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 1ECjLj-0005KY-U1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:43:20 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86JcqAB010264; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:38:52 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86JZwjO030706 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 19:35:59 GMT Received: from c-67-171-150-177.hsd1.or.comcast.net ([67.171.150.177] helo=[192.168.1.115]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECjHs-0007A5-Be for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:39:20 +0000 Message-ID: <431DEF83.6070701@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:35:31 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (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] tentative x86 arch team glep References: <20050904143711.GD23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125863332.11366.89.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904210535.24ab8a39@snowdrop.home> <1125865598.11360.122.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050904205307.GG23576@dst.grantgoodyear.org> <1125869984.11364.143.camel@mogheiden.gnqs.org> <20050906152209.GA9825@gentoo.org> <1126034976.10430.3.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> In-Reply-To: <1126034976.10430.3.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 51d0f3ad-bad3-4bc1-8c3b-2b6a72fa90b3 X-Archives-Hash: 9fb52a5d0570b340b197e0693bce0fb5 Chris Gianelloni wrote: > You'd have a really long list of maintenance architectures for me. Like > I said, I don't use a single machine. The idea of *any* architecture > being my "primary" one just doesn't really fit. There's also the simple > fact that it doesn't matter *at all* what the maintainer runs it on, > only whether or not (s)he considers it stable. There have been many cases where I've considered a package stable on one architecture but not on another. How would I indicate this? Thanks, Donnie -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list