On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 12:48 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:52:14 +0200 "Kevin F. Quinn" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | Minority arches don't affect devs who aren't interested in them > > Actually, they do. Minority archs lead to much better tree QA being > done, more bugs in packages being identified and more ebuild and > package bugs being fixed.
You see this is the problem with being perceived as a "minority" architecture. And it's something that gets completely overlooked -- before we had a QA team, the "minority" architectures served a similar purpose. Countless packages have had build-system fixes, compile fixes, runtime fixes all *because* we had ppc, sparc, mips and others (ppc and sparc being the more major of them, in terms of long-term impact to Gentoo). IOW, +1 on Ciaran's statement. I think it's perfectly fine to think about pruning/thinning out Gentoo to its core, but first we have to actually decide what its core actually is. Hint: majority architectures are *not*. Gentoo, at heart, is a meta-distribution, and all that that implies. Thanks, -- Seemant Kulleen Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
