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 C6B6913877A for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:56:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24BE7E1C0C; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:56:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 461F1E1BE5 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.3.7] (cpe-74-77-145-97.buffalo.res.rr.com [74.77.145.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: blueness) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6AE7733FD55 for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 19:56:03 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53D2B6A0.4070009@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:57:20 -0400 From: "Anthony G. Basile" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 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] About current ppc/ppc64 status References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org> <53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org> <1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 081dc101-069a-485d-b1bb-4f7a22de4c05 X-Archives-Hash: d26751d6342184d7dd06557b17c64fbb On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago >>> and are currently no so important. >>> >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking >> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about >> for mips too. >> >> > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base > system :/ > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server > and co... what more > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think > about that? > > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst. I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA