Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-18 Thread Markos Chandras
On 17 February 2013 22:46, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote: On 02/17/2013 11:03 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-18 Thread Raúl Porcel
On 02/17/13 17:03, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-18 Thread Dirkjan Ochtman
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Agostino Sarubbo a...@gentoo.org wrote: Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. What do you think about? I haven't seen many problems,

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread William Hubbs
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: Now, imho, we have 2 choice: 1)Support them with an iso or at least a manual if we can't do an handbook 2)Lose the stable keyword and don't waste manpower anymore. We also have another choice if there is so little interest in

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Sonntag, 17. Februar 2013, 17:03:43 schrieb Agostino Sarubbo: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow;

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Rich Freeman
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Joking aside, I can imagine architectures where it's preferable to set up a stage directly from a running maintenance system (maybs s390???). Also, none of my arm gadgets comes with a CD drive, so I had to e.g.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 04:03 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal approach would be to just drop the stable keywords for them.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 07:43 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. No project page does not mean the arch is minor or dead or whatever. For me this means that there is no enough support.

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Alec Warner
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Agostino Sarubbo a...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 19:36:16 Markos Chandras wrote: First you need to tell us what arches you think they are considered 'minor' and/or understaffed so we can finally document that. Then, in my opinion, the ideal

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Agostino Sarubbo
On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. I don't guess is a good idea have a private conversation and then drop an arch... -- Agostino Sarubbo / ago -at-

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 08:40 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 20:22:00 Markos Chandras wrote: I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. I point out that there is not iso, no manual, no manpower. No manual does not mean no

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Markos Chandras
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/17/2013 09:30 PM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2013 13:14:28 Alec Warner wrote: It is not clear to me why you would email the -dev list about these arches, vapier is pretty responsive over email and irc. I don't guess is

Re: [gentoo-dev] The status of the 'minor' arches in gentoo

2013-02-17 Thread Anthony G. Basile
On 02/17/2013 11:03 AM, Agostino Sarubbo wrote: In the last time I'm helping some other arches (also arches which I have no interest) because they appears understaffed. Days ago, I tried to make a virtual machine with qemu, for SH since the dev- machine[1] is a bit slow; well, I discovered we