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 82061139694 for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 58F6921C243; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:24:05 +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 13C86E0E2C for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.11] (85.253.85.111.cable.starman.ee [85.253.85.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leio) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEDEE3416DD for ; Mon, 8 May 2017 19:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1494271439.30381.1.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp From: Mart Raudsepp To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 22:23:59 +0300 In-Reply-To: <2328015b-0e47-3e07-777d-c48a64eab2c4@gentoo.org> References: <1494185038.1333.2.camel@gentoo.org> <2036683.FCrLbtF5FD@pinacolada> <2328015b-0e47-3e07-777d-c48a64eab2c4@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: fb7e3d81-24c3-4872-a7f3-a38447254bfd X-Archives-Hash: c93f50fb816b890c86e6c16925342f18 Ühel kenal päeval, E, 08.05.2017 kell 22:08, kirjutas Mikle Kolyada: > > 08.05.2017 21:55, Andreas K. Huettel пишет: > > Am Montag, 8. Mai 2017, 12:49:32 CEST schrieb Mikle Kolyada: > > > 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. > > > > No objections against having many arches, but: > > > > If an arch is keyworded / stable on more packages than that team > > can  > > reasonably take care of, that needs to be corrected somehow.  > > > > The easiest solution is for the arch team to remove keywords until > > they have a  > > reasonable response time again. And if the arch team doesn't do > > that by  > > itself, well, ... > > > > Having one-man teams block everybody else hurts Gentoo as a whole. > > > > We have appropriate hardware if people wanna do the work, jut go & > make > things better :), I do not think someone from existing arch teams has > something against that We do not want to do the work, as the benefit ratio is bordering zero. IA64 is dead hardware. PPC is dead (ppc != ppc64). SPARC, well, I guess Fujitsu is trying, maybe they should provide a modern dev machine :D Lets have the time of those just keeping it alive by semi-automated scripted STABLEREQ fulfilling spend that time on alive hardware instead. Meanwhile I have various stuff sticking around due to lack of handling keyword requests, including stuff that really needs cleaning up to finish things being really fixed. I actually see one person who seems to care about IA64 a but, but looks like no-one is actioning arch testing anymore.