From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (unknown [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B831381FA for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:13:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A127E09F9; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:13:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E181AE09F8 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:13:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.174.127.233] (unknown [85.76.55.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 67E0633FE23 for ; Sun, 11 May 2014 18:13:04 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <536FBD72.8040500@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 21:12:02 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 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] Re: Call For Agenda Items - 13 May 2014 References: <536CE132.1070305@gentoo.org> <20140509172925.29e3f212@gentoo.org> <536D13CF.2000403@gentoo.org> <536D183A.1020405@gentoo.org> <536D1C28.1010504@gentoo.org> <20140509203727.1d6a3e69@gentoo.org> <536D2231.6030808@gentoo.org> <536E1FA7.5050704@gentoo.org> <536E2CE8.1070807@gentoo.org> <20140511161420.41fce9f7@gentoo.org> <536FBCE9.7060403@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <536FBCE9.7060403@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: df4480e6-09c9-4106-894e-97fd914ad138 X-Archives-Hash: 8aba8e9050b1fc9c031ad0186fb646be On 11/05/14 21:09, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 11/05/14 21:06, Rich Freeman wrote: >> The amd64 team traditionally hasn't been very territorial about its >> role, perhaps because the arch is so ubiquitous. > For reference, a mail from the amd64@ lead KingTaco from 2007 at > gentoo-core@: > > "All- > > Due to my failure to keep the amd64 team on track, I must now ask for your > help. We have 101 keywording bugs and 16 Security bugs, found at [1] > and [2]. > It is simply too much work for me to do without holding up the release > even more. > > If you are the maintainer of a package that currently has open bugs for > amd64 > stabilization and own amd64 hardware, please do your own testing and keyword > your packages. > > I apologize for every late bug due to the amd64 team slacking off. > > Mike Doty > > [1] - http://tinyurl.com/2uanmp > [2] - http://tinyurl.com/3e2z56 For futher reference, a thread from #gentoo-dev, Freenode, around 2007, including amd64 lead: " !herd amd64 ulm: (amd64) angelos, beandog, cardoe, chutzpah, cryos, dang, diox, dmwaters, hparker, kingtaco, kugelfang, malc, metalgod, philantrop, rbu, sekretarz, tester, tomk, trapni, voxus, welp, wolf31o2 ^^ping yes? kingtaco|work: I'm about to file a stablereq bug for about 70 packages in app-emacs gah kingtaco|work: just wanted to ask how we should handle it well do you run stable amd64? kingtaco|work: not regularly, but opfer and me have machines available kingtaco|work: in principle this stuff should be arch-independent anyway ulm, for something like this, there are 2 paths. you can file the bugs & tracker like usual or, if you have a stable amd64 root using portage, I would allow you to keyword I assume you're trying to make the snapshot? kingtaco|work: at least for some of the packages it would be nice it's mostly a matter to synchronise amd64 with x86 ulm, they would probably be low on the priority list of stuff to stabalize, so it sounds like it would be better to have the emacs herd do the keywording kingtaco|work: the emacs team would prefer this, too ;) kingtaco|work: but i'm going to open a bug for it anyway ulm, ok, our requirements are a stable root and portage as the pkg manager and yes, a bug so we all know what's going on is good kingtaco|work: damn, I thought you accepted one of the alternatives * phreak`` runs better fast I take it :P it's not like anyone uses emacs * hparker runs phreak``, nope. I don't care if other devs use is for whatever, but for amd64 our package manager is portage hparker: if taco ain't nobody ;) phreak``: I know ;) and yes, I'm an emacs wh0re kingtaco|work: just messing with you :-) kingtaco|work: in addition we have some 10 packages (in app-emacs, too) to be keyworded ~amd64. Same procedure for them, I assume? ulm, jup ulm, so long as it's not a system dep, I'm more than happy to let herds do the keywording"