1 |
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:17 -0600, R Hill wrote: |
2 |
> > That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something |
3 |
> > more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook |
4 |
> > those. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already. They did |
7 |
> so without problem and without extra docs. Why does x86, the last to switch, |
8 |
> need to be special-cased? |
9 |
|
10 |
Honestly, it is because x86 is the *vast* majority of our user base. |
11 |
When we change something there, we get an onslaught of |
12 |
complaints/comments/opinions. The truth is that while we have a large |
13 |
"silent majority" of people that know what we're doing, we also have the |
14 |
very "vocal minority" of people that only managed to get Gentoo working |
15 |
because they followed some guide to the letter. These people freak out |
16 |
at patch-level bumps that require fix_libtool_files.sh, so I can only |
17 |
imagine how confusing something like that would be to them. Yes, the |
18 |
other arches have done this. In the case of at least one, they aligned |
19 |
it with a new profile/release, to ease the pain. They also were very |
20 |
sure to announce it beforehand. Seeing as how I have been on the |
21 |
receiving end of this border-line harassment for making a change that |
22 |
doesn't hurt anything, I don't want anyone on my team to make the same |
23 |
mistake. |
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
27 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
28 |
x86 Architecture Team |
29 |
Games - Developer |
30 |
Gentoo Linux |