From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OSwjn-00083B-8v for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:37:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BF430E0D8E; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ganymede.vroon.org (ganymede.vroon.org [195.66.242.11]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3EBE0D44 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.vroon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4A7128006 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:33:02 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vroon.org Received: from [192.168.252.2] (5adb2615.bb.sky.com [90.219.38.21]) (Authenticated sender: tony@vroon.org) by ganymede.vroon.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1D215128004 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:33:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Policy for late/slow stabilizations From: "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20100627150445.GA19456@Eternity> References: <20100627150445.GA19456@Eternity> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-fcSOGvfMt+hdBECmhkYV" Organization: Gentoo Linux Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:37:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1277663859.12853.4.camel@localhost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.2 X-Archives-Salt: 27664bc4-2ce4-4600-a438-945b0f3b7a67 X-Archives-Hash: c2239ad9e91c1c64ef403539f36bc817 --=-fcSOGvfMt+hdBECmhkYV Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 18:04 +0300, Markos Chandras wrote: > As many of you have already noticed, there are some arches that are quite > slow on stabilizations. This leads to deprecated stabilizations e.g a > package is stabilized after 60 days which makes that version of > the specific package obsolete and not worth to stabilize anymore. So you would suggest to be like Ubuntu and say "we can not be bothered to support any minority architectures anymore". This effectively disbands all architecture teams except AMD64 and X86; it should be subject to the same scrutiny (I suggest a council vote) as a GLEP or EAPI change. Personally I would like to hear stronger reasons then "it inconveniences me when a bug I file is open longer then a month" to destroy the current diversity of supported architectures (be it PowerPC or a prefix installation on OS X). Regards, Tony V. --=-fcSOGvfMt+hdBECmhkYV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkwnmnMACgkQp5vW4rUFj5pQnACfcWlqppvtl14fJARR9rbAVvTQ gEIAn3UHG9fFwHA4NJE257mCo/R74+UN =7YpT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-fcSOGvfMt+hdBECmhkYV--