| 1 |
On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:52:14 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" |
| 3 |
> <kevquinn@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> | Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Actually, they do. Minority archs lead to much better tree QA being |
| 7 |
> done, more bugs in packages being identified and more ebuild and |
| 8 |
> package bugs being fixed. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You see this is the problem with being perceived as a "minority" |
| 11 |
architecture. And it's something that gets completely overlooked -- |
| 12 |
before we had a QA team, the "minority" architectures served a similar |
| 13 |
purpose. Countless packages have had build-system fixes, compile fixes, |
| 14 |
runtime fixes all *because* we had ppc, sparc, mips and others (ppc and |
| 15 |
sparc being the more major of them, in terms of long-term impact to |
| 16 |
Gentoo). IOW, +1 on Ciaran's statement. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think it's perfectly fine to think about pruning/thinning out Gentoo |
| 19 |
to its core, but first we have to actually decide what its core actually |
| 20 |
is. Hint: majority architectures are *not*. Gentoo, at heart, is a |
| 21 |
meta-distribution, and all that that implies. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks, |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 26 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives