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 5CBE413877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:07:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 100CDE1C01; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:07:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f42.google.com (mail-oi0-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7EE8E1BFB for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f42.google.com with SMTP id a3so3816018oib.1 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=OdMJ5QYnnu//zpNMc8Mi6mYteG9zfOHREzcstX1AX0Y=; b=rvEOh1Ukz81o5W71c0dFFdEtzqHhTheKXtrfVpsTw1ysN79ZHC/aW6tcE+OZrcd92F 0omBGtYFpi8AhAX7cL2/v0io1Ec4INgP8Rfro1XZ9kfl5QBwKtcl5CL59GBRT0SRpvEK vbjDyzNdux584cKFLTQN1YzPY7siuvgBd9nHF3f49J7JSqLGSjUqmHAy94wCR9KZz2Rx 1RgYQSXxBnqF3hX67PqL9GRRRDIiucglZyrkMhcZct4heg8svouICyugonEmBNcBtEKS g9uL6GcITNiTrAw8Fmmsmsn7otRQFo+MCNe0Rf1yLQmBY0vNY7nIBVjUbWofh98YFEqC wCpA== X-Received: by 10.60.176.10 with SMTP id ce10mr26255967oec.8.1406318867822; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bi1sm21045122obb.11.2014.07.25.13.07.45 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 13:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 5749 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 20:07:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:07:43 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status Message-ID: <20140725200743.GA5497@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org> <1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B6A0.4070009@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; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53D2B6A0.4070009@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: d08e04c8-e02e-4286-9cea-1fe488a341fb X-Archives-Hash: ef4f649e34ae10aa6647e69162d8f010 --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribi=F3: > >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: > >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be = to > >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and > >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplish= ed > >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would sol= ve > >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the > >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a > >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people= in > >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of be= ing > >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed > >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with to= ns > >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years = ago > >>> and are currently no so important. > >>> > >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taki= ng > >> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the sa= me > >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort > >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about > >> for mips too. > >> > >> > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base > > system :/ > > > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server > > and co... what more > > > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once > > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want > > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think > > about that? > > > > >=20 > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst. = =20 > I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to=20 > limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and=20 > maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about filing stable requests on them. That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages. William --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlPSuQ8ACgkQblQW9DDEZTjjcwCffV1ZGc/V7xwzFMGGyHEaHoTy HpoAni8VWodiT0Iozv9nzQPu4YiPtR1b =UGT4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--