From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EA7TU-0001Ts-0r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:52:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UEmjCC010080; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:48:45 GMT Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu (lennier.cc.vt.edu [198.82.162.213]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UEj5AC025489 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:45:05 GMT Received: from zidane.cc.vt.edu (IDENT:mirapoint@evil-zidane.cc.vt.edu [10.1.1.13]) by lennier.cc.vt.edu (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7UElBmO010262 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:47:11 -0400 Received: from [128.173.184.73] (gs4073.geos.vt.edu [128.173.184.73]) by zidane.cc.vt.edu (MOS 3.6.4-CR) with ESMTP id DXU10153; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:47:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:46:54 -0400 From: "Stephen P. Becker" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050807) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] crap use flags in the profiles References: <20050825000442.GC1701@nightcrawler> <431036EA.8050401@gentoo.org> <20050827100130.GX1701@nightcrawler> <1125334595.1964.107.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829203259.GA13987@nightcrawler> <1125351816.1964.148.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <20050829231247.104e9ff8@snowdrop.home> <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1125404657.1964.167.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f4cb931a-357c-4e75-a0cb-5fa54805de8c X-Archives-Hash: 337dd0355ba369a69d7992fa684856a9 >>Shouldn't this fall under the x86 arch team rather than releng? The > > > I'm sorry, but *what* x86 arch team? That's the point. Ciaran is just pointing out for the gazillionth time that x86 is an unsupported arch, if you go by the standards the other arches have to follow to be part of Gentoo. When is this going to be fixed? Or, will it just be ignored until all the x86 folks get amd64 machines and x86 pretty much becomes irrelevant? Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64. -Steve -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list