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 86C9913877A for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:25:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 734F4E0CCC; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:25:31 +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 69AB4E0C99 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:25:30 +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 06B37340106 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:25:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1406381124.20388.42.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:25:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org> <1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B6A0.4070009@gentoo.org> <20140725200743.GA5497@linux1> <1406363809.20388.32.camel@gentoo.org> <1406364266.20388.34.camel@gentoo.org> <53D3815F.80107@gentoo.org> <1406374566.20388.36.camel@gentoo.org> <53D3955B.7000007@gentoo.org> <1406375762.20388.38.camel@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: 5f8b1022-4608-4f6b-b615-6edcd9866790 X-Archives-Hash: 7fa5bfdac086e7f565fea2c54e628be8 El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 08:23 -0400, Rich Freeman escribió: > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > > I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide > > to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember > > their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the > > "package-by-package" proposal for others) > > > > Honestly, it is best if the arch teams take the initiative on these > sorts of things. They're in the best place to figure out what their > users' needs are. > > The Council tends to get involved when the issue escalates to the > point where it becomes a burden on maintainers. It is always better > for the arch teams to manage their own problems. > > So, by all means put it on the Council agenda, but I'd strongly > encourage the ppc arch team to weigh in with their opinion - if we can > form a consensus on the list you don't even need the Council to vote. > Not that we mind - it is just better to solve things collaboratively. > > Rich > Sure, at least for ppc teams I guess we could get it discussed by the Council as blueness is in ppc teams per: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/metastructure/herds/herds.xml#doc_chap89 Not sure about the other team members :/, I also see no one listed as lead: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/ppc/ For the other arch teams I guess I can start a new thread for them (in summary, pointing them to this thread for the idea but suggesting them to create the lists of packages to keep stable as they prefer). You are probably not seeing so much escalation because we end up relying on ago and zlogene to fix that... but that is not a long term solution. I am mostly thinking on ia64 and sparc. Alpha looks to have recently fixed lots of bugs (by klausman I think) and I am unsure about ARM as I guess his problem is different (it's due they needing to test on many different machines to get things stabilized, and that probably needs a different discussion before :/)