>>>>> 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
