| 1 |
Why didn't you bring this up last week before we voted to drop s390 |
| 2 |
support today? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Joshua |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Michael Imhof wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>> Before Randy left, he'd promised to give me access to his s390, but that |
| 11 |
>> never materialised, so at this point I'd say there's no access. Seeing |
| 12 |
>> as it's effectively an unmaintained port with no ETA on Randy, I say |
| 13 |
>> either remove s390 from KEYWORDS which it blocks or stable it and let |
| 14 |
>> the fallout happen when s390 returns to being an active port. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think this one is not clear. Randy had access to it's "own" machine |
| 18 |
> where he did development etc. |
| 19 |
> If access to an s390/zSeries is needed i can provide it. |
| 20 |
> Randy and i had the idea of porting gentoo to zSeries and both got |
| 21 |
> access to different machines. The one from Randy was at his |
| 22 |
> university. The one i have access to is owned by a company that does |
| 23 |
> development for zSeries. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The idea behind it was: |
| 26 |
> Randy had a devlopment machine where he could tweak and work. When he |
| 27 |
> completed the first set of full stages we wanted to install Gentoo on |
| 28 |
> the Machine (better said partitions) i have access to and use those |
| 29 |
> partitions for providing access to s390 to devs. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Another thing that makes me sad is that people who were very involved |
| 33 |
> in this port now have no problem to just let it die. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> So if there are ppl who want to maintain this port. Access to hardware |
| 37 |
> is here... |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> Regards |
| 41 |
> Michael |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives