Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:38 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:
>  
>
>>I think the reason people drop arches is laziness of some arch herds. 
>>C'mon people, how hard can it be to see if it builds right on your arch?
>>    
>>
>
>What arch do you use?  Maybe we should trade in your box for a nice
>sparc32 or mips box and see what you have to say then.  Remember that in
>many of these arches, all the machines are still measured in Megahertz
>and not Gigahertz, and they are quite old.
>
>The arch teams are doing their jobs quite well, don't try to push blame
>onto them.  They shouldn't go around marking something stable just
>because it builds and should test it.  If they have no way of testing
>it, then they don't need to stabilize it.  It won't kill you to have a
>single older ebuild in the tree for an arch.  Either that, or you can
>remove the keywords, as Jason mentioned, and file a bug against the
>package to the mips team so they are aware that keywords have been
>dropped from the package and that it will need testing to be
>re-keyworded.  Looking over that bug, it really looks like you flipped
>out over nothing.  It took them a week to respond.  That isn't very
>long, at all.
>  
>
Hmm.. it looks like I've overreacted. I was convinced that my request 
have been ignored for one month.
My apologies to mips team and all...