[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Secondary architectures and marketing

Oliver & Matt,

On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:44 -0500, Matt Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> That's another point I'd like to talk about. I have no idea how I can
> >> help if you don't ask on the list ;). As far as I can tell, you need CPU
> >> time to recompile the "older" packages from the "F9 alpha vs. F9" tree
> >> on http://buildsys.zero42.at/status/, am I right?
> >
> > Yes. CPU power is the most relevant. I do have a few boxes now, but not too
> > much time to dig into every build problem.
> Again, this is what I don't understand. Why duplicate effort?

Well, because this was a RedHat mailinglist in the first place and that
I didn't care much about Gentoo ;) You hijacked this post :p

> Jay Estabrook mentioned to me that he just got xulrunner to compile
> again, but only with -O0. If this was ever an issue with Gentoo, it's
> long since fixed.
> You, Oliver, and Jay are two of the best developers we have, and it
> seems to me to be such a waste of your time and effort to worry about
> hunting down a build error and generating RPMs.

*** removed a lot of talking about alphadora, Fedora for alpha, other stuff ***

After some weeks of thinking and Matt's intervention (and talking to him on IRC) I have to agree
with him on most of the points. The Gentoo guys seem ahead at the time
and pushing a Fedora Alpha port + a website in this sense might not be worth it on our "dying" architecture. I'm not defeatist, just realistic...

It's a hard question Oliver, but don't you feel that it might be better for the architecture to join up efforts on one distribution?

Regarding the websites, Alphalinux.org seems to be the place to keep alive, I agree on that.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]