| 1 |
Rich Freeman schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> You say that there are no bugs in those packages. How do you know? You |
| 3 |
>> don't know unless you test it, and no maintainer means nobody is known |
| 4 |
>> to test it regularly. The package can be pretty much completely broken |
| 5 |
>> and we'll not know unless someone tests it. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> This sounds like a tree falling in the forest with nobody around... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> If a package is in the tree, and it has no known bugs, and no users, |
| 11 |
> who cares? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> If somebody tries to use it, and it doesn't work, then they can file a |
| 14 |
> bug, and then we can treeclean it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
One might add here that toralf is doing a great job at building all packages |
| 17 |
and reporting those that fail. So at least we see build failures. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Having a graveyard that ONLY contains broken stuff as an overlay just |
| 20 |
> doesn't make sense to me. Why would you install packages directly |
| 21 |
> from it without fixing them first? Certainly for build failures you'd |
| 22 |
> be forced to do this. I guess for security issues you could decide |
| 23 |
> that you don't care, or that your host is in a locked room with no |
| 24 |
> network access or something. However, these seem like such minor use |
| 25 |
> cases that somebody could just stick the ebuilds in their own overlay |
| 26 |
> if they needed them. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and |
| 29 |
extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
It would be even better if the graveyard repository preserved the commit |
| 32 |
history, but I don't see any easy solution for that. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives