Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 09:38 +0200, Alin Nastac wrote:Hmm.. it looks like I've overreacted. I was convinced that my request have been ignored for one month.
I think the reason people drop arches is laziness of some arch herds. C'mon people, how hard can it be to see if it builds right on your arch?
What arch do you use? Maybe we should trade in your box for a nice sparc32 or mips box and see what you have to say then. Remember that in many of these arches, all the machines are still measured in Megahertz and not Gigahertz, and they are quite old.
The arch teams are doing their jobs quite well, don't try to push blame
onto them. They shouldn't go around marking something stable just
because it builds and should test it. If they have no way of testing
it, then they don't need to stabilize it. It won't kill you to have a
single older ebuild in the tree for an arch. Either that, or you can
remove the keywords, as Jason mentioned, and file a bug against the
package to the mips team so they are aware that keywords have been
dropped from the package and that it will need testing to be
re-keyworded. Looking over that bug, it really looks like you flipped
out over nothing. It took them a week to respond. That isn't very
long, at all.
My apologies to mips team and all...
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
