Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: Gentoo project list <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Minor arches (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:25
In Reply to: [gentoo-project] Minor arches (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10) by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
2 >>>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 >
4 >> I didn't really get any response to this one way or another. At the
5 >> last council meeting a majority of the votes were in favor of
6 >> delaying taking action, so this is back on the agenda.
7 >
8 >> I have yet to see either of the following on this list:
9 >> 1. Specific examples of bugs where a minor arch is making a
10 >> maintainer's life difficult. Please post if you have them.
11 >> 2. Members of these arch teams posting here committing to either
12 >> stabilize new versions or unkeyword old versions in a timely manner.
13 >
14 >> The responses to either of these (or lack thereof) are likely to
15 >> influence my vote at the meeting. Note, I'm not interested in mere
16 >> comments that people want an arch to stay stable supported (which
17 >> I've seen plenty of). I'm interested in COMMITMENT to be
18 >> stable-supportable (which I've seen none of). The lack of the
19 >> latter is what is going to cause a package to be dropped - I'd love
20 >> to see every arch that exists stable-supported on Gentoo, along with
21 >> world peace. This is a volunteer distro - in general you get the
22 >> features you pitch in to help deliver, and if you're depending on a
23 >> minor arch you REALLY need to step up as there aren't many of you
24 >> out there. That said, I would like specific examples of cases where
25 >> dropping a minor arch would have helped - the onus is on those
26 >> wanting the status quo changed to present a case.
27 >
28 > [Crossposting to -dev. Replies should go to -project if possible.]
29 >
30 > Again, no reply. I suspect the outcome of today's vote will be that
31 > stable keywords for the architectures in question (alpha, ia64, m68k,
32 > s390, sh, sparc) should be dropped.
33 >
34 > Arch teams, last chance to speak up.
35 >
36 > Ulrich
37 >
39 I've already spoken up as have others. I'm an alpha maintainer and I'm
40 against this. jmorgan is a sparc maintainer and he's against it.
42 I don't care about the others, and frankly understand the frustration
43 with long stable requests, but leave alpha out of it.