| 1 |
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:10:07 -0500 james wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 07/08/2016 05:17 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:30:36 -0400 Anthony G. Basile wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Hi everyone, |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> I emailed the list some time ago about giving away a bunch of bitcoin |
| 7 |
> >> forks to see if anyone was interested in taking them. I didn't get any |
| 8 |
> >> feedback so as of tomorrow I'll be masking the following for removal in |
| 9 |
> >> 30 days. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Any reason for mask and removal? Are these packages broken? |
| 12 |
> > Just drop them to maintainer-needed. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Best regards, |
| 15 |
> > Andrew Savchenko |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Perhaps we should start posting these orphaned-package announcements to |
| 19 |
> gentoo-user, so folks interested in learning about ebuilds can ponder |
| 20 |
> proxy-maintenance of a few packages as an opportunity? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Surely there is a wider audience that will see some packages they like |
| 24 |
> are going away because there are not enough maintainers, and thus |
| 25 |
> respond by 'stepping up' to maintain a few packages? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The idea sounds reasonable, but it doesn't answer why we have a |
| 28 |
highly alarming tendency of purging working packages from the tree |
| 29 |
just because they have no maintainer. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Best regards, |
| 32 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives