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 6994413877A for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:29:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9400AE0CE1; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:28:57 +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 B806DE0CD0 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:28:56 +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 65D0D33FCE8 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 13:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1406381331.20388.44.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 15:28:51 +0200 In-Reply-To: <201407261455.51134.dilfridge@gentoo.org> References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <53D3955B.7000007@gentoo.org> <1406375762.20388.38.camel@gentoo.org> <201407261455.51134.dilfridge@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: e3a2c357-511f-496d-8bb8-b7721026e62e X-Archives-Hash: 7010b0d05b96842dbfecf6859ad6f3ad El sáb, 26-07-2014 a las 14:55 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: > Am Samstag, 26. Juli 2014, 13:56:02 schrieb Pacho Ramos: > > > 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) > > > > Also, I am not sure if any other arch teams (sparc, ia64?) would want to > > get this policy too :| (I got ppc* because this concrete case ;)) > > At first this is an arch team decision. No need for the council. > > (Given that in this case there is a responsive and addressable arch team...) > > -- > > Andreas K. Huettel > Gentoo Linux developer > dilfridge@gentoo.org > http://www.akhuettel.de/ > The problem is that blueness looks to be the only member currently replying :/, I have checked their page and I see no team lead or similar. Then, I am not sure how to get the ok to proceed or not :| (to prevent this from getting stalled and we keep trying stabilizing all the things). I remember from older thread (one related with udev stabilization), that blueness was also the only one replying.