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 267D71381F3 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 108E7E0BE8; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:22 +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 29F67E0B67; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8F8833ECD0; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:41:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id l13so3864783qcy.31 for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=fggk+fTKWVEsNbSfdjmUefJLh0soOKCsDQurxVrAbwM=; b=FYuQyFn73mJYd0LUsa1zmPQedr24iiLXAq5JY8Q+mwn37bhT8h+j9m5PfYUUFdpxFj vGZpbpgl0eMnjPzTYDtWZxca9q7k18xlkKk9uxjCvwno51G0Cg7kkvrJCTHk0gpQBEHC ZfTXllaEdIUVHAFCyAIJj009Cq3XQ4m6xOXleZlZXz7HHu1RiXZ7Er7im0Lgp99/ASaV yO2FMG5zmKjNynR5xC9XraGEH/XgaCv3jZF1eH0T52eqgKKB3v7LNox51oeTPYiXLm1A IFhxgs52eMJAy8CAX03mh6QiBpyX8iwFjGweiDfv/2nBhTqakFHYCQE5ZMcqGD6Co1UB oxaQ== X-Received: by 10.49.53.10 with SMTP id x10mr55250090qeo.46.1379439678445; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.49.108.5 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:40:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <21048.21363.632276.703248@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <21020.30575.805569.383992@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20130829152248.GA3432@shimane.bonyari.local> <26510047.28Cxrb1Hqk@kailua> <21048.21363.632276.703248@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> From: Matt Turner Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 10:40:57 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Minor arches (was: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-09-10) To: Gentoo project list Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: ece7efca-2725-43b2-a41d-a901bb6db8c3 X-Archives-Hash: d0fd090d5fdfda6392d78f6b43192491 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> I didn't really get any response to this one way or another. At the >> last council meeting a majority of the votes were in favor of >> delaying taking action, so this is back on the agenda. > >> I have yet to see either of the following on this list: >> 1. Specific examples of bugs where a minor arch is making a >> maintainer's life difficult. Please post if you have them. >> 2. Members of these arch teams posting here committing to either >> stabilize new versions or unkeyword old versions in a timely manner. > >> The responses to either of these (or lack thereof) are likely to >> influence my vote at the meeting. Note, I'm not interested in mere >> comments that people want an arch to stay stable supported (which >> I've seen plenty of). I'm interested in COMMITMENT to be >> stable-supportable (which I've seen none of). The lack of the >> latter is what is going to cause a package to be dropped - I'd love >> to see every arch that exists stable-supported on Gentoo, along with >> world peace. This is a volunteer distro - in general you get the >> features you pitch in to help deliver, and if you're depending on a >> minor arch you REALLY need to step up as there aren't many of you >> out there. That said, I would like specific examples of cases where >> dropping a minor arch would have helped - the onus is on those >> wanting the status quo changed to present a case. > > [Crossposting to -dev. Replies should go to -project if possible.] > > Again, no reply. I suspect the outcome of today's vote will be that > stable keywords for the architectures in question (alpha, ia64, m68k, > s390, sh, sparc) should be dropped. > > Arch teams, last chance to speak up. > > Ulrich > I've already spoken up as have others. I'm an alpha maintainer and I'm against this. jmorgan is a sparc maintainer and he's against it. I don't care about the others, and frankly understand the frustration with long stable requests, but leave alpha out of it.