| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 17:41 -0400, Luis F. Araujo wrote: |
| 2 |
> Stephen P. Becker wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> Is it just me, it seems that only sparc/mips devs want that kind of |
| 5 |
> >> change and non none of the x86/amd64 devs... |
| 6 |
> >> I still dont see what practical advantage that would bring to x86/amd64 |
| 7 |
> >> users or developers? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > If you haven't figured out the reason we are pushing for this sort of |
| 11 |
> > thing yet, it is because x86 is unsupported in Gentoo (if you consider |
| 12 |
> > what all the other arches have to do to be "supported"). As a result, |
| 13 |
> > it causes the quality of the portage tree to suffer. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You are saying that the quality of x86 stuff in the tree is worse than |
| 16 |
> the other arches? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
I belive that's a reality. For example on AMD64 devs and AT's tested the |
| 19 |
new 2005.1 livecd and stages for long time. On our team we found bugs on |
| 20 |
packages (missing deps or patches) and we also test the packages with |
| 21 |
the help of our AT's. At this moment i belive that x86 really misses the |
| 22 |
arch team (hopefully it's in formation) to help test, improve QA and |
| 23 |
also take care of security issues for example. |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Luis Medinas <metalgod@g.o> |
| 26 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux Developer: AMD64,Printing,Media-Optical |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives