On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:17 -0600, R Hill wrote: > > That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something > > more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook > > those. > > All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already. They > did > so without problem and without extra docs. Why does x86, the last to switch, > need to be special-cased?
Honestly, it is because x86 is the *vast* majority of our user base. When we change something there, we get an onslaught of complaints/comments/opinions. The truth is that while we have a large "silent majority" of people that know what we're doing, we also have the very "vocal minority" of people that only managed to get Gentoo working because they followed some guide to the letter. These people freak out at patch-level bumps that require fix_libtool_files.sh, so I can only imagine how confusing something like that would be to them. Yes, the other arches have done this. In the case of at least one, they aligned it with a new profile/release, to ease the pain. They also were very sure to announce it beforehand. Seeing as how I have been on the receiving end of this border-line harassment for making a change that doesn't hurt anything, I don't want anyone on my team to make the same mistake. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Strategic Lead x86 Architecture Team Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
