Bug 816039 – app-emulation/lxd keyword for 32bit (x86)

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Richard H. 2021-10-03 11:35:22 UTC]

I have just setup lxd in an old Xeon host which only support 32 bit.

I had to add the keywords to lxd and some dependencies however and I am puzzled why exactly. The home page of lxd clearly states it runs on any platform the kernel itself supports.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. emerge app-emulation/lxd on a 32bit system, keyword error
2. add keywords
3. try again, works.
Actual Results:  
Cannot be merged without adding keywords

Expected Results:  
Should just work as it does on amd64

[Comment 1 Richard H. 2021-10-03 11:36:25 UTC]

I used the following keywords exactly:

=app-emulation/lxd-4.0.7 **
<dev-libs/dqlite-9999 **
<dev-libs/raft-9999 **
<sys-fs/lxcfs-9999 **

[Comment 2 NATTkA bot 2021-10-03 17:32:25 UTC]

Unable to check for sanity:

> no match for package: dev-libs/dqlite-1.0.9

[Comment 3 Larry the Git Cow 2021-10-04 05:40:51 UTC]

The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s):

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=09dca6434ce28558ee3ae2a5d85c10a22d853ea4

commit 09dca6434ce28558ee3ae2a5d85c10a22d853ea4
Author:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
AuthorDate: 2021-10-04 05:38:04 +0000
Commit:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
CommitDate: 2021-10-04 05:40:21 +0000

    profiles/arch/x86: package.use.mask app-emulation/lxd[apparmor]
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/816039
    Signed-off-by: Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>

 profiles/arch/x86/package.use.mask | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b317ecf11d8b6d994b421026ae7a09e190eefa64

commit b317ecf11d8b6d994b421026ae7a09e190eefa64
Author:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
AuthorDate: 2021-10-04 05:28:03 +0000
Commit:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
CommitDate: 2021-10-04 05:40:20 +0000

    app-emulation/lxd: keyword 4.0.7-r1 for ~x86
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/816039
    Signed-off-by: Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>

 app-emulation/lxd/lxd-4.0.7-r1.ebuild | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=fffbab77fadda7389519c044825bf97558b6e259

commit fffbab77fadda7389519c044825bf97558b6e259
Author:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
AuthorDate: 2021-10-04 05:27:40 +0000
Commit:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
CommitDate: 2021-10-04 05:40:20 +0000

    sys-fs/lxcfs: keyword 4.0.9 for ~x86
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/816039
    Signed-off-by: Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>

 sys-fs/lxcfs/lxcfs-4.0.9.ebuild | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=4c0d7b571a4008e4f8a7472d7259244d786186f5

commit 4c0d7b571a4008e4f8a7472d7259244d786186f5
Author:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
AuthorDate: 2021-10-04 05:27:14 +0000
Commit:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
CommitDate: 2021-10-04 05:40:20 +0000

    dev-libs/dqlite: keyword 1.9.0 for ~x86
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/816039
    Signed-off-by: Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>

 dev-libs/dqlite/dqlite-1.9.0.ebuild | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=5bb43d48b268774f541f2373149ae9b378e75a57

commit 5bb43d48b268774f541f2373149ae9b378e75a57
Author:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
AuthorDate: 2021-10-04 05:26:43 +0000
Commit:     Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>
CommitDate: 2021-10-04 05:40:20 +0000

    dev-libs/raft: keyword 0.11.2 for ~x86
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/816039
    Signed-off-by: Joonas Niilola <[e-mail]>

 dev-libs/raft/raft-0.11.2.ebuild | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

[Comment 4 Joonas Niilola 2021-10-04 05:42:31 UTC]

We try to avoid keywording dead / less-used architechtures unless requested, because they bring more maintenance burden and have less manpower to deal with them. 

Is ~unstable okay, or do you want it to be stabilized in the future?

[Comment 5 Richard H. 2021-10-04 06:38:53 UTC]

(In reply to Joonas Niilola from comment #4)
> We try to avoid keywording dead / less-used architechtures unless requested,
> because they bring more maintenance burden and have less manpower to deal
> with them. 
> 
> Is ~unstable okay, or do you want it to be stabilized in the future?

Thank you for your fast reaction!

~unstable is absolutely fine for me. I was quite puzzled but yes, I guess x86 is not used that much anymore. But I can live very much with ~x86, yes. But having to add ** might be scary to some people.