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 807681381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F005DE0EE6; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:17:42 +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 6983EE0ED7 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:17:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.66.2] (unknown [194.183.97.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B0D4633ECB3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:17:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1377796652.5477.15.camel@localhost> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:17:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 3274ee89-5c59-4d6c-b219-929ea65c6e27 X-Archives-Hash: 949cd429e66c4dd89507e62d76a2d3cd El jue, 29-08-2013 a las 08:22 -0700, Jack Morgan escribió: [...] > This is a confusing. What is the real problem you are trying to solve > here? Stable @system but not having to worry about keywording anything > else.. like a desktop (gnome, KDE)? > At least from a gnome perspective, we are having some important delays with some arches: - Pending keyword requests: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351931 -> sh and sparc https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478254 -> alpha,arm, ia64, ppc*, sparc https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478256 -> the same https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387959 -> sh, sparc https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469722 -> s390 (this is probably the worst case as they are then having a buggy old version) https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=469982 -> s390 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=471752 -> alpha, ia64, ppc*, sparc https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472510 -> s390 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=476710 -> alpha, arm, ia64, ppc*, sh, sparc, x86 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478082 -> alpha, sparc https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466560 -> s390 In summary, s390 looks to be in worst state (as its missing keywording affects even core packages like gtk+, pango...). But the situation is also difficult for other arches like alpha and sparc because Agostino cannot test them at runtime and, then, we think it's not safe to keyword systemd on them without a runtime check, causing to lose Gnome 3.8 support for its "core" components. - Stabilizations: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458984 -> m68k If anyone could look at them, nice, but, from my point of view (not sure what occurs outside gnome scope), at least m68k and s390 have important problems to keyword/stabilize soon enough. And also noticed the important problem of arches like alpha and sparc that are hard to test at runtime :| But this is only my impression, maybe some of this arches are more active in other Gentoo areas.