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 6D56B1381F3 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02A67E0ABA; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:09:54 +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 341A2E0946 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.172.67.135] (85-76-7-90-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [85.76.7.90]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 952CF33EBD2 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2013 13:09:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52403D56.8060707@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 16:08:38 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130809 Thunderbird/17.0.8 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] News item: m68k, s390, and sh are dropping stable keywords References: <201309192129.42051.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <5240274B.5000705@gentoo.org> <21056.14733.654442.330439@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: <21056.14733.654442.330439@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 6cf3124a-de73-4ed2-bc14-ab0500267251 X-Archives-Hash: c43389911f428702c691c2da3b5dcaaf On 23/09/13 15:52, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 23 Sep 2013, Samuli Suominen wrote: > >> Because I've seen some commits today for reverting the mentioned >> KEYWORDS to ~arch in some ebuilds I'm not sure if everyone is aware that >> the arch status is set using profiles/profiles.desc and as I'm writing >> this, the mentioned arches are still 'stable', not 'dev' >> No matter what the news item or whatever says, only profiles.desc counts > > That's a thing that was never quite clear to me. Should there be > a one-to-one correspondence between an arch marked stable in > profiles.desc (i.e. having at least one profile labelled as stable > there) and the same arch having stable keywords? of course... > There is at least one example for an arch that is only dev in > profiles.desc but used to have stable keywords (sh), and another arch > where it's the other way around (amd64-fbsd). > > Ulrich > can't believe it was like that for amd64-fbsd and nobody noticed before, fixed that. i'm a bit confused, why do you think sh is not an stable arch? it's still an stable arch like m68k and s390 is... until someone changes those lines as per council's vote.