| 1 |
On 28/08/13 14:15, Markos Chandras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27 August 2013 10:54, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time |
| 4 |
>> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda |
| 5 |
>> to discuss or vote on. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to |
| 8 |
>> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously |
| 9 |
>> suggested one (since the last meeting). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 2013-09-03. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Please respond to the gentoo-project list, if possible. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Ulrich |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Hi, |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'd like to ask the council to vote on the following topics regarding the |
| 20 |
> 'minor arches' based on the feedback I received on the respective |
| 21 |
> thread in the gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=137708312817671&w=1 |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Drop the following arches to ~arch |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> - s390 |
| 28 |
> - sh |
| 29 |
> - ia64 |
| 30 |
> - alpha |
| 31 |
> - m68k |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
armin76 just posted on planet.gentoo.org how m68k emulator can be used |
| 34 |
as an m68k arch tool (build host) |
| 35 |
but this one is the one that is worringly behind others, even other |
| 36 |
minor arches, the one that gets left behind alone in bug reports and |
| 37 |
often have 3 different stablereqs for just 1 package :/ |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
maybe separate voting on m68k, since it seems like the m68k-problem is |
| 40 |
being dwelled into more generic lesser problem |
| 41 |
imho :) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> - sparc |
| 44 |
> -(maybe ppc and ppc64?) |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. |
| 47 |
> Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these |
| 48 |
> architectures create problems |
| 49 |
> for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. |
| 50 |
> The council should also take into consideration that the stabilization process |
| 51 |
> for these arches is mostly a one-man job (Agostino). |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> However, some people raised the point that we should provide stable stages |
| 54 |
> for these architectures and drop everything else to ~arch. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> So if the Council votes 'NO' to the original question, vote on whether |
| 57 |
> only @system should |
| 58 |
> be stable for these architectures. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> The Council should also provide a list of the arches that wishes to |
| 61 |
> "mark" as ~arch (even if they only do stable @system) |
| 62 |
> so maintainers are aware of the situation. |
| 63 |
> |
Archives