From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GVSd1-0003Xu-4m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:47:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k95CjF6B000493; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:45:15 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k95CfCr9020543 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:41:13 GMT Received: from [10.181.255.189] (unknown [67.151.143.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8D5647F6 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:41:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo World Domination. a 10 step guide From: Seemant Kulleen To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20061005124806.52b316bf@snowdrop.home> References: <20061004070014.843d851d.tcort@gentoo.org> <4523BA19.30208@gentoo.org> <20061004171603.133e46a5@c1358217.kevquinn.com> <3b09e8e90610040844y400d744bpb3c4e4b41b56fdeb@mail.gmail.com> <20061005125214.00b6cbe7@c1358217.kevquinn.com> <20061005124806.52b316bf@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Gentoo Foundation Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 08:41:05 -0400 Message-Id: <1160052065.10033.3.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6a4d766d-f741-4a01-a889-1bdafaf9fe38 X-Archives-Hash: 175c18ca9c9b72d77ea8e90c1857345c On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:52:14 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" > wrote: > | Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them > > Actually, they do. Minority archs lead to much better tree QA being > done, more bugs in packages being identified and more ebuild and > package bugs being fixed. You see this is the problem with being perceived as a "minority" architecture. And it's something that gets completely overlooked -- before we had a QA team, the "minority" architectures served a similar purpose. Countless packages have had build-system fixes, compile fixes, runtime fixes all *because* we had ppc, sparc, mips and others (ppc and sparc being the more major of them, in terms of long-term impact to Gentoo). IOW, +1 on Ciaran's statement. I think it's perfectly fine to think about pruning/thinning out Gentoo to its core, but first we have to actually decide what its core actually is. Hint: majority architectures are *not*. Gentoo, at heart, is a meta-distribution, and all that that implies. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list