From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GevSQ-0006qp-Ah for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:23:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9VFLv8p015772; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:21:57 GMT Received: from mail.marples.name (rsm.demon.co.uk [80.177.111.50]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9VFIYoq008225 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:18:35 GMT Received: from [10.73.1.31] (uberlaptop.marples.name [10.73.1.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.marples.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87111900B3 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:18:30 +0000 (GMT) From: Roy Marples Organization: Gentoo/Linux To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Only you can prevent broken portage trees Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:19:39 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 References: <20061030224021.33ae9ca0@snowdrop.home> <454761E0.7080105@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <454761E0.7080105@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200610311519.39444.uberlord@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 675b3db2-e83d-4bf9-926e-d51eb79840c9 X-Archives-Hash: 917266c5d09511d036490d4c744f1681 On Tuesday 31 October 2006 14:46, Steve Dibb wrote: > That does bring up an interesting question though -- at what point do you > just ignore the arch and move on so that development can continue? I just ignore the arches these days. After all, they ignore me. dhcp clients where modified to be independant of baselayout and arches had stable bugs for these. baselayout-1.12 then went stable even though the required dhcp clients for the more obscure arches did not. As of right now, baselayout-1.12 is stable on arm, but udhcpc will not work on it unless they use unstable udhcpc. Another example - kbd-1.12-r8 has a patch to fix loading unimaps, which a user submitted patch for console font needs. I've just filed a stable request for it even though r7 has got an outstanding stable bug for almost 2 months. How long should I wait before I wang a fixed consoelfont script into baselayout that relies on this? With all the of the above considered, imagine the irony of me filing a stable bug for kbd-1.12-r8 and someone stabling it on sparc :P -- Roy Marples Gentoo Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list