From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JCsxp-0001Ax-2Q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:40:37 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB15FE09FE; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9686E09FE for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F8064D06; Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Of Mips and Devs [Was: Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for January] Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:34:35 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: Alin =?utf-8?q?N=C4=83stac?= References: <20080101103002.083C4652C4@smtp.gentoo.org> <200801100134.35669.vapier@gentoo.org> <4785D0BC.8070206@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4785D0BC.8070206@gentoo.org> 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart8130424.xvdrEfU45Y"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200801100334.38466.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 0ce93254-a4a8-497d-917c-978ad7c105f2 X-Archives-Hash: d66412110228b43af0a8a31379c58ffa --nextPart8130424.xvdrEfU45Y Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 10 January 2008, Alin N=C4=83stac wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > 3. Should Gentoo even continue to support mips? > > > > i see dropping keywords as a very last resort. getting a port *back* > > into the tree is a *tremendous* amount of work (i went through it and it > > was hell), while keeping ~arch alive is a sliver of effort and generally > > not a blocker for package maintainers. > > How about arm, s390 and sh arches? If I'm not mistaken, you are the only > one taking care of these arches and apparently you loosed interest in > maintaining them. i'm afraid we differ in opinion quite drastically here. i routinely update= =20 the arches according to the tree. i do not go through bugzilla though and= =20 remove my cc's until much later. i imagine on KEYWORDREQ, these arches take quite a while, but not for=20 STABLEREQ. =2Dmike --nextPart8130424.xvdrEfU45Y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.8 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJHhdieAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WB7K0P/RkWPucErNXM9ZuJnHgTC518 WucP09dR9f9Rma52zMRQcoU5DNSo0u+SlsFm9Zc8dTAeBh60TIuKGUjahjH04jET /qEjd3iqDOMdYq8mQVik2VaKBVeDo2GrFMwy526G4fdtlbFsLqMcCmVAhEQ9xj+v Y8+YnI0I3QI9ncaACi2FKis9rXixSEZXdWoxIh8DsEJdxraKpBIgbY4PS4PWQ1aU deyxzy0kLO5XAhJmcrhYGzE214EhQ3VeTPdDjswwoXiMi3YVikJAvWC5MlC1Bd/U Lb3oSTkIBHeMsvrBRAEafylNHv++kUBVwFe7KDOHzDhsX5YjdenoOcRhgBdHlqmD FFnhCLeunQq4R/4RNQWy7DN/97kPLmVVk3iSZUtqYDmj9tr7pLgEcjp5Py4gwQ2d lN0U8NsYwb9rd/WhiHY7264FFkBEMRClboOoDS+8i7o0ts1TEE+23uJ+reT0BHp5 Xi/pN01t1NEKi1CFII9eNwpX4aHtRZ162CPDUUhBBZvC/7EnuZv+59aAJKQdY+e2 fxT+PjSUW1cHos6VeOpK4xpBySzRUGsFX+s35gTujfJczGHN7MsoiKzrI/Y0SuaS mMmQh29Tt583I2MNzTlsGJhMw91xEvAhX7K7FuWTa/ei+0WzxdUtM1YwZ1DsbmRu OxsQR5hF0hD3jD3woZsW =kqRW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart8130424.xvdrEfU45Y-- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list