1 |
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
3 |
> > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: |
4 |
> >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
5 |
> >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to |
6 |
> >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and |
7 |
> >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished |
8 |
> >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve |
9 |
> >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the |
10 |
> >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a |
11 |
> >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in |
12 |
> >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being |
13 |
> >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed |
14 |
> >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons |
15 |
> >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago |
16 |
> >>> and are currently no so important. |
17 |
> >>> |
18 |
> >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking |
19 |
> >> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same |
20 |
> >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort |
21 |
> >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about |
22 |
> >> for mips too. |
23 |
> >> |
24 |
> >> |
25 |
> > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base |
26 |
> > system :/ |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server |
29 |
> > and co... what more |
30 |
> > |
31 |
> > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once |
32 |
> > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want |
33 |
> > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think |
34 |
> > about that? |
35 |
> > |
36 |
> > |
37 |
> |
38 |
> At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst. |
39 |
> I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to |
40 |
> limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and |
41 |
> maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? |
42 |
|
43 |
If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's |
44 |
to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering |
45 |
the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about |
46 |
filing stable requests on them. |
47 |
|
48 |
That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages. |
49 |
|
50 |
William |