> My machines should actually do some useful stuff, like running my Nagios and
> a bunch of nightly builds (CMake, libarchive, things like that). For that,
> I'd like to have the actual system to work. Given the amount of breakage I
> find when doing stabilizations I suspect this is not going to ha
Sorry about a long delay responding, I ended up being offline until the
end of last week and I've had quite a lot of catching up.
Anyway, let me begin by addressing a sentiment expressed independently
in several responses and which could be summarised as "just come and
help". A laudable idea i
Am Montag, 18. Oktober 2021, 03:08:52 CEST schrieb John Helmert III:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:25:47AM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> > On 2021-10-14 15:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
> > > WDYT?
> >
> > Could you please elaborate what you are expecting from this change?
> >
> > I.e. will this sol
On 2021-10-18 19:07, Michał Górny wrote:
Security team arbitrarily deciding that an architecture is
unsupported while otherwise it's supported in Gentoo doesn't change
anything. Sure, you can close bugs and pretend that a problem
doesn't exist... except that you can't if you can't remove the o
On Mon, 2021-10-18 at 17:09 +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2021-10-18 03:08, John Helmert III wrote:
> > A security bug, for example, is currently blocked for almost a month
> > waiting for hppa stabilization [1], and this isn't the first time
> > we've had to wait for a "slower" arch on a s
On 2021-10-18 03:08, John Helmert III wrote:
A security bug, for example, is currently blocked for almost a month
waiting for hppa stabilization [1], and this isn't the first time
we've had to wait for a "slower" arch on a security bug.
Excuse me? How is this possible?
We have that Gentoo Vuln
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 02:25:47AM +0200, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2021-10-14 15:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
> > WDYT?
>
> Could you please elaborate what you are expecting from this change?
>
> I.e. will this solve any problem (please name it)? Will it allow us to
> move forward where we are bloc
> On 18 Oct 2021, at 01:50, Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 14 Oct 2021, at 14:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
>>
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it would
>> both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of limited
>> manpower
> On 14 Oct 2021, at 14:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
>
> Dear everyone,
>
> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it would
> both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of limited
> manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number of stable
On 2021-10-14 15:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
WDYT?
Could you please elaborate what you are expecting from this change?
I.e. will this solve any problem (please name it)? Will it allow us to
move forward where we are blocked at the moment (please name it)?
I am really curious what you are going t
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 03:40:02PM +0200, Marek Szuba wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
> limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number o
On Fri, 2021-10-15 at 23:40 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> We have already removed many stable packages from hppa, just to reduce the
> amount of work. If sparc really becomes a problem I suspect that dropping
> most
> of the multimedia or whatever stuff there could also reduce the amount of
>
Am Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2021, 15:40:02 CEST schrieb Marek Szuba:
> Dear everyone,
>
> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
> limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the num
On 14.10.2021 16:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
Dear everyone,
Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number
of stable arches in Gentoo
On giovedì 14 ottobre 2021 15:40:02 CEST Marek Szuba wrote:
> WDYT?
I agree for arches that have exotic hardware but I'd keep x86 since
testing can be done on amd64 via 32bit chroot.
On the other hand I'm pretty sure we have few x86 users so,
sooner or later, x86 will go into ~arch as well.
Ago
On 14.10.2021 20.10, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 15:40 +0200, Marek Szuba wrote:
>> Dear everyone,
>>
>> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
>> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
>> limited manpower more efficien
On Thu, 2021-10-14 at 15:40 +0200, Marek Szuba wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
> limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number of
> st
On 2021.10.14 14:40, Marek Szuba wrote:
> Dear everyone,
>
> Following some private discussions, I feel quite strongly now that it
> would both considerably improve certain processes and make our use of
> limited manpower more efficient were we to further reduce the number
> of
> stable arches
18 matches
Mail list logo
