1 |
El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:59 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió: |
2 |
> On 06/01/2014 01:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
3 |
> > El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 13:00 +0100, Markos Chandras escribió: |
4 |
> >> On 06/01/2014 12:33 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
5 |
> >>> El dom, 01-06-2014 a las 14:18 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: |
6 |
> >>>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=505962#c6 is blocking |
7 |
> >>>> stabilizing the new virtuals, and thus, converting the tree, and |
8 |
> >>>> also blocking stabilization of the already converted packages |
9 |
> >>>> (gnome seems to have some) pending for 3 months already |
10 |
> >>>> |
11 |
> >>>> thanks, samuli |
12 |
> >>>> |
13 |
> >>> |
14 |
> >>> This makes me wonder about the real status of some of this arches. |
15 |
> >>> I know that now we will probably see how Agostino goes ahead and |
16 |
> >>> does all the work (that is nice and I really welcome his work |
17 |
> >>> trying to keep this arches in shape), but also makes me thing if |
18 |
> >>> makes sense to keep this agostino-dependency for this arches more |
19 |
> >>> and more time. What will occur if he is not around sometime? :/ |
20 |
> >>> |
21 |
> >>> |
22 |
> >> |
23 |
> >> We have been through the same discussion not so long ago and the |
24 |
> >> result was to start dropping the ~m68k, s390 and sh to ~testing[1]. In |
25 |
> >> the thread that started it all[2] there has been no resistance about |
26 |
> >> dropping the keywords of these arches on $subject and here we are |
27 |
> >> again discussing the problem. Here[3] you can see council's decision. |
28 |
> >> I quote here just for fyi: |
29 |
> >> |
30 |
> >> "In summary: |
31 |
> >> - m68k, s390, sh: will be dropped to unstable keywords globally. |
32 |
> >> - alpha, ia64: Maintainers can remove older stable versions according |
33 |
> >> to the "package-by-package" proposal. |
34 |
> >> - sparc: No action. |
35 |
> >> " |
36 |
> >> So unless I make a mistake, you are free to start dropping alpha, ia64 |
37 |
> >> to ~arch. For ppc,ppc64 and sparc it's probably best to resurrect the |
38 |
> >> old thread and possible have add it to the agenda for the next meeting. |
39 |
> >> |
40 |
> >> [1] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/88183 |
41 |
> >> [2] http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/dev/277054 |
42 |
> >> [3] |
43 |
> >> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130917-summary.txt |
44 |
> >> |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > The problem arrives when even core components like udev takes so long to |
47 |
> > be handled :/ (and situation would be much worse if Agostino doesn't |
48 |
> > have time to make his mass stabilizations... well, each time I report a |
49 |
> > stabilization bug that affects me I cross my fingers expecting ago has |
50 |
> > enough time to handle them ;)) |
51 |
> > |
52 |
> > |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Relying on a single developer handling all architectures clearly does |
55 |
> not scale and it is dangerous. We really need to be realistic and |
56 |
> consider how many stable alpha/sparc/ia64/ppc* users are out there. In |
57 |
> my mind the number is rather small, so does it really worth the effort |
58 |
> trying to keep them stable hurting the remaining stable architectures |
59 |
> and causing significant delays in publishing GLSAs? |
60 |
> The reason I suggested to move the discussion back to the old thread is |
61 |
> that some of these things have already been discussed in the past so I |
62 |
> would like to avoid restarting the discussion from scratch. |
63 |
> |
64 |
|
65 |
Yes, I agree. What I am trying to say is that this discussions usually |
66 |
ends when some people reports that "statistically" they don't take so |
67 |
long to stabilize and don't have so many opened bugs... but that |
68 |
statistics depends on ago being able to do the work recently and, then, |
69 |
it's a chicken-egg problem: we want and need him to stabilize on that |
70 |
arches... but that makes other think the arches are ok in that area |
71 |
while they are really relying on one man work :( |