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 1EACIh-0006wq-3S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:01:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j7UJwKxK026004; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:58:20 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UJt78N001944 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 19:55:07 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.101] (pcp09042172pcs.rocsth01.mi.comcast.net [68.60.51.73]) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j7UJvF8i022443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:57:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4314BA18.8040009@egr.msu.edu> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:57:12 -0400 From: Alec Warner User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (X11/20050724) 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> <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4314715E.5000809@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: bfd92476-4ef3-4291-9dec-b8592e4e9757 X-Archives-Hash: a3b97e93fc347f4cdba056a958d75c78 Stephen P. Becker wrote: >>> 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 Any how many more x86 users are there than MIPS users to hit problems? How much worse is the QA in the x86/amd64 tree than the MIPS tree? I'm not trying to bash either team here, just pointing out the facts. Alec Warner (antarus) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list