[gentoo-dev] Re: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January

[Ryan Hill]

Luca Barbato wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> This has been an issue for quite some time.  Of course, the impact is
>> debatable, but it seems that we cannot agree ourselves on what is
>> agreeable, so I see this as a point to bring to the Council simply so it
>> can be resolved "once and for all" and things can resume normal
>> operation.
>
> This thread so far spawned lots of reply from an external contributor
> making the point of keeping stale ebuilds around and 4 developers
> against the idea proposing different solutions ranging from force update
> pending some remote testing to remove the stable keyword for such arches.
>
> Anything other suggestions?

I don't know, I can kinda see both sides.  Alt arches tend to be finicky 
so it's important that updates are well tested on them.  Also they're 
more prone to break during upgrades, not only because they're more 
fragile but because upstream is far less likely to have tested on them, 
so I can see why having a stable tree is important.

On the other hand, that stable tree is crufting up badly and also prone 
to breakage just due to being unmaintained.  mips have 225 open bugs, 87 
of which they are the assignee.  i don't really care about open bugs, 
but some do, and it's making them crabby.

I don't think any of the current suggestions are very good, but I don't 
have anything better, other than we get more mips/alt-arch ppl or access 
to hardware.  Like I said, I'm willing to buy hardware if I can find any 
(must ship to Nowhere, Canada).

Does anyone from the (current) mips team have anything to suggest?

> PS: has anybody checked how viable is now qemu-system ?

Does it build with GCC 4 yet?


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list