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 DF9481381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C75EE0DD7; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de [194.94.155.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA0DDE0DD2 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EC0D136320 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from kailua.localnet (pc1011302446.uni-regensburg.de [132.199.96.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: hua59129) by rrzmta1.uni-regensburg.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5405362FC for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:24:17 +0200 (CEST) From: "Andreas K. Huettel" To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:23:41 +0200 Message-ID: <2755526.ZYMpMk9a77@kailua> User-Agent: KMail/4.11 (Linux/3.8.13-gentoo; KDE/4.11.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130829203301.288a593a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <1377796652.5477.15.camel@localhost> <20130829203301.288a593a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> 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: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Archives-Salt: 5b8ea1c4-1b9f-4012-baec-70c10a669d73 X-Archives-Hash: dbae3b57643011cbdda1f86dd09ad07e Am Donnerstag 29 August 2013, 20:33:01 schrieb Tom Wijsman: > > Then we have the major arches ppc, amd64, x86, arm; yup, seems right. > The difference between ppc, amd64 and x86 seems quite small even. > As the voice from history... this is the case mainly since Ago joined PPC. Before that, PPC was known to be lagging badly. (My impression, no hard data to back it up.) > > Vote 1: Do we drop stable keywords for m68k, sh and s390? > > Rationality: These fall under the original reasoning of this thread. > > Vote 2: Do we drop stable keywords for alpha, ia64, ppc64 and sparc? > > Rationality: Do we (as Gentoo) want to focus on more major arches in a > way that we don't have minor arches block them? What do we want to > pursue? Broader support? Or rather making just the major arches perfect? > Whenever this is discussed, we should probably take two things into account: 1) Is an arch "waxing or waning", meaning is the hardware still produced, and is the market share growing, stable, or deteriorating? 2) Is the hardware decently fast for compiling? I.e. are users likely to be interested in running Gentoo? (If I need a week to rebuild gcc...) Cheers, A -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde, sci, arm, tex, printing