El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:07 -0500, William Hubbs escribió: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:57:20PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > On 07/25/14 15:50, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > El vie, 25-07-2014 a las 15:38 -0400, Anthony G. Basile escribió: > > >> On 07/25/14 15:28, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > >>> That is the reason for me thinking that maybe the way to go would be to > > >>> do the opposite -> keep only base-system and a few others stable and > > >>> drop stable for most of the rest. This big effort could be accomplished > > >>> in a week by other developers willing to help (like me) and would solve > > >>> the issue for the long term. I guess that is what HPPA team did in the > > >>> past and I think it's working pretty well for them (in summary, have a > > >>> stable tree they are able to keep stable). That will also help people in > > >>> ppc* teams to know that the remaining stabilization bugs, apart of being > > >>> much less, are important enough to deserve rapid attention, as opposed > > >>> to current situation that will have some important bugs mixed with tons > > >>> of stabilization requests of apps that got ppc stable keywords years ago > > >>> and are currently no so important. > > >>> > > >> Yes, please let's just do base system stable. I've been randomly taking > > >> care of ppc but nothing systematic. Its pretty spotty. But at the same > > >> time I don't like the idea of just loosing all the stabilization effort > > >> on the base system, so that might work best. Something to think about > > >> for mips too. > > >> > > >> > > > Nice, one think we would need to discuss is what do we consider base > > > system :/ > > > > > > I guess packages maintained by base-system, toolchain and... xorg-server > > > and co... what more > > > > > > Not sure if we could have a list of current stable tree for ppc*, once > > > do we have that list, ppc* teams can drop from that list what they want > > > and we get a new list that will be the final result. What do you think > > > about that? > > > > > > > > > > At the very least, its what's needed to build the stages with catalyst. > > I would think we should start with base/packages, but I don't want to > > limit it to just those because I at least need a more for building and > > maintaining. Where should we start to compile such a list? > > If we are going to do this, I think we should drop these arch's > to exp status in the profiles. That way, it keeps repoman from bothering > the rest of us about stabilizations, and we don't have to worry about > filing stable requests on them. > > That would let you stabilize things that you need to build the stages. > > William >
But, moving ppc* to exp wouldn't lead us to likely break their tree? (because we wouldn't get any dependency issue even with "base" packages...)
