Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:07:14 -0500
Steev Klimaszewski wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:44:51 -0500
>> Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o> wrote:
>>
>>> I would suggest moving all the "slacking" arches to "experimental"
>>> until there is desire from the dev community (read: manpower) to
>>> support a stable tree again. Until then, it seems pretty pointless to
>>> keep assigning bugs to these arches and they just keep rotting there
>>> because no one gets around to them.
>>>
>>> 2 cents,
>>> -Jeremy
>> ++ $473.57
>>
>>
> 
> My aim with the email wasn't to start up this discussion so much as to
> figure out which arches are supported by stable keywords, and which
> ones are okay to not request stable keywords so that bugs don't sit
> around for months without action on them.  I know that vapier is
> pretty much the only dev with an sh or s390 box, but I know there are
> a couple of people with ARM, I was just hoping we had some sort of
> official list somewhere.
> 

I wasn't trying to go down that road either but you should know that 
this discussion will be forced there if there is to be any conclusion to 
this topic. AFAIK, it is incorrect right now to exclude s390, arm, sh, 
etc on stablereqs right now..But, I ask this question to the dev 
community: "Why?" There are ~190 open bugs with s390 as assignee or on 
the CC list. Does it *really* matter if these under-staffed "odd" arches 
have a stable tree or not? If there is a problem with a stable package 
right now, will there be a new version marked stable in a reasonable 
amount of time? I think we can conclude that having a stable tree for 
understaffed arches might cause more harm than good.

To conclude my input on the topic:
It is my opinion that filing stablereqs against these arches is silly. 
However, I will continue to do so until requested otherwise. I respect 
that people may not have enough resources or time to keep up to x86 or 
amd64, so maybe there needs to be a policy change somehow..? (or maybe 
it just needs to be clarified better)

-Jeremy


Replies:
Re: Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Duncan
References:
"Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Steev Klimaszewski
Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Friedrich Oslage
Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Jeremy Olexa
Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Ryan Hill
Re: Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
-- Steev Klimaszewski
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
Next by thread:
Re: "Slacking" arches - which are stable, which aren't?
Previous by date:
Re: Baselayout-2 / OpenRC Stabilization
Next by date:
Re: Baselayout-2 / OpenRC Stabilization


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.