Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:35:37
Message-Id: 54E20E8E.1020102@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] About reducing or even removing stable tree for some arches by Pacho Ramos
1 On 02/16/15 08:34, Pacho Ramos wrote:
2 > Hello
3 >
4 > Every day I am hitting tons of blockers stabilizations and keywording
5 > requests for alpha, sparc, ia64, ppc and ppc64.
6
7 The powerpc team figured we'd deal with this by being "lax" about
8 keywording/stabilization and catch problems in subsequent bug reports to
9 increase our throughput. We didn't want to drop the entire arch to ~.
10 The team hasn't met since last august, and we should discuss this
11 again. But we decided then that ago would do stabilization and the rest
12 of us would do keywording.
13
14 As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to drop all desktop-ish packages to
15 ~arch, but keep the more server-ish, system-ish packages as stable.
16 Controlling @system with stable keywords is very useful for building
17 stages so I'm reluctant to give that up. So maybe we can just adopt the
18 policy that any ppc/ppc64 package which depends on X can be dropped to ~.
19
20 > Thanks a lot for your help
21 >
22
23 No problem. Can you categorize where most of the blockers are coming
24 from? Are they mostly desktop?
25
26 Comments from other ppc people?
27
28 --
29 Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
30 Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
31 E-Mail : blueness@g.o
32 GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
33 GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA

Replies