| 1 |
On 11/05/14 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 11/05/14 21:06, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been very territorial about its |
| 4 |
>> role, perhaps because the arch is so ubiquitous. |
| 5 |
> For reference, a mail from the amd64@ lead KingTaco from 2007 at |
| 6 |
> gentoo-core@: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> "All- |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your |
| 11 |
> help. We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1] |
| 12 |
> and [2]. |
| 13 |
> It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release |
| 14 |
> even more. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for |
| 17 |
> amd64 |
| 18 |
> stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword |
| 19 |
> your packages. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Mike Doty |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp |
| 26 |
> [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
For futher reference, a thread from #gentoo-dev, Freenode, around 2007, |
| 29 |
including amd64 lead: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
"<ulm> !herd amd64 |
| 32 |
<jeeves> ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox, |
| 33 |
dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop, |
| 34 |
rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2 |
| 35 |
<ulm> ^^ping |
| 36 |
<kingtaco|work> yes? |
| 37 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages |
| 38 |
in app-emacs |
| 39 |
<kingtaco|work> gah |
| 40 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it |
| 41 |
<kingtaco|work> well |
| 42 |
<kingtaco|work> do you run stable amd64? |
| 43 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available |
| 44 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent |
| 45 |
anyway |
| 46 |
<kingtaco|work> ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths. you |
| 47 |
can file |
| 48 |
the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64 |
| 49 |
root using portage, I would allow you to keyword |
| 50 |
<kingtaco|work> I assume you're trying to make the snapshot? |
| 51 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice |
| 52 |
<ulm> it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86 |
| 53 |
<kingtaco|work> ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of |
| 54 |
stuff |
| 55 |
to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the |
| 56 |
emacs herd do the keywording |
| 57 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;) |
| 58 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway |
| 59 |
<kingtaco|work> ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage |
| 60 |
as the |
| 61 |
pkg manager |
| 62 |
<kingtaco|work> and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good |
| 63 |
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the |
| 64 |
alternatives |
| 65 |
* phreak`` runs |
| 66 |
<phreak``> better fast I take it |
| 67 |
<phreak``> :P |
| 68 |
<hparker> it's not like anyone uses emacs |
| 69 |
* hparker runs |
| 70 |
<kingtaco|work> phreak``, nope. I don't care if other devs use is for |
| 71 |
whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage |
| 72 |
<phreak``> hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;) |
| 73 |
<hparker> phreak``: I know ;) |
| 74 |
<kingtaco|work> and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re |
| 75 |
<phreak``> kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-) |
| 76 |
<ulm> kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs, |
| 77 |
too) |
| 78 |
to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume? |
| 79 |
<kingtaco|work> ulm, jup |
| 80 |
<kingtaco|work> ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than |
| 81 |
happy to |
| 82 |
let herds do the keywording" |
Archives