From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B04413877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCEE9E1BF8; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08AC9E1BEC for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (113.139.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es [87.217.139.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2783533F52C for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:50:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org> References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.4 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 306ff846-f330-4b3b-9bbf-bf2fe2bab240 X-Archives-Hash: 713b554e49c833429fdcd22d1cc627dc El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to > > do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and > > drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished > > in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve > > the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the > > past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a > > stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in > > ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being > > much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed > > to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons > > of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago > > and are currently no so important. > > > > Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking > care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same > time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort > on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about > for mips too. > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base system :/ I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server and co... what more Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think about that?