On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:49:03 +0100 foser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2003-12-27 at 00:49, Kevyn Shortell wrote: > > It's not a matter of being a minority or not, it's a valid point. > > You break something on another arch, it is bad. It makes the person > > who did it look bad, it makes the maintainers of that arch look bad, > > and it makes Gentoo look bad. So how does it being a "minority" > > matter? > > Not, but should minorities not also be aware of the fact that they > have a smaller user/developer base ? I see a lot of arches lagging way > behind on certain packages or even having it only testing since > forever, maybe being a bit more selective in what packages you can > really support would do good to the alt arches, their maintainers, > gentoo as a whole & keeps other devs from bumping alt arches to stable > for testing (as wrong as it is).
It's not so hard to keep your arch up to date with the maximum of packages. But it's harder to know which packages you have to test. That's why I've done this little tool a while ago : http://dev.gentoo.org/~gmsoft/tools/imlate . Beeing nearly alone for hppa to test everything, my arch have only 52 packages 'late' compared with x86. -- Guy Martin Gentoo Linux - HPPA port Lead / IPv6 team Lug Charleroi (Belgium) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
