| 1 |
26.07.2021 17:23, Marek Szuba пишет: |
| 2 |
> Dear everyone, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> During the open-floor part of this month's Council meeting I asked |
| 5 |
> whether there is any official policy regarding what is or is not |
| 6 |
> guaranteed for hardware architectures we do not consider stable in |
| 7 |
> Gentoo. For reference, according to the current version of |
| 8 |
> profiles/arches.desc (commit 7bdebec50c44c0222bf76334c34926b593e94dd4, |
| 9 |
> dated 2021-04-05) this means: alpha, ia64, m68k, mips, riscv, s390, |
| 10 |
> and all Prefix arches. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Only the non-RAP one (amd64-linux etc). The prefix installation on amd64 |
| 13 |
now supports using stable amd64 keyword: https://bugs.gentoo.org/759424 |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As it turns out, we do not in fact have any such policy. On the other |
| 17 |
> hand, during my time as a Gentoo developer I have heard from other |
| 18 |
> developers a fairly wide range of opinions on the subject - from |
| 19 |
> insisting on clean QA results, passing tests etc. regardless of whether |
| 20 |
> an arch is stable or not to assuming we guarantee nothing for unstable |
| 21 |
> arches. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Anyway, it has been decided that it makes sense to discuss this on the |
| 24 |
> mailing list before making it a Council matter. Therefore - what do you |
| 25 |
> all think here? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Alexey "DarthGandalf" Sokolov |
Archives