| 1 |
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 16:40, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:08:07 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 4 |
> > wrote: |
| 5 |
> > | The premise for not doing this is that packages will never be fixed, |
| 6 |
> > | right? Why not make the modular X provide virtual/x11 and just |
| 7 |
> > | institute a policy that no new packages can go into stable with a |
| 8 |
> > | virtual/x11 dependency? It could even be easily enforcable if |
| 9 |
> > | necessary. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Much more sensible. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I've thought some about this. It would be acceptable to me for |
| 14 |
> virtual/x11 to provide modular X deps, if we also instituted a repoman |
| 15 |
> death upon any attempt to commit to a directory for which the best |
| 16 |
> visible package is broken. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> This will accomplish the goal of discovering completely unmaintained |
| 19 |
> packages but will fail in the goal of discovering which packages nobody |
| 20 |
> uses. They'll still continue to rot in the tree, unmaintained, unused |
| 21 |
> and taking up space in everybody's syncs. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> How's that sound? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "broken" in the first paragraph nor how |
| 26 |
a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but if a |
| 27 |
repoman check will hasten package porting while smoothing the users' ride, |
| 28 |
I'm personally all for it. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives