| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 07:37:39PM +0100, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 3 |
> > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite |
| 4 |
> > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a |
| 5 |
> > package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of |
| 6 |
> > the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So you would suggest to be like Ubuntu and say "we can not be bothered |
| 9 |
> to support any minority architectures anymore". This effectively |
| 10 |
> disbands all architecture teams except AMD64 and X86; it should be |
| 11 |
> subject to the same scrutiny (I suggest a council vote) as a GLEP or |
| 12 |
> EAPI change. |
| 13 |
> Personally I would like to hear stronger reasons then "it inconveniences |
| 14 |
> me when a bug I file is open longer then a month" to destroy the current |
| 15 |
> diversity of supported architectures (be it PowerPC or a prefix |
| 16 |
> installation on OS X). |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Regards, |
| 19 |
> Tony V. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Oh come on. I never said to stop supporting those arches. I just said to |
| 22 |
shrink their stable tree. What do you suggest? Pretend to have active |
| 23 |
exotic arches just to look shiny and pretty? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Markos Chandras (hwoarang) |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 28 |
Web: http://hwoarang.silverarrow.org |
Archives