Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:22:08
Message-Id: 51213BE8.7020905@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo by Agostino Sarubbo
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA512
3
4 On 02/17/2013 07:43 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote:
5 > On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote:
6 >> First you need to tell us what arches you think they are
7 >> considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document
8 >> that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just
9 >> drop the stable keywords for them.
10 >
11 > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/index.xml#doc_chap4 I don't see
12 > project page for: m68k, sh, s390
13 >
14 >
15 > 20:41 <ago> expn m68k 20:41 <willikins> m68k = vapier, 20:41 <ago>
16 > expn sh 20:42 <willikins> sh = vapier,matsuu,armin76,ago, 20:42
17 > <ago> expn s390 20:42 <willikins> s390 = vapier,armin76,ago,
18 >
19 I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. No project page does
20 not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. Moreover, you see that
21 there are devs in these arches. Did you try to talk to them? I also
22 asked for a list of minor arches and you didn't provide one. I
23 presume, you think that m68k, sh, and s390 are minor? What about ia64,
24 ppc? Do we have enough manpower there? Because iirc there arches also
25 lack in stabilization bugs as well.
26
27 - --
28 Regards,
29 Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
30 http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang
31 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
32 Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
33
34 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRITvoAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC+rwQAL366SHQxH5Q//cR7HFmYTrE
35 epB02TpQPNkwp25fn5eFqX3Y3xrvPyLKbIh2dnCV+Z+i4oRV49QDW5SXlGfF2HlW
36 yvopL2wf5D9eaYri28pnAqW3SQxX/bdUun1k2erpR7YwNlP7pyeIKvlL9/62kXgR
37 qkHYbRa8ZOwkM+kFU66ZwwjGFgMdKvoq7psU6Lj5bnscuFYbevWCGXfNMf10QaYf
38 6EhsEPt7N3jO+z0pk2DQdZ/L7eA4XXxcnRxBSKQIuN9bwf1hX1c8JP+puAmx69zr
39 34uNcS5K6AtvBoALcuIsSI5e2uU4GYEMPEmRNqsfR6z/pzs8um/Pp/UKEiqesK7W
40 tqs3D6r+wiEL2/T9QByDUCNXouUUoAEtFlw/ugE2MTgx2AGAu0iMZBFDqZjn8Ptx
41 4pJpCrCONUPHVis1nfehlZZTwoQXB09C1yFP5qVN5i+pUKpfzINUeaICR5vLarbY
42 ul158Wc9ps7pyZJkLlKrv3/Fz5wCnVgQ2NY1nUG++vmPtJMAaWUwoU465aMDb67z
43 oyVvgfKvUA9t1jgLXMkg7NWqieI5YtTM8Qvx5U7X5weGCPZA8LF5DpJZG8OacAv6
44 6Qm2L4YuIMsT9YMZ1AxeSrlVZ/DNYkrtonQN6CMEhW0Dw/n9IF+ydHvzWqZPELYv
45 L3HtIc+uEFQOe8/IrgPn
46 =hsQ7
47 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo Agostino Sarubbo <ago@g.o>