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 DE191138AC2 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:40:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8BD8721C018; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:40:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89135E0453 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:40:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from devil (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ago) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 690E533D3D6 for ; Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:40:43 +0000 (UTC) From: Agostino Sarubbo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:40:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3596889.TaaL4ZR9i5@devil> User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.2.35-gentoo; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <51213BE8.7020905@gentoo.org> References: <2415518.JM1V4B20yx@devil> <1876970.ovCtsDMXQe@devil> <51213BE8.7020905@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-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Archives-Salt: c08f4c48-275e-45ab-8f2a-071e33bd2ee0 X-Archives-Hash: 8664fbf9c2bf7ea9f0a52b1280857e19 On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: > I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. > No project page does not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. For me this means that there is no enough support. > Moreover, you see that there are devs in these arches. Did you try to talk > to them? For what purpose? I'm asking a general opinion based on some facts. > I also asked for a list of minor arches and you didn't provide one. I > presume, you think that m68k, sh, and s390 are minor? Yes, they can be. Seriously, who has an m68k? do you see reports/requests on bugzilla? > What about ia64, ppc? Do we have enough manpower there? Because iirc there arches also lack in stabilization bugs as well. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=STABLEREQ%2C%20&keywords_type=allwords&f1=cc&o1=equals&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&v1=ppc%40gentoo.org&product=Gentoo%20Linux&list_id=1560890 https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?keywords=STABLEREQ%2C%20&keywords_type=allwords&f1=cc&o1=equals&query_format=advanced&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&v1=ia64%40gentoo.org&product=Gentoo%20Linux&list_id=1560892 I don't see big queue for those arches. -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at- gentoo.org Gentoo Linux Developer