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