| 1 |
On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 23:35 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:09:24 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Matthias Langer <mlangc@×××.at> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > This kind of conversation is not technical at all... Ciaranm, are you |
| 5 |
> > a MIPS user? If so, do you think that running KEYWORDS="mips" is less |
| 6 |
> > likely to result in breakage than running KEYWORDS="~mips"? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I think you'd need a much larger sample than one to get any meaningful |
| 9 |
> answer there (and it might be worth doing it across all other archs |
| 10 |
> too, to find out whether mips is in any way anomalous). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Right, but if everyone I ask gives me an answer like this, it will take |
| 13 |
quite a while before we have even two opinions... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As you are engaged in this discussion very heavily, I thought that maybe |
| 16 |
you are a occasional MIPS user, that could point out, that for example |
| 17 |
removing stable keywords for all MIPS packages, would have a quite |
| 18 |
negative impact for most MIPS boxes. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The thing that really bothers me about this discussion is, that there |
| 21 |
seems to be almost no input from the people actually affected (users and |
| 22 |
developers), which makes the whole thing a bit pointless, unless it |
| 23 |
turns out that exactly this is the problem, in which case MIPS support |
| 24 |
may be removed entirely without doing any harm. |
Archives