On 5/9/17 8:01 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2017-05-09 10:12, Rich Freeman wrote: >> Why not? If an arch is considered a non-security-supported arch >> then you would just ignore it in a security bug. > > We dropped security coverage already for ia64 and are in the process to > drop it for sparc as well. > > So how do you want to cleanup a package which is the last ebuild of the > package and still marked stabled for ia64/sparc? You cannot. If you are > lucky you would only remove a package without any rdeps. But in most > cases you are breaking the tree. > > >> Otherwise a revbump could break stage3 on those arches. > > Is this really a problem? What could happen: > > Worst case: Existing stage3 for this specific dev/exp architecture will > be very old because any attempt to refresh the stage3 image will fail > with a build error. However, the last working stage3 image won't go away > until it was replaced by a newer working one... >
I maintain quite a few ppc stage3's for uclibc and musl. I would appreciate keeping ppc as is. It is still a useful arch for many devices today, eg. some high end Mikrotik routers. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
