| 1 |
On 7/8/16 10:42 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Also there's some debate in IRC about whether or not these packages |
| 5 |
>> should be lastrited or dropped to maintainer-needed. These forks are |
| 6 |
>> not in good shape upstream, so I think it makes better sense to |
| 7 |
>> p.mask/lastrite and then move them to the graveyard overlay when I |
| 8 |
>> remove them from the tree in 30 days. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> IMO the criteria should be whether they work or not. Not whether |
| 12 |
> upstream is more or less active. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There is a QA against the current version of namecoin* and upstreams |
| 15 |
newest packages are no good. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> If they're blockers on other work, by all means cull them. However, |
| 19 |
> if the biggest problem with them is that they're using a few inodes in |
| 20 |
> the repo, then they should probably stay. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have no strong feeling here, but I do want to get rid of them. So I'm |
| 24 |
okay with maintainer-needed@ I'll let the discussion continue for a bit |
| 25 |
and then do whatever the consensus is. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. |
| 29 |
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] |
| 30 |
E-Mail : blueness@g.o |
| 31 |
GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA |
| 32 |
GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA |
Archives