From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-80526-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0FD139694
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 13:48:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D490E0DFF;
Mon, 8 May 2017 13:48:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yb0-x229.google.com (mail-yb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::229])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0A70E0DFB
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 8 May 2017 13:48:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb0-x229.google.com with SMTP id 8so11565772ybw.1
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 08 May 2017 06:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=3o0kJYWNlOYHEd3EqrqtnRPXLpcJEBdrEBockdWm4/k=;
b=LDaiGUixfaWto8q30VEoTbDOWPozI/jJotxNG5ADkLdDDfpQC9B7pInP77BX9GdjzT
rQJAVmHE2bjZpHdrBoouk2/5VUP8ZLNT4Bi7lFePZGeEwwUypmKzcXG9vvxyouIRPqVz
5VVkK5++GQKC6KEPdf+/T2QFsY3ptciiTwEpqq9oIrmBMiRWPKNVnT7hcTmrSE6Ru9Ja
FbX9IieSXtZnmhDhe7jpN32OFqNsDLuV4BEiVaZbDHwFJdPEyhr5QJWFD1Sh3hc2Q+E6
WpCjJ/31Peog9zKlXAP9O/5gk0/PjsY1N3rYOmSYPWtjO2vYrpIp1Y3/oF4vWszFB50v
JqZQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=3o0kJYWNlOYHEd3EqrqtnRPXLpcJEBdrEBockdWm4/k=;
b=iXYo76mk1iq+J8QL2ZApYIdt0bhBMlX2plGFxAxHFyT3NCfnVkvHKW4M7MJYiycjKO
3vmNJMaTDeF00EujnsEj6vhtd7iz/CWGa3biGeobJn2xeKUmT0dFpcQ2vqfp01m+IJvn
kLHiF11pu2nMYoSQfdBrKrXeSKU34yorQLlTVuNXOjctzjZegHvG2glgpFcgmDiYtEV7
10vq45I0zfGyV40Rv0dlmxrWOkAoFJl3qMusz7QHalaN+ggu04JIgBat1tL8cCYmET+w
vqgWFRm7YF1eXAKd0SBwyR6MUbUUbFsCZZM9eCov6PCBvEuX9Denyp/Xxz1ZeX2J5n+8
jtig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcBW4odQwwyQ7K0IMteB06bm0DN9lBWPze2xPjZbp9G71nvV/SFS
ubHjHzt69hSL6Pwm9FDM8D1x7arK1RDA
X-Received: by 10.37.202.85 with SMTP id a82mr10304159ybg.149.1494251309751;
Mon, 08 May 2017 06:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
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
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.129.131.8 with HTTP; Mon, 8 May 2017 06:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52ce2db1-6553-c720-8408-27bdc024e432@gentoo.org>
References: <1494185038.1333.2.camel@gentoo.org> <52ce2db1-6553-c720-8408-27bdc024e432@gentoo.org>
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 09:48:29 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7IjseWs4UHUF8X4jP92Def0pGCo
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_ncUQKsW-48xF_v0XMf1HVp=a15wtWA5R9MCjiV-Rn+ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dropping ia64/ppc/sparc profiles to dev/exp
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Archives-Salt: 3a806a78-f3a6-406b-98a7-d45cda9eee8f
X-Archives-Hash: 7d9065083ac31c51afa03368c63d9552
On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> It isn't like security project adds any additional load to any arch
> team, an architecture capable to keep up with normal keyword and
> stabilization requests should also be able to keep up with security.
What about arches that use stable keywords only on a core set of
system packages to indicate that they're usable, so that they can have
a stage3 that actually boots? I'm not sure they even keep up with
security in this case.
Perhaps they could just use ~arch for the same purpose, but then we'd
need to have a policy that REMOVES ~arch when doing bumps on those
architectures, which is not our current practice. Otherwise a revbump
could break stage3 on those arches.
I'm not sure that stable+secure is necessarily a black-and-white thing
on our non-mainstream arches. Honestly, I think that people who want
to run linux on MIPS/sparc/etc are probably happy enough just to have
something that boots.
--
Rich