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 84BAB1391DB for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 45288E0E57; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com (mail-oa0-f50.google.com [209.85.219.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 624A0E0E14 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id g18so7046382oah.9 for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:20:16 -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=YJcqKUI/Xgvq4gm8wMKwXOULxc353DZecBs/CNKKVfc=; b=UvGGb08lsX1IdtipM/FN7PTwHt+5CzZtHkX828Ihrmra6F7rbYSGIHvYrYrfrQRbqA aVOMEDZ8cIuVE4GR6+TgAl5K+BxEkNo5bcY38/IAhm6iAX/rnXlIB19a83esGb+tqD5j 863sdfACST1LIqounfIPxLq9GgvPUHXqfL98SFVPf8XpsNPXzUbrWtWYFDs8S0fEF4lB xD/f993c0JcQ56O7FSCmlLb8XHvmKrs92BsEJMAwr3N6hvbPh/vc4FbEl1PkG7Axdq4L SA4q0TISlJeqjI090UBwyKMnTZvj497qm/otByxJOTgudzqUWWsMRlxYZfx+yoxR+SjG twbA== X-Received: by 10.60.220.169 with SMTP id px9mr7321104oec.67.1406391616503; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:20:16 -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 go5sm5416580obb.17.2014.07.26.09.20.14 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 13913 invoked by uid 1000); Sat, 26 Jul 2014 16:20:11 -0000 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:20:11 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status Message-ID: <20140726162011.GB13389@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> <20140725200743.GA5497@linux1> <1406363809.20388.32.camel@gentoo.org> <1406364266.20388.34.camel@gentoo.org> <20140726153904.GA13389@linux1> 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="lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140726153904.GA13389@linux1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: f37bcaf1-129e-4a24-aefb-501ec853c69d X-Archives-Hash: 01462886ab6d1084a05a5304424f4f05 --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline I know I'm replying to my own message, but I do have a concern about this that I want to ask about. When a stable request is filed for a package, it is filed for all architectures which have the ~arch keyword for the package and are marked stable or dev in profiles.desc. If an arch wants to stay marked stable or dev but only stabilize a subset of packages, I think it is reasonable to drop that arch's keywords from packages they decide not to stabilize rather than move the keywords to ~arch. That makes it obvious that we shouldn't file stable requests on that package for that arch. What does everyone else think? William --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlPT1TsACgkQblQW9DDEZThctACgtCmKlNcriXHfqfS9+w47YCUv m+MAoJ7eG2X47EmHR/d2S+Dy7+0RDWgG =64Hq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --lEGEL1/lMxI0MVQ2--