Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ppc <ppc@g.o>, ppc64 <ppc64@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 20:28:40
Message-Id: 53D40FBF.8060906@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status by Pacho Ramos
1 On 07/26/14 09:44, Pacho Ramos wrote:
2 > El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 09:37 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió:
3 >> On 07/26/14 09:28, Pacho Ramos wrote:
4 >>> El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió:
5 >>>> Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos:
6 >>>>
7 >>>>> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
8 >>>>> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
9 >>>>> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
10 >>>>> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
11 >>>>>
12 >>>>> Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to
13 >>>>> get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;))
14 >>>> At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council.
15 >>>>
16 >>>> (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...)
17 >>>>
18 >>>> --
19 >>>>
20 >>>> Andreas K. Huettel
21 >>>> Gentoo Linux developer
22 >>>> dilfridge@g.o
23 >>>> http://www.akhuettel.de/
24 >>>>
25 >>> The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently
26 >>> replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or
27 >>> similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to
28 >>> prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the
29 >>> things).
30 >>>
31 >>> I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that
32 >>> blueness was also the only one replying.
33 >>>
34 >>>
35 >> Yeah, not having a clear lead is a problem. No one wants to just make a
36 >> big decision on behalf of the team without making sure everyone is on
37 >> board. Pacho, do you have access to timberdoodle? If so, join both
38 >> teams and just take the initiative and let any other "claimants" step
39 >> forward now. BTW, taking the lead doesn't mean doing all the work
40 >> yourself. I want to see ppc/ppc64 in good shape. I'll be happy to
41 >> write scripts to do the demoting to ~ etc etc.
42 >>
43 > I don't even know about timberdoodle :(
44 >
45 > I forwarded the mail to both alias (as I forgot first time), then,
46 > hopefully they will review it :/
47 >
48 > Will CC them again to this just now with this link to allow all to read
49 > the full thread:
50 > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92151
51 >
52 >
53 >
54
55 I think its clear who cares about ppc/ppc64. If there are no
56 objections, I'll take the lead of those teams and see this plan
57 through. I'll wait a few days for people to voice concerns. Then I'll
58 start by generating a list of all stable and testing packages on ppc and
59 ppc64. I'll post then and then continue the conversation on just the
60 ppc and ppc64 lists. Don't worry, I won't start dropping to ~ until we
61 have a concise plan and we're all on board.
62
63 --
64 Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
65 Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
66 E-Mail : blueness@g.o
67 GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
68 GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status Jack Morgan <jmorgan@g.o>