From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C3F4139694 for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7AF5E0E2A; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DBBDE0DE4 for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thinkpad.fritz.box (cable-static-236-115.teleport.ch [213.188.236.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: soap) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 327F13416DD for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1494270782.1333.6.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp From: David Seifert To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 21:13:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1494185038.1333.2.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6 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: ec93a233-12be-4db1-9844-92f6a9e1930b X-Archives-Hash: 026d453d6fad1a42ca4567c044ae7057 On Mon, 2017-05-08 at 13:49 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: > Against. Do not touch things you are not working on, council has > already > dropped m68k s390 and sh to exp few years ago. Now we have a big mess > there and only, while ia64 sparc and co have slow but progress and > mature enough stable profiles. Again, I have had KEYWORDREQs open for more than a year with 0 activity. The only way to get any activity on these arches is to trigger the easteregg of going straight-to-stable, which ago's scripts catch (unlike KEYWORDREQs). This is ofc the total antithesis of using ~arch as a staging ground for stable keywords, but apparently that seems to be desired. I am absolutely willing to postpone the vote on this to after the arches.desc GLEP is finished, but being in denial over dead archs is helping no-one. If all of this ends in one big bikeshedding fest again, I will start dekeywording packages. Fortunately for me, I won't get any complaints (because the arch teams are dead). If the walls are mouldy, do you just paint over them and pretend everything is fine?