| 1 |
Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:38 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>I think the reason people drop arches is laziness of some arch herds. |
| 7 |
>>C'mon people, how hard can it be to see if it builds right on your arch? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>What arch do you use? Maybe we should trade in your box for a nice |
| 12 |
>sparc32 or mips box and see what you have to say then. Remember that in |
| 13 |
>many of these arches, all the machines are still measured in Megahertz |
| 14 |
>and not Gigahertz, and they are quite old. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>The arch teams are doing their jobs quite well, don't try to push blame |
| 17 |
>onto them. They shouldn't go around marking something stable just |
| 18 |
>because it builds and should test it. If they have no way of testing |
| 19 |
>it, then they don't need to stabilize it. It won't kill you to have a |
| 20 |
>single older ebuild in the tree for an arch. Either that, or you can |
| 21 |
>remove the keywords, as Jason mentioned, and file a bug against the |
| 22 |
>package to the mips team so they are aware that keywords have been |
| 23 |
>dropped from the package and that it will need testing to be |
| 24 |
>re-keyworded. Looking over that bug, it really looks like you flipped |
| 25 |
>out over nothing. It took them a week to respond. That isn't very |
| 26 |
>long, at all. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
Hmm.. it looks like I've overreacted. I was convinced that my request |
| 30 |
have been ignored for one month. |
| 31 |
My apologies to mips team and all... |
Archives