arch``" interpretation even more
139			valid.
140
141			Ciaranm and weeve have noted that it is occasionally necessary for arch teams
142			to override a package maintainer when it comes to stabling a package. Stuart
143			has asserted that in those cases the arch team should be willing to take on
144			the support burden for that package.
145
146			.. _Stuart: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/31060
147
148			Backwards Compatibility
149			=======================
150
151			Not really an issue here.
152
153
154			Copyright
155			=========
156
157			This document has been placed in the public domain.