On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:40:27 +0100 Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> orbea <or...@riseup.net> writes: > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:21:43 -0400 > > Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM orbea <or...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 20:38:48 +0100 > >> > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > > orbea <or...@riseup.net> writes: > >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 19:18:45 +0100 > >> > > > Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> orbea <or...@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.
