> ======== alpha ========
> 
> Exp arch, with nearly (or maybe already) full correct dep-tree. matoro
> did a lot of great work here, so I think we should promote it to dev
> arch, so dep-tree remains unbroken. We dekeyworded a lot of stuff,
> cleaned it up, so a nice "completion bonus".
> 
> ======== m68 ========
> 
> Exp arch, works ? maybe? I've no idea. Let's not touch :)
> 
> ======== mips ========
> 
> Exp arch, with mostly good dep-tree. Does mips team want to make it dev
> arch?

What you call "exp arches" (i.e. architectures with no "stable profiles" at
all) are a pain in the behind. Nobody checks if dependencies are correct, 
and the dependency tree becomes randomly broken.

This should ideally only be a temporary status, 
* either on the way to a consistent deptree (~arch)
* or on the way out the door.

My 2ct:

alpha: well, if it is in a decent state, and if Matoro promises to keep up
with keywording requests (important!), let's upgrade it.

m68k: dito as soon as Chewi thinks it's ready

mips: well... personally I'd love to have it back to a consistent deptree, 
but right now it has still waaay too many packages keyworded for that.
also, this is a horrible beast, with 32bit, mixed, and 64bit ABI and both
big and little endian. we have no hardware at all, and even if we had it
would be slow... 
that said, I dont see us dropping support for mips either. in particular
since we're one of the last distros to deal with it...




-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)