| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I'd suggest something like "if nobody could test your update in a |
| 4 |
>> timely way you should ask and possibly get an account on an arch box |
| 5 |
>> in order to test it and bump if the minimal test pass" |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> sounds fair? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Sounds like a great way to get more broken packages, which means more |
| 10 |
> work for arch teams fixing them, which means less time available for |
| 11 |
> fixing important bugs. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I find it more often we're waiting for the arch team to do something |
| 14 |
so we can remove the broken package from the tree. I have four versions |
| 15 |
of freetype sitting around that I'd really like to get rid of but can't |
| 16 |
until mips stabilizes a newer version. Granted, I may only think it |
| 17 |
happens more often because I only see it from the dev side. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't mean to rag on the mips team because I understand how difficult |
| 20 |
it can be to build and test packages on that type of hardware (see [i] |
| 21 |
for a good explanation). I've personally been looking into getting an |
| 22 |
Indigo2 or O2 box to help out. I'd like to know, though, if they have |
| 23 |
any plans to deal with the current situation. And if there is no real |
| 24 |
solution in sight, what can we do about it? Is dropping the |
| 25 |
MIPS stable tree an option? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(btw this is a discussion that should take place on the -project ML) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[i] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/46072 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 34 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 35 |
wxwindows @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives