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 2673C1381F3 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:09:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE51DE0C76; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:09:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from spot.xmw.de (spot.xmw.de [176.9.87.236]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4224E0C74 for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1] (x.l.xmw.de [IPv6:2001:6f8:1cd1:0:21d:72ff:fe88:9ac1]) by spot.xmw.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7296F1455074A for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:09:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <521EE590.9060100@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 08:09:20 +0200 From: Michael Weber User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130807 Thunderbird/17.0.8 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 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10 References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9f406a93-9d9c-4f16-b3b1-9e72987d7254 X-Archives-Hash: 8ed9772654518bb6b621d62f88df555c On 08/28/2013 01:15 PM, Markos Chandras wrote: > Hi, > > I'd like to ask the council to vote on the following topics regarding the > 'minor arches' based on the feedback I received on the respective > thread in the gentoo-dev mailing list > > http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=137708312817671&w=1 > > Drop the following arches to ~arch > > - s390 > - sh > - ia64 > - alpha > - m68k > - sparc > -(maybe ppc and ppc64?) make that x86 to be consequent. > > The feedback on the original question was mostly positive. > Most people agree that the long stabilization queues for these > architectures create problems > for maintainers wishing to drop old versions. Is this the only motivation? Drop all the effort that has been put into stabilization work on minor arches just for some impatient maintainers? Keywording/Stabilization is a process we all agreed on joining, so live with it. > The council should also take into consideration that the stabilization process > for these arches is mostly a one-man job (Agostino). It's the same one man show for amd64 and x86. Well, there are others on the arch teams that do stabilizations, but an very active Agostino makes them rely on his caring and drags away focus - imho. > However, some people raised the point that we should provide stable stages > for these architectures and drop everything else to ~arch. Minor arches tend to have less cpu/io performance than this fancy show-off amd64 dev machines. Running the @world\@system on bleeding edge might be a never ending compile job. Please give it thorough consideration before throwing all the work out of the window. -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber