From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-66873-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A3CE1391DB
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:23:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EAA3E0BFD;
Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:23:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82575E0BDD
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 12:23:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id lf12so8720698vcb.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=HdyUQ3j7Mn2k7lY/cMvhwvXqR75Yx1sFeRrETR3F7Uo=;
b=PHnmklcyJcant8+42zrr5RziB25lxm7anFk7rzBfeSFlyr7npRmM2/4juXxmWVSQD3
DJeHu/BKfECXBeLaU6et07YhcR0YNSHw0KR/ErjdT1riAd7CIOS4WnSknwlEQCE3rivP
aImQenG4VM+AizAr+Ja8sst+VU8i4IX4et4B/sZT+srpIN0O4KcnybiXnndi+FwDxEnp
Z+jBsFgjZ4L2dftki6nmpmD4wB1yfiH03UHsIp6WHNn8Cf/VDeF/oytruZJQcB99tq8i
gH5tKW5MD7G1LOJrSazAWRSuTQaYdJOA9gOcTkmYQN1Rm2uKoK2feZqWj8R0VCqRHLz+
bFFQ==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.94.135 with SMTP id z7mr630607vcm.46.1406377402647; Sat,
26 Jul 2014 05:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.8.229 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:23:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1406375762.20388.38.camel@gentoo.org>
References: <1406316517.20388.22.camel@gentoo.org>
<53D2B248.4090004@gentoo.org>
<1406317833.20388.24.camel@gentoo.org>
<53D2B6A0.4070009@gentoo.org>
<20140725200743.GA5497@linux1>
<1406363809.20388.32.camel@gentoo.org>
<1406364266.20388.34.camel@gentoo.org>
<53D3815F.80107@gentoo.org>
<1406374566.20388.36.camel@gentoo.org>
<53D3955B.7000007@gentoo.org>
<1406375762.20388.38.camel@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:23:22 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1MmI91SWSgsZkxK9-JUPQ5bb57s
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_mug_NQTfAMFX69L0edGTFnokwrAODZpAXhgntd-+7nbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] About current ppc/ppc64 status
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 26c4c82e-8af1-48e6-a9f0-2e62a981257a
X-Archives-Hash: b93d53e9d1295a8543359063eb72e126
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I guess we will need to wait for the next Council to officially decide
> to do this as it will be a big change for ppc* users :/ (I remember
> their action was needed for the move to testing of some arches and the
> "package-by-package" proposal for others)
>
Honestly, it is best if the arch teams take the initiative on these
sorts of things. They're in the best place to figure out what their
users' needs are.
The Council tends to get involved when the issue escalates to the
point where it becomes a burden on maintainers. It is always better
for the arch teams to manage their own problems.
So, by all means put it on the Council agenda, but I'd strongly
encourage the ppc arch team to weigh in with their opinion - if we can
form a consensus on the list you don't even need the Council to vote.
Not that we mind - it is just better to solve things collaboratively.
Rich